Search this site

The state, historically, has incentivised street veto and it is also our history that the Muslim community has wielded that power effectively The post-poll violence in Bengal: Where is our Gopal Patha The state, historically, has incentivised street veto and it is also our history that the Muslim community has wielded that power effectively Nupur J Sharma 29 July 2021 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Just as I finished interviewing Ritu (name changed), who was gang-raped in front of her father by TMC barbarians looking for ‘Hindu girls’, I felt numb and nauseous. I messaged a friend telling him as much. That perhaps I can’t keep doing this for long. How long does one keep interviewing victims, being murdered, raped and butchered because the echelons of power don’t see merit in breaking off the cycle of violence unleashed in Bengal? This was the impact of the interview, of course. The realisation that democracy has been reduced to a mere double entendre – one, signifying the right of every citizen to exercise their agency, the other, a cruel joke where you get butchered for it. Since the 2nd of May, ever since it became clear that Mamata Banerjee was all set to retain power in the state of West Bengal, heinous, animalistic violence was unleashed upon the people of Bengal, specifically, those who dared to either work for BJP or those who dared to vote for them in the state elections. Ritu was gang-raped on the 2nd of May. She says it must have been about 6 or 7 PM. It was at about 5 PM when Mamata Banerjee announced her victory and told her workers that she would address the media post 6 PM. Ritu told us during the interview that according to her knowledge, there are several other women who were gang-raped in the vicinity of her residence in Burdwan. But as is expected, none of them really want to talk about it.. none of them wants to go to the police because they believe going to the police is as good as walking into the TMC office where the goons who gang-raped them are sitting. None of them trusts the local BJP leaders, who have all but sold out to the TMC, according to her. Hands in gloves with the very people who are brutalising and disrobing women who dared to exercise their agency in the state elections. While the media looked away, the judiciary brushed aside the urgency of a state-sanctioned carnage of political opponents and the echelons of power twiddled their thumbs, the Hindus of Bengal, the Bhadralok, sat at their chai-tapris, glad that the election micchils (processions) were done with. They could finally enjoy their heated political debates while having chai-biskoot, without the constant blaring of the loudspeaker or the police shooing people away because a political rally was about the start. And as they did, the women of Bengal who were being brutalised wept. As the women wept and the men’s blood soaked parts of Bengal, to celebrate the menacingly famed slogan that Mamata believes clinched the victory for her in the state, ‘Khela Hobe’, she chose a fitting day . 16th August, the day when the call to massacre Hindus of Bengal was given by Muslim League founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Bengal, the only province in India under Muslim League rule at that time, was apparently chosen by the Muslim League leadership as the suitable place to unleash terror on Hindus in the name of “Direct Action”. In 1946, the massacre of Hindus in Bengal was rather intricately planned. Jinnah is recalled having said that he will either have India divided or India burnt and that he had given up on Constitutional methods to demand the creation of Pakistan. Jinnah had chosen the 16th of August as Direction Action Day because it was the 18th day of Ramzan, the day when the Battle of Badr was fought and won – a war fought by Prophet Muhammad himself, against the Kaffirs, and is considered to be won by Allah’s divine intervention by Muslims. The battle led to the violent occupation of Mecca. On the 16th of August, Calcutta was littered with posters lionising Jinnah and reminding Muslims that they had to follow the footsteps of the Prophet. It is reported that Syed Muhammad Usman, mayor of Calcutta, had issued a widely circulated leaflet that said: Kafer! Toder dhongsher aar deri nei! Sarbik hotyakando ghotbei! (Infidels! Your end is not far away! You will be massacred!). The aim was to make Bengal ‘land of the pure’ and rid it of the Kaffirs (Hindus). The aim was to wage another Battle of Badr, in which the Muslims would conquer the heathens. What followed on the 16th right after the Jumma Namaz is Muslims going on a rampage, beheading Hindus, chopping their limbs off and raping Hindu women. Several women were taken as sex slaves by those who were fighting with the religious fervour of the Battle of Badr. In the Kesoram Cotton Mills at Lichubagan in the Muslim-dominated Metiabruz area, Muslim mobs entered and beheaded over 600 labourers. The Hindus, neutered and asked by Gandhi to die with a smile on their face hardly fought back. There was a mass exodus from Bengal that marked millions fleeing, because the massacre seemed too brutal to fight against. The parallels, as frightful as they may be, are hard to miss. There is a reason why Mamata Banerjee has selected the 16th of August as the day to celebrate the “Khala Hobe Diwas”. Just like in the run-up to the Direct Action Day, Mamata too had announced, rather openly, that violence would be the norm if she came back to power and also, that she was not above using violence as a tool to teach those people a lesson who would dare to go against her. Mamata Banerjee had warned the people of Bengal that the BJP would lose and when they do, they would only have her to turn to – her menacing tone not missed by anyone. She had given a call to gherao the forces deployed in the state, a call that paved the way for unbridled violence against them. Her leaders had warned of killing those who dared to vote for BJP. In fact, TMC leader Firhad Hakim had openly asked for BJP workers to be thrashed, calling them the progeny of pigs. What followed, just like during the Direct Action Day, is the carnage of Hindus. In Ritu’s case, her rapists were looking for “Hindu women” to rape. She says there are several like her who will never speak up. Just like during the Direct Action Day, men were found hanging from trees, women were disrobed and gang-raped, villages were burnt to ashes and carnage was unleashed against the political Kaffirs. Just like during the Direct Action Day, thousands fled Bengal to take refuge in neighbouring Assam, wailing because they had no place to go. Wailing because the political system and the double entendre of democracy had failed them. During the Direct Action Day, on the 17th of August after 2 days of Hindus being massacred, Gopal Chandra Mukhopadhyay rose like a phoenix. Gopal Patha (Patha means ‘lamb’. He was called so because he ran a mutton shop) had already founded the Bharat Jatiya Bahini, an organisation of young men to help fellow citizens during a natural calamity. On the 17th, Gopal Patha turned from a philanthropist to a warrior, ready to defend his people. Throughout the night, Gopal Patha, along with his young men from the Bharat Jayati Bahini worked on a plan on how they could defend Hindus from the Muslim barbarians. The marwaris offered finances, others spent the night making weapons for them. Muslim League chief minister of Bengal, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy and the Muslim League goons had decided on the 17th that they were going to take two more days to complete the annihilation of Hindus. But they had not taken into consideration their greatest roadblock. Gopal Patha. From the 18th to 20th, Gopal Patha and his men put up a brave fight, paying the Muslim League goons back in equal measure, if not more. Historian Sandip Bandopadhyay wrote, “They faced resistance everywhere. Hindu youths counter-attacked with such ferocity that the Muslim League men had to flee. Many were killed. Emboldened by their success in taking on and defeating their Islamist attackers, Hindu youths took the fight to Muslim-majority areas and started killing Islamist men. They did not, however, touch Muslim women and children or the aged and the infirm”. By the 19th of August, suddenly, the Muslims started feeling unsafe. Only two days of retribution, of self-defence, and the Muslim League started running with tail between their legs. It was only on the 21st of August when the Muslims had started feeling unsafe because the Hindus dared to defend themselves, did Viceroy’s rule come into action in Bengal. Where is our Gopal Patha What happened during Direct Action Day has significant lessons for Hindus of Bengal. Today, when their self-confidence lies six feet under the ground and their own are being disrobed, the rest of the country has often wondered why the central government has not bothered to do much. While that question in itself has merit and the ire is justified, we must not forget history or we would certainly be doomed to repeat it. When countless Hindus were being raped and massacred in Bengal, it took the Muslims to feel “threatened” for the Viceroy’s rule to be imposed. It was the Muslims feeling “threatened” that got the deracinated Indian leadership of Gandhi and Nehru to take note of the massacre foisted on the people because of their neutered secular politics. During the Noakhali riots, countless Hindus were raped and murdered. The converted Hindus were made to write declarations that they had accepted Islam out of their free will and Hindus in the 2000 square mile area were made to pay the Jaziya. When MK Gandhi had visited Naokhali, he was rebuked by the Muslim League and after that, he had travelled to Bihar to stop the retaliatory violence by the Hindus. There, he is famed to have said that Hindus must leave Noakhali or die – this, because the Muslim League had asked him to quell the violence, the same Muslim League that was raping Hindu women, beheading Hindu women and waging a war against Kaffirs. It is indeed our history that the state, historically, has incentivised street veto and it is also our history that the Muslim community has wielded that power effectively. When Hindus were massacred in Bengal in 2021, we made the mistake that the Gopal Patha knew not to. We are waiting for a deracinated state, running a democracy that is inherently rigged against Hindus, to save us. It is not really the fault of any single party – every government historically has responded to those who scream the loudest. In fact, it is not only a problem endemic to India. NN Taleb, in his book Skin in The Game (Chapter: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dominance of the Stubborn Minority’), talks about how a small community of Jews/Muslims in the USA is able to influence the availability (Kosher/Halal meat) in entire America. He talks of a ‘one-way street of religions’ and explains how the Muslim majority was achieved in a largely Christian West Asia and Egypt. He writes: “Yes, an intolerant minority can control and destroy democracy. Actually, it will destroy our world. So, we need to be more intolerant with some intolerant minorities. Simply they violate the silver rule (Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you). It is not permissible to use ‘American values’ or ‘Western values’ in treating intolerant Salafism (which denies other people’s right to have their own religion). The west is currently in the process of committing suicide.” The most important lesson in his book, however, is the following: “Beware of the person who gives advice, telling you that a certain action on your part is “good for you” while it is also good for him, while the harm to you doesn’t directly affect him.” And that really is the principle that ensures that every democracy is rigged against the real victims. The real victims hardly scream or kick or run riots. The real victims are mostly like the Hindus of Bengal, who silently go into the night because they have been told over the ages that the very foundation of their religion requires them to be non-violent. Political parties and the state, as such, step in when the loudest minority starts fearing the retaliation of the silent majority because that means the minority, that is feeling threatened, will also scream the loudest after they fail to meet their violent goals. It is the political mess that the state responds to, not pleas for help. Governments are not always evil, the wisdom of the masses is not always sound. It becomes quite evident in the case of how India treats its Muslim minority. There can be little doubt that the Indian state is scared of its Muslim population. Due to the power structures that form the basis of Muslim society, our country is held hostage by radical elements from the community whose ideology is almost exactly the same as the Taliban’s or the Al Qaeda’s. The lesson that the governments of the world, the Indian government included, wants Hindus to learn is remarkably simple: We will listen to you when you respect yourself enough to defend yourself. The State is, plainly, telling Hindus, and rightly so, that civilisational battles can’t be fought by moaning to a state that has its hands tied behind its back historically, because breaking those shackles takes decades. The State responded and stepped in to restore peace only after Gopal Patha saved Hindus. The State and the leadership (Gandhi and Nehru) stepped in only when Hindus started paying the barbarians back in their own coin – a Bihar for a Naokhali. The state is telling Hindus, in no uncertain terms, that fighting the civilisational fight, the battle to survive, rests on the shoulders of those who wish to survive. It is upon us if we choose to document our end or defend what we have. The state is telling Hindus to find their Gopal Patha.

Neo-atheists have merely substituted religion with the political ideology of their choice. Instead of proselytising on behalf of a religion, they proselytise to convert their people into their favoured political ideology. Neo-Atheists, Atheists, militant Atheism and everything in between: Caged by Abrahamic Monotheism Neo-atheists have merely substituted religion with the political ideology of their choice. Instead of proselytising on behalf of a religion, they proselytise to convert their people into their favoured political ideology. Nupur J Sharma 7 September 2020 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Before we proceed further, there are two things that ought to be stated outright. Firstly, the purpose of this article is not to encourage desecration of the Quran or any other Islamic scriptures or doctrine. The sole purpose is to provide an understanding of the core matter at hand, in light of the online battle between ex-Muslims and Hindus. And secondly, most obviously, the author does not believe that all Muslims are Jihadis or terrorists. Now that we are done with formalities, let us jump straight to the matter. Steven Weinberg, the great American physicist and a Nobel laureate, once remarked, “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil, but for good people to do evil – that takes religion” and since then, this quote has almost been weaponised by Atheists around the world to condemn religion as an outdated concept that is using violence to maintain its relevance in a world that has outgrown the need or the desire for its tenets. The New Atheism movement started in the mid-2000s with the ‘four horsemen for Atheism’ – Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris – gaining immense popularity. The core tenet of New Atheism is that religion was created in an attempt to explain how the world works at a time when science had hardly made the leaps that it has today. Thus, at a time when science has progressed, religion’s validity has expired, so to speak. There are several other claims that New Atheists make which we will examine in the course of this article, however, the central theme remains constant – Religion, any religion, has outlived its validity. The New Atheism movement, however, ushered in another remarkable trend. It essentially espoused that being an Atheist was not sufficient. Atheists must ‘scientifically’ counter the theists and expose their dogmatic ways wherever they are found. What started off as an attempt to infuse scientific discourse and composed debate on the question of Religion, soon became a free-for-all with the influx of several ex-Muslims, like Armin Navabi, Harris Sultan and others, who simply assumed that the function of Atheism was ‘desecration’ without the consideration that criticism for every religion would have to differ based on the genesis, nature and context of that specific religion itself. Armin Navabi, Iranian Ex-Muslim who is now an Atheist first tore up and spat on the Quran. Following the support he got from Hindus, he proceeded to willfully desecrate the Hindu faith. The underlying reason for doing this, per Armin, was that all faiths should be desecrated equally, however, that is not where this saga began. It has already been established that the saga of desecrating the Hindu faith started with another ex-Muslim, Abdullah Sameer, shielding the Muslim community after the Sweden and Norway riots, getting called out by Robert Spencer and then, proceeding to draw a false equivalence between Hindus (who were calling him out online) and Muslims (who were burning the world). Soon, after the spat between Robert Spencer and Abdullah Sameer, Sameer started posting offensive images of Hindu Goddess Kali. Along with him, several other ex-Muslims like Harris Sultan and Armin Navabi started talking about how Hindus are just as bad as Muslims because they were calling them out on Twitter. On the 3rd of September, Armin took things a step further and shared the same image of Maa Kali. Only a couple of hours before posting this distorted picture which showed Goddess Kali in a sexual epithet, Armin was retweeting and talking about the #DesecrateTheQuran hashtag. Given how this spat started, one can easily assume that this entire episode was orchestrated to falsely equate Hindus and Muslims post the Sweden and Norway riots by the Muslims. However, for the purpose of this article, I will not be delving into that aspect. What needs to be analysed, however, is the surmise that gives rise to the notion that desecration of all faiths, in equal measure, is a desirable outcome of Atheism. It is in this spirit, that Harris Sultan, while speaking to ‘Hindu Atheist’ Kushal Mehra question OpIndia for covering Armin’s desecration of the Quran but being silent or even outraged, by his desecration of the Hindu faith. At the heart of it, is the supposition that all religions are equal and thus, all religions should be desecrated equally and it is this ill-informed position that needs to be challenged. Dissecting the ‘All religions are equal’ claim The notion does not really stem from Atheism itself but the notions of religious pluralism that assumes that not only do all religions claim that their truth is the ‘only truth’ that exists, but that all religions are based on the principles of Universal Truths and thus, these are the two tenets that need to be dealt with if religions are to co-exist peacefully. Religious Pluralism essentially says that firstly, all religions must acknowledge that certain truths exist in other religions as well, thereby declaring that it is not only their own religion that is the ‘only truth’. Further, it says that all religions must acknowledge that every religion teaches basic universal truths that have been taught since before the advent of religion itself. When one delves into the principles of religious pluralism as a construct that can enable religions co-existing without sectarian violence, it becomes important to ensure that all religions are brought down to the same surface level and hence, the claim that all religions are the same takes a beastly proportion where cultural context is often lost. For the purpose of this article, we will focus on Islam, Christianity and Hinduism since the question we eventually want to answer is- why is it permissible to desecrate Islam and not desecrate Hinduism? At the very outset, it suffices to say that no other religion in the world, at this point of time in history, lays out a doctrine for the torture, subjugation, conversion and humiliation of all the people who refuse to believe in their faith, other than Islam. This question of whether all religions are equal and whether Islam is inherently a religion of peace was discussed at length in an interview with Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer. He said in the interview that Islam as a religion indoctrinates its adherents to slay the Kafirs where they see them. They lay out the doctrine for religious warfare and strict rules as to what is to be done with the ‘spoils of war’. No other religion in the world has left behind a trail of mangled bodies, blood and gore in its wake as much as Islam and what is worse is that this carnage was sanctified in their religion, in fact, it is one of the necessities of their religion. Moral relativists and apologists of Islam often say that Islam is a religion of peace and it is its adherents who have distorted the peaceful version of Islam. They also say that the Quran is a peaceful text that essentially takes people closer to universal truths, just as other religions do, but it is the Hadith that twists the meaning of the Quran and ebbs people to commit violence in its name. None of these claims hold scrutiny, according to Spencer, since there exists no version of Islam that does not lay out a doctrine for the subjugation of Kafirs. In the interview, Spencer quoted verses of the Quran that themselves asked Muslims to slay the Kafirs and strike their neck. As Mr Spencer talks about the verses of the Quran that ordain its followers to slay Kafirs and Polytheists, one has to wonder how can a religion that is at odds with Polytheism be equal and aspires for the same goals as that of a Polytheistic religion? When Islam is at odds with Polytheism and the religious texts explicitly mention the subjugation of any Polytheist faith, how accurate is it to say that all religions are exactly the same since neither Christianity (which is also an Abrahamic religion) or Hinduism (which is a polytheistic religion) say anything that remotely resembles Islam. We can further classify this argument between Abrahamic faiths and Polytheistic faiths. In the conversation with Robert Spencer, it was clear why Islam took over 500 years to find footing in India and countries like Europe fell to the onslaught of Islam far quicker than India. The Quran presents itself as completion and correction of Christianity, said Spencer, which also gives us a window into just how vast the difference between the Hindu faith and Islam/Christianity really is. Hence, to essentially say that all religions are equal and aspire towards the same universal truths is a fallacious statement that is made by the people who either harbour malice, or ignorance. What the desecration of the image of Maa Kali meant for Hindus A familiar grouse that was expressed by the Neo-Atheists is why Hindus were celebrating the desecration of the Quran while they felt outraged when Armin Navabi desecrated the Hindu faith by sexualising Maa Kali. The underlying issue with this question that seems to baffle the Ex-Muslim Atheists is that they, almost militantly, follow the tenet that all religions are the same, a question, that we have debunked earlier in this article. When we have concluded, with adequate proof, that all religions are indeed not the same, one has to then understand the cultural context to truly understand why Hindus were celebratory, or even supportive, when ex-Muslim Atheists desecrated Islam and went after the same Atheists when they sexualised Kali. From what I understand, the backlash against Armin Navabi first started with him sharing the sexualised images of Maa Kali and was exacerbated with his follow-up tweet that essentially told Hindus to put Maa Kali in a Burkha if her sexualisation was offending them. What Armin did was to reduce the divine, with no provocation whatsoever, to a basal, human upheaval of hormones. To ask Hindus whether they would want to masturbate to a deity they consider their mother or even say that he “simps for Kali” which essentially means that he would put the deity on a pedestal to get sexual favours in return. This tirade did not come from a place of understanding but from a place of militancy of thought that had no cultural context whatsoever. When they ask “how is the desecration of the Quran different from the desecration of Maa Kali”, the simple fact remains that the ex-Muslims grew up in a household that deeply believed in the tenets of Islam, as per their own confessions. Their draw towards Atheism or even anti-theism comes from being told that if they do not follow exactly what the Quran says, they will go to hell. Or that apostates deserve death and if they do not follow the tenets of the Quran, they too, like apostates would deserve death. From being told that women don’t deserve respect or can even be beaten up because the religion accords a sub-human position to women. It is a faith that is largely considered the root of violence and militancy across the world, a faith that has claimed countless lives in order to stay relevant in the modern age. Hence, since their anti-theism or atheism comes from their experience of religion growing up in a household that followed Islam, they understand what they are desecrating, to begin with. They know, that when they tear the Islamic scripture, what is the extent of the ideology and what those pages say, in very specific terms. However, for most monotheists, barring a few who can be debated on their ideas of universal truths and not just anti-theism, the idea of Hinduism is too abstract to even understand what the religion’s basic tenets are. This was, in fact, admitted by Navabi himself in a podcast he did a year ago. How then is it acceptable to critique a religion one doesn’t understand simply because it is a religion and the anti-theist believes in the desecration of all religions, even though they are by no way equal. Further, what the western anti-theists and atheists, a significant chunk of them being ex-Muslims, don’t understand is that there is a cultural context to the outrage of Hindus. For thousands of years, Hindus have been subjugated by the Islamist invaders who have raped Hindu women, beheaded our kings, murdered our children all for the ultimate goal of the establishment of the Caliphate. There are countless tales of how the Islamic invaders murdered Hindus and kept their wives, mothers and daughters as slaves – the spoils of war. The barbarity was so perverse, that Hindu women often chose to jump into the fire and give up their lives after Hindus were defeated in war, lest they were taken slaves by Islamic invaders. You might wonder why they didn’t simply slit their wrists instead of stepping into the burning fire – well – they did not want their corpse to be desecrated by the followers of Islam who had laid siege on their land. The brutality is not just limited to Islamic invaders. In the modern political landscape of India, Hindus were humiliated during the partition as well. One recalls how the Khilafat movement claimed the lives of countless Hindus during the Moplah massacres by Islamists and even the Direct Action Day, spearheaded by Jinnah. After the countless deaths of Hindus, our own, MK Gandhi, asked Hindus to simply lay down their lives if the Islamists chose to claim it. During partition, Hindus were mutilated and their women raped. At the altar of ‘secularism’, which the Atheists love to espouse, India decided to not conduct a full exchange of population, a suggestion that was made by various luminaries at the time including Dr B.R. Ambedkar, and thus, began another cycle of subjugation in modern India. This year itself, we saw riots by sections of the Muslim community and aided by the Left against the Hindus. The saga of brutality continues to this day not just in India, but also, against the minority Hindus of Pakistan and when India decided that the minority Hindus could take refuge in India, their natural home post-partition, the Islamists ran riots yet again. They stabbed a Hindu over 50 times simply because he was Hindu and chopped off the arms and legs of another before burning him alive. Since the Atheists and anti-theists love to ally with the Left, the obvious question that will be thrown after reading this article is – what about the Muslims who died? Let me preempt that question and say that in every war, both sides suffer losses, but war is defined by those who start the war, and Hindus, have never started one. With centuries of subjugation behind them, when Armin says that Hindus must put their Goddess in a Hijab if they are offended by the cheap sexualisation, he triggers an all-too-familiar sentiment – convert or die, worse, be raped. For centuries, whether they were Islamic invaders, or the Muslims post-partition of Pakistan and Bangladesh, the domestic Muslims who still employ this tactic or even the Muslims of Pakistan who till date subjugate Hindus, this trope has been used to humiliate Hindu women and their faith. For centuries, these were the options given to Hindu women by Islamist barbarians – wear a Burkha, convert to Islam or be raped or killed. This is exactly the sentiment that was invoked by Armin – He essentially said that he will reduce our Goddess to an object of cheap titillation, a disrobed woman, humiliated because he can. And if Hindus did not want him to cheapen their mother, they should make her wear a Hijab. While it is unclear that this was the intent or not, however, it is clear that internalised misogyny, Hinduphobia, hate for Idolatory and the unbridled urge for the subjugation of Kafirs is so strong, that even after leaving the faith, the barbarism towards polytheists remains. Hindus saw what Armin did as not just the humiliation of their deity, but also Iconoclasm that the community is far too familiar with. For the Hindu, there is absolutely no difference between their Idols being desecrated by the Islamic hoards and being buried in the steps of a mosque, their Ram Temple being demolished by invaders to build a Mosque and then deny them their rights and what Armin did. Essentially, it was an outsider, an Islamist, perhaps, who desecrated their faith and presented the remains as an offering at the foot of Abrahamism. One simple account of the hatred Muslims had for idolators comes from a poetic account of what Ahmad Shah did at Sidhpur, available in Mirat-i-Sikandari, the history of Gujarat, written by Sikandar ibn-i-Muhammad alias Manjhu ibn-i-Akbar in the first quarter of the sixteenth century. He marched on Saiyidpur,— writes the historian, on Jamad-ul-Awwal in AH 818 (July/August, AD 1415) in order to destroy the temples which housed idols of gold and silver. As quoted by Sita Ram Goel in his book, ‘Hindu Temples’, the poetic account is as below: He marched under divine inspiration, For the destruction of temples at Saiyidpur, Which was a home of the infidels,And the native place of accursed fire-worshippers.— There they dwelt, day and night, The thread-wearing idolaters.— It had always remained a place for idols and idol-worshippers,It had received no injury whatsoever from any quarter. It was a populous place, well-known in the world,This native place of the accursed infidels. Its foundations were laid firmly in stone, It was decorated with designs as if drawn from high heaven. It had doors made of sandal and ud.— It was studded with rings of gold, Its floors were laid with marble, Which shone like mirrors. Ud was burnt in it like fuel, Candles of camphor in large numbers were lighted in it. It had arches in every comer, And every arch had golden chandeliers hanging in it. There were idols of silver set up inside, Which put to shame the idols of China and Khotan. Such was this famous ancient temple, It was famous all over the world. By the effort of Ahmad, it was freed from the idols, The hearts of idol-worshippers were shattered with grief.He got mosques constructed, and mimbars placed in them, From where the Law of Muhammad came into force. In place of idols, idol-makers and idol-worshippers, Imams and callers to prayers and khatibs were appointed. Ahmads good grace rendered such help, That an idol-house became an abode of Allah. When the Sultan was free from Saiyidpur, he marched on Dhar in AH 819 (AD 1416-17) . One has to understand that for a Hindu, what Islamic invaders did to their temples and their idols is no different from what Armin Navani or any of the other ex-Muslim Atheists did to the image of Maa Kali. In both cases, the iconoclasm was exactly the same. In both cases, the followers of Abrahamic religion (yes, Atheist is also an Abrahamic, Monotheistic religion, which I will explain later in the article), desecrated the idol that they sacred. An idol and a faith that did absolutely nothing to deserve the kind of humiliation that it received except the fact that it chose to exist and fought, fiercely, the attempts to convert. The urge to desecrate Hindu idols comes from the basic contradiction between Hinduism and other monotheistic religions. The icons of Hinduism are expressionist while the monotheistic religions are mostly suppressionist. While Islam and Christianity are political ideologies, Hinduism is that which depends on its adherent’s experience and spirituality. While all you need to understand and even criticise Islam and Christianity is a study of their text, what you need to criticise Hinduism is experiencing and ultimately, working up to understanding its scriptures. While Christianity and Islam focus on a binary value system, Hinduism has multitudes of value systems that can even be at odds with each other. That Islam and Christianity both function on the basic premise that any human emotion is to be suppressed, Hinduism believes that it is to be celebrated and expressed, and it is this expressionism and the lack of binary value systems that Abrahamics find so difficult to rationalise. The binary model simply does not work with Hinduism and thus, the frustrations of a suppressive culture is often expressed by desecrating symbols of an expressionist, spiritual religion. Essentially, when Hindus say that Abrahamics do not understand Hinduism enough to criticise it, they mean that until they have gone through the experience of being Hindu, there is no text that they can read and claim proficiency in the religion, unlike Islam and Christianity. To top it all, other than the painful ignorance of Hinduism itself, the Atheists and anti-theists who have denounced Islam do not understand the cultural context of the Hindu communities struggle with Iconoclasm and thus, have not the faintest idea of the scars that have been inflicted time and again. For a Hindu, an Atheist is only deepening the scars left by the religion they claim to have denounced. For a Hindu, what the Atheist does is no different from what the adherents of Islam did to his idols and temples. And this cultural context cannot be ignored simply by repeating the “all religions are equal” trope, because they are certainly not. Why Hindus endorse desecration of Islam but not of Hinduism 20-year-old Yazidi girl Israa, who had been rescued from ISIS, burnt her hijab as she was surrounded by the Kurdish forces in 2019. The image, that powerful image, became one of the symbols of resistance against the Islamic forces. In her interview , she had said that she felt suffocated the first time she was asked to wear it and she wished she could burn the ISIS terrorists just like she burnt her hijab. Why did Israa feel suffocated with the Hijab and why was burning that Hijab such a powerful sentiment for her? For that matter, why is burning the image of Adolf Hitler such a powerful image for Jews? Why does a Yazidi celebrate when symbols of her oppression are destroyed? Because the hijab symbolises and is a manifestation of her oppression. Her scars. It symbolises the very people who took away her dignity, her faith, her family, her community, her temple, her everything. It is a symbol of those who pushed her and her family to darkness. It is a symbol of those who she wishes to destroy, not because she hates Muslims, but because the staunchest followers of Islam destroyed her life and desecrated on everything she and her ancestors held dear. Given the history of Hindus and their subjugation by Islamists, the sentiment mirrors that of Yazidis. When symbols of oppression are destroyed, Hindus are bound to support that as an act of defiance. It becomes even more pronounced when that destruction of oppressive symbols comes from those who claim to have left the faith of Islam. It is essentially seen as a validation of vindication of their pain. The reason why Armin got support and coverage when he desecrated the Quran is for the very reason that a Yazidi woman would burn her Hijab or be jubilant when someone else does. It was a destruction of the symbol of centuries of oppression. It was an act of defiance, the same defiance felt by Hindus. It validated the angst felt by Hindus. Now, imagine claiming that the destruction of the Hijab by a Yazidi is the same as the destruction of the symbols of Yazidism. While Islamists consider Yazidis as devil worshippers, would it be fair to assume if a Yazidi is happy about the destruction of the Quran or even that of the Hijab, she has to mandatorily be accepting of the destruction of her faith when has done nothing to receive that ire? This analogy is exactly what is needed to understand why Hindus supported the desecration of the Quran by Armin and not the desecration of Maa Kali. Hindus saw their vindication in an ex-Muslim recognising that Islam is a religion that has the potential to subjugate non-believers because that premise has been responsible for their own humiliation for centuries. On top of that, it helped them reinforce that what the Left has been telling them to almost gaslight them, about Islam being a religion of peace is not true – and this came not just from Hindus, who were the victims, but also people who used to be Muslims and have since left the faith. Then came the inexplicable desecration of Maa Kali and it jolted Hindus from their stupor. They wondered why an Atheist ex-Muslim would desecrate their faith when they had done nothing to deserve that ire. Armin tore the Quran because his experiences taught him that he did not want to endorse the ideology in the Book. What was his experience with Hinduism that drove him to desecrate Hinduism? Nothing except the notion that all religions are equal. Hindus would endorse the desecration of the faith that subjugated them and reject the desecration of their own faith that has been subjugated by the oppressor. Interestingly, Atheists seem to not have the bandwidth to grasp the fact that by desecrating Hinduism, they have only cut the branch that they were sitting on. Their aim in desecrating Islam was that its tenets are inconsistent with the modern age values that the world espouses. However, one of the tenets is to slay polytheistic religions and as a result of that, idols are desecrated. Essentially, the Atheists ex-Muslims seem to have done exactly what their erstwhile religion ordained them to do, it was only cloaked with Atheism and not Islamism. The ire of Hindus was expected, and necessary because for far too long, their faith has been desecrated for no fault of theirs, simply because the Abrahamics cannot accept polytheistic faiths. Saying ‘enough is enough’ is important. The shaming of Hindus when they voiced their disgust We have already established why Hindus were disgusted and outraged at the conduct of Atheists against Hinduism and the depiction of Maa Kali, however, what was more unpalatable is the response of the Atheists, ex-Muslims and Hindus to that outage. Outright, Hindus were labelled “just as bad as Jihadis” for protesting against the blatant disrespect for their faith, for no good reason. What is essentially wrong with this assertion is that first, the ex-Muslim atheists and Liberal Hindus were trying, rather hard, to draw a false equivalence between Hindus and Muslims. That is almost the same as drawing an equivalence between Jews and Nazis when a Jew criticises the desecration of its faith by ex-Nazis. Or saying that a Yazidi is “as bad” as an ISIS terrorist because they differentiate between the burning of the Hijab and the ruination of her faith by the very people who enslaved her. What the Atheists and Liberal Hindus essentially wanted was to submit to the whims of those who clearly have no idea of the cultural context of Hindus or worse, know and don’t care. Personally, I believe it is the second because I have seen several videos where these ex-Muslims discuss Hinduism and I find it hard to believe that they would have no idea of the cultural context. Essentially, the Atheists ex-Muslims and Liberal Hindus wanted Hindus to submit to the desecration of their faith, quietly, demurely, or they threatened to label them just as bad the very people who raped, subjugated, murdered and forcefully converted them to Islam. The manipulation in this tactic is staggering. Essentially, this is akin to telling a victim that she must not voice her opposition to what the perpetrator did against her or she will become just as bad as the perpetrator himself and because the victim harbours such visceral hate for everything that her perpetrator stands for, she would somehow be brainwashed and gaslighted into silence. The debauchery of this argument was further exposed when some of the Hindus started telling their fellow Hindus that Hinduism is a tolerant religion and hence, any and all desecration must not be responded to aggressively. What they wanted to tell Hindus is that they should accept the desecration of their faith to display how tolerant they and that if they don’t, even their words of protest would be right compared to those who were murdering and burning down entire cities because they were offended. Perhaps the overtly erudite Ex-Muslims and Hindu Atheists and liberal Hindus need to pay attention and read Karl Popper. He says: “ Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant “. Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance is an apt description of what Abrahamics and Liberal Hindus want pious Hindus to follow. Essentially, these elements want Hindus to be tolerant to a level where the intolerant reign over the tolerant and the tolerant espoused by Hindus dies along with them. Certainly, one can see how that is a principle that has never been one that can be followed without the complete annihilation of the community that wishes to be tolerant to the level of their own destruction. It is essential to understand here that Islam took over 500 years to find footing in India because of the deep faith that Hindus held. Despite the barbarity heaped upon them, they refused to submit to the rule of Islam and held on to their faith despite all odds. When the Liberal Hindu and ex-Muslim Atheists want Hindus to inexplicably let go of that faith in the name of tolerance, what they do is create a situation where they leave the faith open to the onslaught of Abrahamics – the intolerant. Does the last standing major pagan religion in the world deserve to be annihilated on the basis of hollow principles like tolerance? This is a question that Hindus need to ask themselves without consideration for what Abrahamics believe they should do. But under no circumstances should Hindus be played by moral pleas of tolerance and in no manner, should they be manipulated to believe that their words can be deemed just as violent as rampaging mobs burning the world down. Freedom of Speech – The hypocrisy of it all Neo-Atheism and especially, those by Ex-Muslims and Ex-Christians are essentially based on two concepts that they consider the axiomatic truths – Universal value system and binary value system, as discussed before, that draws heavily from the Enlightenment philosophy. Essentially, this means that Atheists believe that there are certain universal value systems that are to be accepted without any question. Individual rights, the dominance of man over nature, freedom of expression, overt reliance on logic and essentially, rejecting everything that is not “real”. The binary logic sees everything in black and white and is a concept of absolutism. Essentially, Atheism gives no room for any deviation from what it believes to be the ultimate truth and/or the ultimate value that is to be espoused. When ex-Muslims criticise Islam for its dogmatic practises, they must essentially declare that all religions are to be treated the exact same way since their binary logic does not allow them to understand a construct where a religion like Hinduism can have multitudes of value systems. When they talk about freedom of expression, they must be absolutists because any limitation means that they are being thoroughly non-binary. For Atheists, they must desecrate Hinduism if they desecrate Islam because since one religion is problematic, all religions must be equally problematic. If one religion has Jihadis who burn the world down, the other must also have the same kind of adherents even though there is no empirical evidence to prove the hypothesis. The beliefs of Liberalism and Atheism come from the enlightenment age which had no scope for the understanding of Hinduism since it was aimed at overthrowing the dogmatic Church. Thus, Hinduism and its criticism thereof simply remains a product of the Abrahamic lens that is donned by Liberals and Atheists without really the consideration that none of these principles applies in totality to Sanatan Dharma. In that sense of absolutism, freedom of speech and expression is also meant to be absolute according to most liberals and atheists, however, just as any absolute ideology, this too suffers from its inherent hypocrisies. Every culture has its natural limits to freedom of expression that draws from the cultural context of that particular society. For example, one would not go to Israel and name their child Adolf Hitler because there is a contextual limit to FoE that comes into play. Similarly, one would not use the “N-word” in the USA because attached to it are tales of suppression and one has to give due importance to the cultural and societal context before being an absolutist as far as FoE is concerned. This was proved remarkably well when in a podcast by Kushal Mehra, who calls himself a Hindu Atheist, three ex-Muslims refused to use the “N-word” even when the subject came up. The ex-Muslims on that podcast included Harris Sultan who is now equating Hindus to Jihadis because they would not roll over and accept the desecration of their harmless faith. If Harris Sultan was indeed an absolutist when it came to freedom of speech, he should have ideally had no problem with using the N-word rather openly. He did not because Sultan seems to be more clued in and respectful of the cultural context of the country he lives in and more importantly, the culture he has adopted as his own. Extending the same rationale, one has to question the Atheists that if they would not demand absolute FoE to use the “N-word” because of the history of subjugation attached to that word or would not expect a Jew to ‘tolerate’ anyone ‘hailing Hitler’, why would they then expect unbridled and unrestricted freedom of expression when talking about Hinduism? If these ex-Muslims would not call Jews ‘just as bad as the Nazis’ for voicing their exception to their faith being desecrated in the same manner as Hitler did, why would they say that Hindus are as bad as the Jihadis when Hindus were voicing their exception to their faith being desecrated in the exact same manner as the Jihadis did? To take this a step further, their wails of ‘freedom of expression’ became a loud shriek and words such as ‘Mujahindus’, drawing an equivalence with Mujahideen, were thrown about. Atheists posture as the arbiters of morality but here they are, conflating people trolling a person on social media with cast distance between them with actual terrorists. Speech is now violence we are to believe. And such people pretend to be FoE absolutists. The amusing aspect of this is the fact that Abhijit Iyer-Mitra himself does not hesitate to abuse the parents of individuals he disagrees with. Coming from him, it is especially difficult to accept such an argument. The other argument, presented by Kushal Mehra is that people in India do not understand how neo-atheists in the West operate. I humbly disagree with that assertion. We understand perfectly how neo-atheists operate in the West. Neo-atheists in western countries are overwhelmingly oriented towards the Left and suffer from delusions of their own. In the current context, just because they get a kick out of abusing our Gods, it does not mean that a deliberate provocation ought to go unchallenged. There also seems to be an insinuation that Hindus ought to be fearful of the mockery neo-atheists are capable of. With due regards, there is absolutely no reason for us to be fearful of them. Instead, they are the ones who ought to be careful with regards to the manner in which they use their speech. One does not know when cancel culture strikes them down. Also, Abhijit Iyer-Mitra and Kushal Mehra are good friends of mine but I am extremely disappointed with their ideological stance on the current debate revolving around atheism and freedom of expression. The hypocrisy of Harris Sultan is particularly astounding. He was recently threatened by a Muslim for his criticism of Islam. The offended Muslim had actually threatened to hurt Sultan’s family and had made it clear that he was aware of the atheist’s address. Hindus have done no such thing. Harris Sultan has personal knowledge of the fact that Hindus and radical Muslims are not the same. Even so, even he peddles the delusion of equivalence between the two. Why it is perfectly okay for Hindus to endorse desecration of Quran and oppose abuse of Hindu Gods At the very outset, it ought to be mentioned that the foremost loyalties of Hindus ought to lie with their Gods and Goddesses and not to concepts such as freedom of expression and other such things. It is perfectly permissible, even rational, for Hindus to not tolerate the abuse of the Devis and Devtas. There is no decree that FoE ought to be the foremost priority of Hindus. Atheists might value FoE above all else, and we have already established that they are not the FoE absolutists they pretend to be, but Hindus are under no compulsion to prioritise FoE over their Gods and Goddesses. It is also perfectly rational for people to have one set of rules for the out-group and completely different for the in-group, there is nothing wrong with that. Atheists do not have the authority to decide what is permissible and what is not. For them, insulting someone’s mother is crossing the line. We share the same sentiment. The only problem here is that we consider our Goddesses to be our mothers as well. Therefore, their insult towards our Goddesses invokes the same emotions in us that an insult to their mother evokes in them. They have no business dictating the relationship we share with our Gods and Goddesses. It also ought to be mentioned that neo-atheism is intrinsically Abrahamic in its approach. It arises out of the enlightenment worldview that was ingrained in Abrahamic philosophy. It is no surprise then that modern atheism has a distinctly protestant approach to it. Furthermore, it also ought to be mentioned that the fervour with which modern atheists approach politics is the same as a devotee approaches religion. Neo-atheists have merely substituted religion with the political ideology of their choice. Instead of proselytising on behalf of a religion, they proselytise to convert their people into their favoured political ideology. Instead of Gods and Goddesses, they want people to believe in absolute FoE, the rules of which they wish to dictate as the evidence clearly by the current saga, and the precepts of liberalism. Hindus are under no compulsion to live our lives by their rules. ‘Hindu’ atheists might fancy calling themselves Charvakas but they are no different from neo-atheists at all. They have utterly failed to distinguish themselves from the ideology that neo-atheists espouse. Calling nonsense by a different name does not change the fact that it is still nonsense. Before attempting to corner Hindus, it is incumbent upon atheists to provide evidence for their claim that the world will automatically be a better place without religion. It ought to be mentioned that the absence of religion does not automatically lead to a paradise for human rights and freedom of expression. In the 20th century, the biggest death toll was under Communism. In the 21st century, hundreds and thousands of Muslims have been locked up in ‘reeducation camps’ by Communist China. The crimes may not have been committed in the name of atheism but they do disprove the atheist claim that a lack of religion automatically leads to a better world. If the current episode has proved anything, it is that there is no essential difference between Charvakas and neo-atheists. The other thing that it has proved is ex-Muslims are remarkably obtuse about cultural sensitivities. The only good thing that has come out of it is the fact that Hindus have demonstrated that they shall no longer take kindly to the abuse of their Gods.

The government in power, on its own, is not responsible for shifting the Overton Window. Basically, they are responsible for recognising where the window is and then making policies that are commensurate with where the window is. It is people outside the acceptability spectrum that move the window by convincing the masses that what is radical today should be policy tomorrow. The greatest achievement of Hindus in the past 7 years: Shifting the Overton Window The government in power, on its own, is not responsible for shifting the Overton Window. Basically, they are responsible for recognising where the window is and then making policies that are commensurate with where the window is. It is people outside the acceptability spectrum that move the window by convincing the masses that what is radical today should be policy tomorrow. Nupur J Sharma 9 November 2021 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] In 2016, a year before I had joined OpIndia as their editor, I read an interesting article on the ‘MyVoice’ section of the website. It is essentially a corner of the internet where users can express themselves but OpIndia does not wholly endorse the opinions expressed thereof. The article was headlined, “Why I will celebrate the destruction of the Babri structure on 6th December”. I was agape at the audacity – pleasantly surprised. One has to realise how Hindus simply did not have the audacity to express their joy at the events of 6th December 1992. Babri was the outward anathema of our collective conscience. We were forced to be ashamed even if we secretly rejoiced Hindus finally reclaiming a piece of their heritage. I grew up in a house where my grandfather and father expressed insurmountable joy at the illegal structure being demolished. They fervently believed that Hindus were forced to take matters into their own hands because the secular state subjugated Hindus and chose to ignore their 500-year-old battle to reclaim the very spot where their Bhagwan Ram was born. It was a great source of pain that the State had forced Ram Lalla to live in a rickety tent. It was a great source of rage that in our own land, we could not truly express what we wanted , as a people. It was April 2019 when I truly realise how far we had come. I had been working with OpIndia for over 2 years when politicians made a controversy out of a sentiment that several Hindus like me secretly felt. Chanting “ Ram rashtra hain, rashtra Ram hain “, Sadhvi Pragya declared that she was proud of taking part in the demolition of the illegal structure called Babri Masjid that once stood on Ram Janmabhoomi. A litany of abuse followed, not just from Muslims but from politicians who had made a career out of holding Hindus by their hair and rubbing their nose on the ground, breaking their pride, hacking their self-respect. My colleagues and I were upset, enraged even. We decided, then to throw caution to the wind. The article I had read in 2016, sitting in my cosy office space had to be mainstreamed. As disparate people who had come together simply because we were sick of the media’s political correctness and literary subjugation of Hindus, we had to speak up. We published the article on main OpIndia website on 21st of April 2019. Babri Masjid Demolition – why people can be proud of it. It was out there. “Babri structure was a symbol of that tyranny and barbarism”, the article said. “I celebrate the destruction of that symbol. I celebrate the annihilation of brutality. I celebrate the restoration of equality. I celebrate 6th December. I celebrate self-respect. I celebrate freedom”, the author declared. I don’t think a lot of people realise the gravity of the decision to publish this article on OpIndia. Over the years, we as a people had been conditioned to edit our opinions to be commensurate with the imposed norms of political correctness. There had been renegades like Sita Ram Goel, Arun Shourie (before we lost him to the dark side), Ram Swarup and many others, but for the average unwashed masses, opinions inconvenient to the establishment were taboo. In our mind, we risked being ostracised by our social circles and probably booked by the secular state for daring to endorse the destruction of a symbol of Muslim oppression and tyranny. But that did not happen. While we feared friendly recoil, we were hailed for publishing an article that verbalised the sentiment of the people. Being the voice of those who could not voice these opinions themselves. The Overton Window had shifted. Forever. The Overton Window is a set of ideas and policies which are acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. The spectrum of acceptability ranges from what the society deems “unacceptable” to what set of ideas eventually becomes a government policy acceptable to the mainstream population. Joshua Treviño has postulated that the six degrees of acceptance of public ideas are roughly: Unthinkable Radical Acceptable Sensible Popular Policy The Overton Window, simply put, shifts when an acceptable idea becomes popular and then translates to policy. Or better yet, when a radical idea journeys its way through being considered ‘sensible’ to ‘popular’ and then translates into policy. The idea that the head of the state would proudly participate in the Bhoomi Pujan of Ram Mandir was “unthinkable” given that most of us in our 30s today had observed politics since the time the government in power went to the Supreme Court denying Bhagwan Ram’s existence. Interestingly, after the Supreme Court, on this very day in 2019, had ordered in favour of Hindus, Congress had come supporting the construction of Ram Mandir, though in muted tones. What was unthinkable then, became political policy now. The ripple effect of a some-what, tangentially Hindu centric party being in power has been subtle and driven by the masses far more than the government itself directly. What was taboo then, is mainstream now. We went from “Godse was a Hindu terrorist” to “Godse was a murderer, but there is no harm in saying he was a nationalist”. The challenge is to turn the shift in Overton Window into policy, which in this case, would be getting the government to declassify his last testimony in court. We went from saying that the demolition of Babri Masjid was a dark path on the syncretic culture of India to taking pride in Hindus reclaiming Bhagwan Ram’s Janmabhoomi. We went from wanting a hospital at Ram Janmabhoomi to wanting a Bhavya Ram Mandir and a pining to reclaim Kashi and Mathura. With the Overton Window shifting, the challenge now is to translate this to government policy, which would mean the removal of the Places of Worship Act. Subtly, taboos have been broken and what was once considered “unthinkable” or even “radical” has become “sensible” if not “popular”. Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the Overton Window shifting is that it has been done purely by the masses – how it should be. Much like the 2020 and 2021 Diwali celebrations. While the Secular state banned firecrackers assuming that it is only a celebratory tradition, Hindus took to the streets, defying the ban, even getting arrested, lighting the sky so our ancestors could find their way back to their abode after the Mahalaya Paksha was over. While the Secular state made a policy thinking that the idea of the ban was mainstream, the people rose up in dissent, asserting that the Overton Window had long shifted and what they thought was mainstream was now obsolete. But perhaps, the most “unthinkable” idea was that of India being a land of Hindu consciousness. The acceptability of the propositions furthered by the Citizenship Amendment Bill was split in the middle. As is India’s wont, the ideological divide was as stark as a bright sunny summer morning. The Left opposed the provisions tooth and nail. The ‘idea of India’ that has long been touted as the existential foundation of India had been shaken, as per them, with one swift motion. The Left has long espoused the principle that India is an all-giving, all-embracing entity, especially when it comes to Muslims. Whether this special corner of the heart that bleeds only for Muslims is a result of political compulsions, the Gandhian dystopia or the engrained false persecution complex is unclear. Perhaps it is a culmination of all of the above. Either way, while the Left detested the idea of law finally being honest enough to give citizenship to persecuted minorities from neighbouring Islamic nations, the non-Left rejoiced the decision as one that rights a historic wrong. The idea of the act was simply – India is the only land that has a Hindu majority. Hinduism, Sanatan, is engraved in its consciousness since before the political boundaries were drawn. Our stories, our heroes our legacy is attached to this land and no other. Hindus deserve a land they can come back to when the world seems too harsh, when their rights are denied and when they are persecuted because of their very identity. The only criticism of the Citizenship Amendment Act was perhaps the fact that it did go as far as to give Hindus a ‘right to return’, much like Israel gives to Jews. That would have been the truest establishment of a “Hindu Rashtra”. But CAA, even in its current form, was a policy borne out of the Hindus recognising the civilisational entity that is Bharat. Mainstreaming the idea that India is indeed a Hindu land. That idea then translated to policy. What was radical then, was policy now, albeit, one that fell short, but policy nonetheless. The government in power, on its own, is not responsible for shifting the Overton Window. Basically, they are responsible for recognising where the window is and then making policies that are commensurate with where the window is. It is people outside the acceptability spectrum that move the window by convincing the masses that what is radical today should be policy tomorrow. The Modi government being in power is sufficient for the Overton Window to shift. It is a government that is at the very least, if not proactively Hindu centric, tangentially so by being responsive to Hindu demands. How we create that demand is something Hindus need to decide. One must not have heard of Joseph Overton, but one has certainly heard of the chants of Jai Shree Ram in 2014. The chants of ‘Hind, Hindu, Hindutva’, ‘Mandir Wahi Banayenge’ and “Kashi Mathura Baaki hai”. One might not have heard of the Overton Window but one certainly remembers how we broke down, tears bedewed our cheeks when on 9th November 2019, the Supreme Court vindicated a battle Hindus had fought for 500 years. Hindus have not only shifted the Overton Window but shattered the glass, never to be implanted again.

The Hindus' path to the divine is one that is illegitimate in Monotheistic faiths and no matter how syncretic Hindus want Hinduism to be, to accept wildly untrue equivalences would only lead to Hinduism being chipped away, with the Islamist delegitimising anything that does not conform to their worldview. 5 dangerous tropes and falsities that Shivraj Patil is encouraging by comparing Jihad with the Mahabharat war or Dharma Yuddh The Hindus' path to the divine is one that is illegitimate in Monotheistic faiths and no matter how syncretic Hindus want Hinduism to be, to accept wildly untrue equivalences would only lead to Hinduism being chipped away, with the Islamist delegitimising anything that does not conform to their worldview. Nupur J Sharma 21 October 2022 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] On Thursday (October 20), Congress leader Shivraj Patil stirred the hornet’s nest after he claimed that the concept of ‘Jihad’ is a part of the Bhagavad Gita and that it was taught to Arjuna by Lord Krishna. Patil, who served as the Union Home Minister between 2004-2008 in the Sonia, sorry, Manmohan-led UPA government, made the contentious claims in Delhi during the launch of the biography of Congress leader Mohsina Kidwai. “There is a lot of discussion about Islam. And our work in the Indian Parliament is not about Jihad but ideals. Jihad is only evoked when all efforts, undertaken with a clear mind, fail,” he asserted. “The concept of Jihad is not limited to the Quran but also the Bhagavad Gita, which is a part of Mahabharat,” he continued. The UPA-era Minister then went a step ahead and alleged that Lord Krishna taught about Jihad to Arjuna during the Dharamyudh between the Pandavas and Kauravas in Kurukshetra. “Lord Krishna had taught Arjuna about Jihad (In Bhagwat Gita). And Jihad does not exist only in Hindu and Islamic scriptures. It is also present in the Holy text of Christians,” he insinuated. Shivraj Patil then justified the concept of Jihad and said, “Despite trying your best, if someone approaches you with weapons, you cannot simply run away…You cannot call it wrong.” There are, of course, multiple things which are deeply problematic with Shivraj Patil’s statement. The most glaring is his comparison of the Islamic concept of Jihad to Dharma Yuddha, which was being fought during Mahabharat. His assertion that the concept of Jihad exists not only in Islam but in every religious text, including that of Hinduism and Christianity is one that finds no basis in reality and we will delve into the difference in detail. Another interesting aspect of the statement made by Shivraj Patil is that he unwittingly seems to have revealed the motivation behind making such a statement. In his statement, Patil says “Despite trying your best, if someone approaches you with weapons, you cannot simply run away…You cannot call it wrong”, essentially saying that those who commit Jihad are only responding to aggression against them, thereby whitewashing the theological evidence of what Jihad truly means and also, brushing under the carpet the Jihadi foundation of Islamic terrorism. This statement comes as no surprise since one has to remember how Patil was sacked after the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attack. In fact, after accusations of him delaying the response to the attack surfaced, Patil had lied to claim that no aircraft was available in Delhi and therefore, there was a delay in sending in NSG commandos. “No aircraft was available here (in Delhi), and then we called one from Chandigarh and dispatched 250-300 NSG commandos within two-three hours to Mumbai and I also travelled with them. That was a freight aircraft and we travelled to Mumbai standing”, he had said. This lie was summarily debunked at the time. Why Patil chose to lie is something we can leave up to the readers to speculate. Be that as it may, the purpose of this article is to discuss how Shivraj Patil is inexact, to put it mildly, when he conflates the concept of Dharma Yuddh with Jihad and essentially says that the Mahabharat was “Jihad” that Bhagwan Krishna had told Arjun to wage. What is Jihad Jihad is one of the most sacred duties that pious Muslims are meant to perform. The word “Jihad”, is an Arabic word which means “struggle”. It is an established fact that Jihad is the struggle for the cause of spreading Islam, using all means available to Muslims, including violence. This kind of Jihad is often referred to as “Holy War”. Now, when Jihad is a means to spread Islam, logic extends that Jihad would be waged against non-Muslims or those who are considered non-believers in the word of Prophet Mohammad and denounce the concept of “There is no God but Allah”. Essentially, Jihad is a concept of the ultimate subjugation of the non-believer, where, either by convincing them or by using violence, the non-believers are supposed to be brought to the “one true path” of Islam. This is not an opinion formed out of thin air. Islam religious scriptures are evidence of the fact that Jihad is waged against non-believers, using violence, if necessary. Here are some of the verses Wasim Rizvi, who later converted to Hinduism, had cited in his petition where he had asked for 26 verses that promote violence against non-Muslims to be deleted. Surah 2 (Al-Baqarah) Verse 191: And kill them [in battle] wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah1 is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al-Ḥarām until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. Surah 3 (Ali ‘Imran) Verse 151: We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority.1 And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers. Surah 8 (Al-Anfal) Verse 65: O Prophet, urge the believers to battle. If there are among you twenty [who are] steadfast, they will overcome two hundred. And if there are among you one hundred [who are steadfast], they will overcome a thousand of those who have disbelieved because they are a people who do not understand. Verse 69: So consume what you have taken of war booty [as being] lawful and good, and fear Allah. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Surah 9 (At-Tawbah) Verse 5: And when the inviolable months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakāh, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Verse 14: Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts [i.e., desires] of a believing people. Verse 23: O you who have believed, do not take your fathers or your brothers as allies if they have preferred disbelief over belief. And whoever does so among you – then it is those who are the wrongdoers. Verse 28: O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Ḥarām after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise. Verse 29 Fight against those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth [i.e., Islām] from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah1 willingly while they are humbled. Verse 37: Indeed, the postponing [of restriction within sacred months] is an increase in disbelief by which those who have disbelieved are led [further] astray. They make it1 lawful one year and unlawful another year to correspond to the number made unlawful by Allah2 and [thus] make lawful what Allah has made unlawful. Made pleasing to them is the evil of their deeds; and Allah does not guide the disbelieving people Verse 58 And among them are some who criticize you concerning the [distribution of] charities. If they are given from them, they approve; but if they are not given from them, at once they become angry. Verse 111 Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’ān. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment. Verse 123: O you who have believed, fight against those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous. These are, of course, just some of the verses. The full list of the verses cited by Wasim Rizvi can be read here . What is Dharma and Dharma Yuddh Dharma, in itself, is rather difficult to articulate in English since no parallel word or phrase exists to capture its essence. It is a concept inimitable to Sanatan Dharma and the English vocabulary simply falls short. I would therefore depend on greater minds and their wisdom in an attempt to article what it stands for. “Like the English word ‘law’, the word ‘dharma’ has taken on different connotations. Its original wider meaning is ‘law’. The dharma of any object upholds its existence and regulates its behaviour. It is in this sense that we refer to the dharma of nature, the dharma of water, the dharma of fire and so on…This wider meaning led to the use of the term while describing the laws governing other-worldly objects, irrespective of whether these laws were verifiable or not! The term ‘dharma’ gradually encompassed the mutual relation between Heaven, hell, reincarnation, god, individual (soul), creation and the like. In fact, the word ‘dharma’ soon came to be almost exclusively used in its other-worldly connotation.… The actions of human beings in this world were thought to affect his existence in the hereafter. So ‘dharma’ came to also mean that which upheld his life in the hereafter. In the past, the rules that governed worldly relations between individuals and nations were also termed ‘dharma’ . This is clear from terms such as dharma of war (yuddhadharma), dharma of governance (rajdharma), dharma of conduct (vyavahaardharma) and the like”, wrote Veer Savarkar (1934, Vidnyannishtha nibandha or pro-science essays, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 3, p.309-310). From what Veer Savarkar wrote, it is evident that Dharma is a “duty” that is to be performed, to uphold the purpose of existence. It is the law which governs the conduct of that entity in the fulfilment of his existential duty and the path one must follow to attain Moksha. Dharma, therefore, is not religion, however, it is a part of wider religious tenets. About Dharma Yuddha, Koenraad Elst once wrote , “The proverbial war in the Hindu worldview is the great war of the Bharata clan, on which the mega-epic Mahabharat elaborates. This epic philosophizes profusely on the principles of dharma yuddha even as it describes the successive episodes of a real-life war. Yuddha means “struggle, war”. Dharma, “sustenance, that which sustains”, effectively means “maintaining the correct relation between the part and the whole”, “playing your specific role in the whole that you are part of”. Dharma Yuddh is therefore one’s struggle to fulfil their existential duty. Dharma yuddha means “struggle in accordance with ethics/Dharma” or a “chivalrous war” to uphold morality, ethics, honour, so on and so forth. How Shivraj Patil was wrong in equating Dharma Yuddh and Jihad The basic flaw in what Patil has said is the fact that the comparison between Dharma Yuddh and Jihad is like a comparison between apples and oranges. While Dharma Yuddh is the struggle to perform one’s duties towards oneself, one’s Gods and the society at large, Jihad in itself is a concept of slavery where others are subjugated in the name of the “One True God”, by violence if necessary. Having said that, let us, one by one, talk about how Patil was far divorced from reality when he equated Mahabharat with Jihad. 1. The first and foremost, most glaring falsity in that statement is that while Mahabharat was fought between two branches of the same family, who followed the same religion, Jihad is patently against those who are non-believers in the tenets of Islam. Mahabharat was about two sets of cousins who were pitted against each other for the throne and war became necessary when a peaceful resolution failed. The Mahabharat Dharma Yuddh did not happen over whose God was superior or was the “one true God”. It did not take place as a religious campaign to either spread Hinduism or to ensure that other religions submit to tenets of Sanatan Dharma, even by violence if necessary. During the course of the war of Mahabharat, no religious places were defiled and no mosque was changed into a temple after the place of worship was desecrated. In history, however, whenever Jihad has been waged, it was specifically against non-Muslims to spread Islam by the sword and one of the main characteristics of Jihad was the desecration of religious places. For example, the unrelenting attacks on Kashi Vishwanath began shortly after Islamic invaders entered India. It was first attacked in the 12th century by Qutb al-Din Aibak. The temple’s peak was damaged in the attack, still, Puja ceremonies continued there even after that. History has it that the destruction of the sacred Hindu temple was carried out under Mohammad of Ghori’s orders. The Kashi Vishwanath Mandir was once again demolished during the rule of Sikandar Lodi (1489–1517). Evidence implies that Sikandar Lodi was responsible for the invasion of Kashi Vishwanath. In 1669 CE, the ultimate assault on the Kashi Vishwanath Temple was carried out by the Mughal tyrant Aurangzeb. He demolished the temple and replaced it with the Gyanvapi masjid. The remains of the erstwhile mandir can still be seen in the foundation, the columns, and the rear part of the mosque. The Kashi Vishwanath Temple complex, which stands today, is adjacent to the disputed mosque complex and where devotees can do puja and prayers, was built by the great Ahilya Bai Holkar of Indore in 1780. In fact, the Islamic record of Maasir-i-Alamgiri states that on April 9, 1669, Aurangzeb had issued a ‘farman’ decree, “to governors of all the provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels and strongly put down their teachings and religious practices.” Further, according to Muraqat-i-Abul Hasan, Aurangzeb ordered his soldiers and assistants from Cuttack, Orissa, and on to Medinipur in Bengal to destroy every house with a Hindu deity that was built in the last 12 years. Aurangzeb further ordered that if any temples were reconstructed, they should be demolished again completely so that Hindus could not revive worship at the sites. According to two Akhbarat dated 28th March and 14th May 1680, even temples in the loyal and friendly Amber state, such as the famed Temple of Jagdish at Goner in Amber, were not spared due to his religious fervour. History is littered with examples where the places of worship of Kaffirs were brutally and mercilessly desecrated and destroyed because the Islamic barbarians, who waged Jihad in Bharata, considered it “holy war” – changing Dar-ul-Harb to Dar-ul-Islam, which meant ruining every religious symbol of Hindus to establish Islamic symbols instead. In Mahabharat, there is no commandment given by Bhagwan Krishna to Arjun that requires him to attack the faith of any non-Hindu religious group. It was a battle where even the rules of a righteous and just war were established. How the “just rules of engagement” degraded gradually, based on the unjust methods of the Kauravas, is a matter of a separate debate altogether. In fact, the reason why Mahabharat is called a righteous war is because it was triggered by a woman, Draupadi, being dishonoured. There is no such concept in Islam, in fact, Jihad essentially condones taking sex slaves and war prisoners, which is antithetical to the concept of Dharma itself. 2. In Hindu history, hardly any religious or theological questions have been solved by war. Wars, as we see in the case of Mahabharat, have been the means to settle questions of authority and justice. Questions of a religious and theological nature have always been settled by vaad-vivaad – discussion and debate. Jihad, however, is a different beast altogether. The fact that even theological supremacy against non-believers has been a subject of war, is evidenced by the numerous wars that have been fought since time immemorial – from the battle of Badr, the battle of Uhud, and so on and so forth. From medieval times to now, when Islamic terrorism is rampant against non-Muslims all of the hues, in an attempt to turn nations into Dar-ul-Islam. In fact, it is pertinent to point out that Mahabharat itself was not a war to settle religious authority as was the case, for example, during the battle of Karbala. Therefore, at an extremely conceptual level, war has never been the means of settling questions of religious authority, religious supremacy etc in Hinduism whereas, the “Holy War” or Jihad has always been a means to settle such issues in the Islamic world. It is therefore outlandish to claim that the very concept of Dharma Yuddh and that of Jihad are similar. 3. Another important aspect to ponder upon is that Dharma and religion itself are not the same. Religion is a set of commandments, rituals, traditions etc to be followed whereas Dharma depends on the time and place. For example, Arjun’s dharma on the battlefield was to wage war against his own relatives, whereas, in a different setting, his Dharma could be that of performing Charity. Islam, however, is a religious duty of every Muslim and is a part of the wider religious commandments of Islam. The two concepts are, therefore, foundationally not the same. 4. One true formless God is an Abrahamic exclusivist concept, and anything similar in the Sanatan theology is entirely of a different philosophical nature. For example, one of the favourite tropes of those who wish to Abrahamise Hinduism is asserting that the concept of Brahman is similar to the concept of “One True God” in Islam. That, however, is not true. Brahman, however, is not a literal “one true God”, but a philosophical concept of a Cosmic Principle and consciousness. Therefore, to say that Hinduism too follows the concept of “One True God” is patently false. 5. The trope that Hindus too worship “One True God” and that Mahabharat was similar to Jihad in Islam is peddled by several Jihadists and Islamists in an attempt to delegitimise Hinduism and assert their exclusivist view that there is ‘No God but Allah’. Even those like Zakir Naik have peddled this trope. Zakir Naik’s problematic views have been picked up by several Islamic websites and Indian media houses that further the same trope. Here is an example from mainstream The Print, run by Shekhar Gupta. Article by The Print It is important to understand the problematic trope saying “Ishwar, Allah Tero Naam” has been long peddled as a syncretic version of how every individual finds their own path to the one true form of divinity, however, in the name of syncretism, Jihad, which aims to subjugate those who don’t submit to their one true God is often pushed under the rug. Shivraj Patil’s statement was essentially the path that Hindus need to tread if they wish to get closer to their own annihilation. While the Hindu might accept Islam as a legitimate path to the divine for those who follow the religion, the Muslim, at least the pious Muslim, would believe that idol worship is satanic and those who don’t follow THEIR true god deserves to be converted by the sword. The Hindus’ path to the divine is one that is illegitimate in Monotheistic faiths and no matter how syncretic Hindus want Hinduism to be, to accept wildly untrue equivalences would only lead to Hinduism being chipped away, with the Islamist delegitimising anything that does not conform to their worldview.

While the Muslim hoards exercise their street veto and make the State bend to their violent whims, journalists like Rana Ayyub give them spectacular covering fire. After the rampant violence that the Muslim extremists indulge in and have indulged in, Rana Ayyub chooses to follow the path of Mahatma Gandhi. “We will not worship if Muslims don’t want, but please save us”: From India to Bangladesh, how veto of violence works While the Muslim hoards exercise their street veto and make the State bend to their violent whims, journalists like Rana Ayyub give them spectacular covering fire. After the rampant violence that the Muslim extremists indulge in and have indulged in, Rana Ayyub chooses to follow the path of Mahatma Gandhi. Nupur J Sharma 14 October 2021 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] The vibrant festival of Durga Puja, when Maa Durga descends on earth on Mahalaya, is celebrated with much fervour especially by Bengali Hindus. Across Bengal, there are gorgeous Murtis of Maa, adorned with gorgeous jewellery, colourful sarees and sindoor are installed with devotees flocking to the pandals to pray for the triumph of good over evil. The Puja reaches a crescendo on the Dashami day, or Bijoya, when Ma Durga slayed Mahishasura, earning her the moniker Mahishasuramardini. While Maa Durga slew the demon, in Kalayug, the demon seems to live on. In Bangladesh, which is at least 91% Muslim dominated, Hindus are being persecuted simply because they dared to be Hindu and pray to Maa Durga. As Bengali Hindus from Bangladesh started celebrating Durga Puja, Muslim mobs vandalised at least 20 pandals and desecrated the idols. After a false rumour of the Quran being desecrated, several more Durga Puja pandals were vandalised and over 150 Hindu families were attacked. Sharing a video of an attack on Hindus, Advocate Dr Gobinda Chandra Pramanik, Secretary-General of Bangladesh Jatio Hindu Mohajote tweeted, “The situation is terrible!! Attacks on 150 families in Shilpara, Cox’s Bazar, widespread vandalism, looting, vandalism of Hatiya in Noakhali, vandalism of idols in municipal Kalimandir, attack Vandalism, molestation of women, 2 people have been found dead in Chandpur.” In yet another update, advocate Chandra shared the news of the publicity secretary of Chandpur district branch of Bangladesh National Hindu Youth Grand Alliance being hacked to death. The land of Naokhali has long been permeated with Hindu blood. During the Noakhali riots, countless Hindus were raped and murdered. The converted Hindus were made to write declarations that they had accepted Islam out of their free will and Hindus in the 2000 square mile area were made to pay the Jaziya. While the Hindus were being persecuted, killed, attacked and their faith being desecrated by Muslim mobs in Bangladesh, back in India, a ‘Muslim journalist’ was wondering how Muslims are so “remarkably patient”. Rana Ayyub, who identifies herself as a Muslim journalist, took to Twitter to marvel at the remarkable patience that Muslims seem to show in India. She said that not a single day in the past 7 years has she not thought about the remarkable patience shown by 200 million Muslims in India given the attack and humiliation they face every day. This mythical attack, Rana believes, is ‘enabled by the government’. Emphatically, almost screaming into the abyss, Rana reiterates.. ‘EVERY SINGLE DAY’. Rana paints an abysmal picture. We can almost imagine bodies of Muslims strewn on the blood-soaked roads of India. We can imagine men dressed in saffron with Modi-looking masks running around with guns and swords waiting to extract their pound of flesh from the innocent Muslims who were just living their work-a-day lives, taking care of their 8 children and 4 wives, praying in silence while loudspeakers blare their call to Allah. She makes us believe that Hindus are a barbaric cult running around raping Muslim women, murdering Muslim men and torturing Muslim babies. We know that is not the truth. We know Hindus can barely defend themselves, leave alone go on a rampage. Throughout history, Hindus have been murdered, raped and humiliated by Muslim hoards while their leaders have asked them to bow their heads and die with a smile on their faces. When MK Gandhi had visited Naokhali, he was rebuked by the Muslim League and after that, he had travelled to Bihar to stop the retaliatory violence by the Hindus. There, he is famed to have said that Hindus must leave Noakhali or die – this, because the Muslim League had asked him to quell the violence, the same Muslim League that was raping Hindu women, beheading Hindu women and waging a war against Kaffirs. In recent years, we have seen how the Delhi anti-Hindu riots were planned and executed by Muslim mobs. Right from the protest of Shaheen Bagh to the murder of Hindus amidst chants of Allahu Akbar and Nara-e-Taqbeer, it was made amply clear to Hindus that these protests and the ensuing violence were specifically targeted against Hindus. We heard chants of Hinduon-se-Azadi and Jinnah-wali-azadi and throughout, the narrative was that it was the Muslims who were being persecuted while Hindus were the aggressors. The examples are aplenty and at this point, repeating those examples almost makes it seem like Hindus like myself suffer from echolalia. What we need to understand is how (and why) Muslim journalists like Rana Ayyub continue to drum up the ‘Hindus murdering Muslims’ trope while Hindus are regularly massacred by the Muslim mob. There are two crucial aspects to this narrative. Firstly, the veto of violence that the Muslim community exercises is paramount and all-pervasive. Secondly, much like what ‘Mahatma’ Gandhi asked Hindus to do, the state today and the ecosystem that shields the Muslim community commands the Hindu to wither and die without a fight because the Hindu should be grateful that the Muslims did not burn more than they did, shed more blood than they did, raped more than they had and destroyed less than they could – the bigotry of low expectations. Let us take an example. During the Delhi riots, it was the Muslims who planned and executed a pogrom against Hindus. They stabbed Ankit Sharma so many times that his intestines were visible when his body was pulled out of the gutter. They cut the hands and legs of Dilbar Negi and burnt him alive, simply because he was Hindu. Tahir Hussain confessed that amidst slogans of Nara-e-Taqbeer, they conspired to murder Hindus. The narrative, however, was that Hindus were the ones who murdered Muslims. How? Because after the first day and a half, Hindus decided that they needed to defend themselves. In a single spate of violence, one can possibly understand why the Muslim mob and their own narrative prevails over all else. First and foremost, the Muslims have the street-veto. While we Hindus trend hashtags and write articles (like I am writing this one) to boycott brands when an ad insulting their faith is published, Muslims take to the streets demanding the ‘blasphemes’ head on a platter. When Kamlesh Tiwari insulted the ‘Prophet’, Muslims took out marches on the roads screaming at the top of their lungs – ‘Gustakh-e-rasool ki sazaa, sar tan se juda’. Now, one could say that both Hindus and Muslims are only screaming into the empty, gaping hole without any tangible effect on the ground or on the brotherhood between Hindus and Muslims. However, while Hindus failed to even cancel the individuals insulting their faith, the Muslim radicals beheaded Tiwari and sent a chilling message to the Hindus. It is a function of this street veto that no law seems to control the menace of Islamism. The worldview of significant sections of the Muslim community make it quite difficult, and in certain cases impossible, to implement law and order in ghettos where they are the overwhelming majority. There is significant resistance towards the implementation of law and order in these areas and a lot of these places are ‘no-go zones’ even for the Police. In such a scenario, the police also focus on arresting the ‘blaspheme’ rather than those threatening to behead a man for saying something mildly uncomfortable. Which government would want to deal with the pressure of acting against an innately violent community after they have beheaded a man? Would it not be simply to arrest the one who offends the barbarian than to tame to barbarian himself? It is a cowardly cop-out, but one that States take to deal with an unnamable Asura that no law, no civilisation has been able to contain. While the Muslim hoards exercise their street veto and make the State bend to their violent whims, journalists like Rana Ayyub give them spectacular covering fire. After the rampant violence that the Muslim extremists indulge in and have indulged in, Rana Ayyub chooses to follow the path of Mahatma Gandhi. She tells the Hindus that she simply can’t stop thinking about the restraint displayed by the radicals. When they could murder 500, they murdered only 50. When they could balkanise the nation, they only burnt a state or two. When they could make harems with women won as war-booty, they raped only a few thousand Hindu women. The bigotry of low expectations shines through so bright, that the Hindus almost gets blinded into believing that they owe a debt of gratitude to the Muslim mobs for not annihilating them completely. In Bangladesh today, the Hindus are being attacked for simply being Hindu and exercising their right to worship. Their basic right to worship Maa Durga when she descends on earth to bless her children. As the Muslim mobs exercise their street veto, the Hindus beg for mercy. They say if the Muslims don’t want, they will stop worshipping Maa, but the State must save them. The State, in turn, watches on as impotent bystanders because they rather let the barbarian run amuck than deal with the harsh reality that the beast of Islamism would need a Maa Durga to be tamed. As Hindus get massacred, soon, the narrative would begin the emerge. Hindus in Bangladesh are being murdered not because Islamists hate Kafirs, but because some miscreant who wants to tarnish the brotherhood between Hindus and Muslims floated a rumour that the Quran was desecrated. Not all Muslims are bad. They did not go on a rampage because they hate Hindus. They did so because they were misled. Because their fragile feelings were hurt. They would never hurt Hindus if their faith had not been hurt. Do you say it has happened before? That they desecrate Hindu festivals every year? Do you want to remind people of the Bhola massacre? They must have had their reasons, for sure. They love peace. Don’t blame them. Be thankful that they stopped eventually. Be thankful that they did not kill them all. Be thankful that they are.. peaceful.

Explore Nupur J Sharma’s insights on Bharatiya history, Civilisational issues the preservation of Hindu cultural identity. Civilisational Advocacy There is no better teacher than History in determining the future. History shows that progressively, a violent minority has strengthened the legislative, judicial and societal cover it gets to assert its religious supremacy aspirations. These aspirations are often negotiated after a violent, vehement and shameless assertion of street veto. While Hindus, bit by bit, cede to assuage the urge to cement the aspiration of religious supremacy, the Abrahamics harbor unbridled and unfettered hatred for their very existence, confirming to the prescriptions of the doctrines that they follow. While Hindus dream of peace and brotherhood, their History is being whitewashed, genocides watered down and rights being snatched away by brute street veto and the complicity not only of the media and the intelligentsia, but also of a deracinated state. Bharat is being catapulted towards Khilafat 2.0 and Hindus are somewhere in the 100 year timeframe preceding the Genocide of Hindus which was a direct result of the Khilafat movement and Muslim separatism. It took 100 years of low-level violence for thousands of Hindus to be systematically murdered. A strong, confident, sovereign Hindu India is perhaps the only thing that has the potential to stop the balkanisation of Bharat, A Hindu nation, built on Hindu ethos. The Hindus’ collective right to retain the cultural, religious and ethical integrity of the only land they have has to be held sacrosanct – legislatively, judicially and socially. This is, perhaps, the one lesson that history is screaming out, waiting for Hindus to hear. Civilisational Advocacy Play Video Play Video 01:19:22 Nupur J Sharma Robert Spencer talks about the global menace of Jihad Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is the author of nineteen books and an authority on radical Islamism and the threat posed by Jihad Play Video Play Video 01:11:49 Navonmesh नवोन्मेष वैचारिक मंथन कार्यक्रम - श्रीमती नुपूर जे. शर्मा जी नवोन्मेष फाउंडेशन द्वारा आयोजित "वैचारिक मंथन" कार्यक्रम में उपस्थित हुए सैंकड़ों लोगों को श्रीमती नुपूर जे. शर्मा जी ने हिंदू धर्म में महिलाओं के अधिकार को लेकर किया संबोधित। #navonmesh #navonmeshjaipur #navonmeshjaipur2023 #नवोन्मेष #वैचारिक_मंथन #वैचारिक_मंथन_कार्यक्रम #hindutva #hinduecosystem Play Video Play Video 01:16:44 Sangam Talks Khilafat 2.0: The Untold History of 200 Years of Hindu Persecution & What Lies Ahead | #SangamTalks Political analyst reveals shocking patterns of violence spanning 200 years of Indian history. Discover how the Khilafat movement connects to modern conflicts and learn why understanding this history is crucial for India's future. The speaker exposes systematic persecution while revealing uncomfortable truths about partition, communal violence, and constitutional bias. Essential viewing for anyone seeking to understand the real dynamics behind India's communal tensions. *Key Points* - Tracing violence patterns from 1840s Moplah riots to modern Delhi riots - Khilafat movement's lasting impact on Indian Muslim politics - Constitutional and policy solutions for Hindu protection - Media narratives vs historical ground realities *Concepts explored* - Malabar genocide, two-nation theory, religious pluralism, Ummah concept, population exchange, street veto politics, Islamic fundamentalism, Hindu civilizational state, partition history, communal violence patterns *About The Speaker* Nupur J Sharma is a management graduate from Symbiosis. After running her business for years, she decided to leave that behind. She has been the editor in chief of OpIndia for the past 5 years and her prime focus is documenting persecution of Hindus. She has published a fact-finding report on the Delhi anti-Hindu riots of 2020 which is available on Kindle. She has also done seminal work in documenting the persecution of Hindus across the globe. Articles: https://www.opindia.com/author/unsubtledesi/ Delhi Anti-Hindu Riots 2020, The Macabre Dance of Violence Since December 2019: An OpIndia Report : https://www.amazon.in/-/hi/Nupur-J-Sharma-ebook/dp/B08DNNWNXR/ *Topics covered* 00:00:00: Introduction: Khilafat 2.0 and Contemporary Parallels 00:03:45: Historical Roots: 1840s Moplah Violence and Ottoman Influence on Indian Muslims 00:15:30: Khilafat Movement 1919-1922: Gandhi's Support and Malabar Hindu Genocide 00:28:45: Partition Analysis: Why Muslims Stayed in India and IUML's True Purpose 00:42:15: Modern Patterns: 2019-2022 Violence from Hauz Qazi to Kanhaiya Lal Murder 00:56:20: Constitutional Critique: Secularism vs Hindu Civilizational State 01:08:30: Solutions Framework: Specific Laws Against Islamic Fundamentalism 01:14:25: Concluding Analysis: Recognizing Khilafat 2.0 and Future Preparedness Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3nhAUpe7aBm1rFCBgoWWcA/join Join our YouTube channel to get updated on new video releases: SangamTalks : https://www.youtube.com/@SangamTalks SangamTalks Hindi : https://www.youtube.com/@SangamTalksHindi SangamTalks Business : https://www.youtube.com/@SangamBusiness SangamTalks Punjabi : https://www.youtube.com/@SangamTalksPunjabi SangamTalks Tamil : https://www.youtube.com/@SangamTalksTamizh SangamTalks Malayalam : https://www.youtube.com/@sangamtalksmalayalam SangamTalks Bangla : https://www.youtube.com/@SangamTalksBangla SangamTalks Marathi : https://www.youtube.com/@SangamTalksMarathi SangamTalks Kannada : https://www.youtube.com/@sangamTalkskannada SangamTalks Bhojpuri : https://www.youtube.com/@SangamTalksBhojpuri SangamTalks Clips : https://www.youtube.com/@SangamTalksMedia SangamTalks Shorts : https://www.youtube.com/@SangamTalksShorts For updates you may follow us on: Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/sangamtalks Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/sangamtalks/ Telegram : https://t.me/sangamtalks Twitter : https://twitter.com/sangamtalks Whatsapp : https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va95hH77z4kb3h4JaD1s Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/company/sangamtalks Website : https://www.sangamtalks.org Donate : https://www.sangamtalks.org/donate #KhilafatMovement #HinduGenocide #MalabarRiots #TwoNationTheory #IslamicFundamentalism #HinduCivilizationalState #PartitionHistory #CommunalViolence #ConstitutionalBias #ReligiousPluralism #UmmahnConcept #PoliticalIslam #IndianHistory #HindutvaAcademics #BreakingIndiaForces #HistoricalNarratives Play Video Play Video 01:06:44 Nupur J Sharma The Places of Worship Act and how the reclaim Kashi, Mathura J Sai Deepak talks about the Places of Worship Act and how to reclaim Kashi and Mathura Play Video Play Video 16:23 Stop! HinduDvesha Ms. Nupur Sharma, Editor - Op India, speaks on Hindudvesha Ms. Nupur Sharma, Editor of OpIndia, speaking at the International Conference on UNDERSTANDING HINDUDVESHA IN THE GLOBALIZING WORLD, at the Constitution Club, Delhi, April 1, 2023 Play Video Play Video 01:01:48 Pondy Lit Fest Our Inexorable Laws Justice Jaichandren, Navdeep Singh, Sandhya Jain, Swati Goel Sharma, Nupur Sharma, J Sai Deepak (Chair) Play Video Play Video 03:13 SangamTalks Media History of Moplah riots against Hindus | Nupur J Sharma | #sangamshorts Main talk link: https://youtu.be/UFusz7PoOiE Talk title: Khilafat 2.0 Speaker: Nupur J Sharma Join our newsletter for getting updates on upcoming lectures: https://www.sangamtalks.com/subscribe Join our YouTube video channel for learning about new video releases: Hindi : https://www.youtube.com/sangamhindi English : https://www.youtube.com/c/SangamTalks Tamil : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH3afXBAYabOqTIi4uKFbZg Punjabi : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiJdh1RmnQIYnGERJ2jAFCA Bhojpuri : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVQERR3gS0PmEDHKUgCW9LA Marathi : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPmqDkiFNgGs95D3g6mBcmg Malayalam : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMVssln7NCnwv88-UVMtNpw Shorts : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1a89nobV2ozUlFpDhp7QIw Bangla : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8ehxDugiAxBxPLsZNTM_rQ For updates you may follow us on: Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/sangamtalks Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/sangamtalks/ Telegram : https://t.me/sangamtalks Twitter : https://twitter.com/sangamtalks Koo : https://www.kooapp.com/profile/sangamtalks Website : https://www.sangamtalks.org Donate : https://www.sangamtalks.org/donate Play Video Play Video 22:34 Nupur J Sharma Editor in Chief, Nupur J Sharma, talks on the anniversary of anti-Hindu Delhi Riots Nupur J Sharma talks on the anniversary of the Delhi anti-Hindu riots at an event organised by GIA (Group of Intellectuals and Academicians). Media Speech is power, speech is to persuade. This section featured select TV appearances, speeches, talks, Q&As and videos. Explore

While Maktoob acknowledges that it was a "rumour", it failed to include in their report that the rumour was also spread by Islamists themselves and then, this rumour was used to justify the violence. Nuh violence: How the media crafts a narrative to whitewash violence unleashed by Islamists and blame Hindus instead While Maktoob acknowledges that it was a "rumour", it failed to include in their report that the rumour was also spread by Islamists themselves and then, this rumour was used to justify the violence. Nupur J Sharma 1 August 2023 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Mewat violence, image via NDTV On 31st July, almost 4000 Hindus participated in a Jalabhishek Yatra by Vishwa Hindu Parishad. The religious procession came under attack by an Islamist mob in Nuh, Haryana. While Hindus were trapped in a hostage-like situation, news emerged that two home guards have been killed in the violence unleashed by Islamists during the Jalabhishek Yatra on a Shravan Somvar, the auspicious Monday of the Sravan month. The police told OpIndia that one of the home guards was killed in the stone pelting by Islamists while the other was shot dead when the violence by Islamists was unleashed. Speaking to OpIndia, VHP also informed that several temples had come under attack in the Nuh area of Mewat after the Islamists unleashed premeditated violence against Hindus. One video which went viral on social media was a Hindu talking about how a Temple had come under attack and how the Islamists had burnt alive 3 Hindus. It was a live video that was uploaded on Instagram. There were several other videos and pictures that emerged which showed the extent of the violence unleashed by Islamists. VHP has claimed that almost 30 temples came under attack in Nuh, however, the police have not confirmed the exact number of temples that were attacked. VHP also said that the violence was planned and that the stones and bricks had been collected by the Islamists at least 2 days in advance. OpIndia was told that they were using Bajrang Dal activist ‘Monu Manesar’ as an excuse to spread fake news and incite violence. Interestingly, almost on cue, several Islamists on Twitter started sharing an old video of Monu Manesar alias Mohit Yadav, claiming that he was present at the Shobha Yatra and therefore, the violence erupted. This, however, turned out to be false. OpIndia did a detailed fact-check confirming that the video was from last year and that Monu Manesar was not present at the religious procession. Essentially, the Islamists seem to have meticulously planned to unleash violence against a Hindu religious procession that takes place every year. The police have confirmed that the procession had the required permission from the police. After unleashing planned violence against thousands of Hindus, they started spreading fake news on Twitter claiming that the violence was unleashed because of the presence of Monu Manesar. This turned out to be fake since Manesar was not present at the procession at all. The media extended all the help to the Islamists to blame the victims after the violence The media, on its part, ensured that they extend help to the Islamists to blame the victims after unleashing violence against devotees. Maktoob media, the Islamist portal which had tried to shield Islamists during the JNU violence after anti-CAA protests and the Delhi anti-Hindu riots, peddling fake news regularly, published two reports on the issue that deserve a harder look. Their first report on the issue was headlined, “Haryana: 1 killed, 5 injured as clashes breakout during VHP rally in Nuh”. The headline itself hinted that the rally turned violent, essentially insinuating that it was the Hindus who were a part of the religious procession turned violent. Note how in the headline they fail to even acknowledge that it was a religious procession. The first part of their report also fails to identify the “rally” as a religious procession. It further repeats the trope that the rally itself turned violent, not that it was attacked from the outside, insinuating that it was the Hindus who unleashed violence and not the Islamists – this, when 2500-4000 Hindus were stuck in a hostage-like situation for hours in a temple, rescued only on Tuesday morning. In the report, they also inserted the Monu Manesar angle, further claiming that the Muslims were opposing Manesar being a part of the procession because it would “disturb harmony”. They write, “The violence broke out around Monday noon when around half-a-dozen vehicles carrying devotees reached Nuh Chowk leading to rumors that Monu Manesar was inside one of the vehicles”. While Maktoob acknowledges that it was a “rumour”, it failed to include in their report that the rumour was also spread by Islamists themselves and then, this rumour was used to justify the violence. Manesar was not a part of the procession. But even if we assume for a moment that he was, it is interesting that Islamists used that as an excuse to unleash mass-level, planned violence against Hindus, attack on Temples and holding almost 4000 devotees hostage. They used this to even justify the murder of 2 home guards and several Hindus who were injured. Here are some images of Hindus who were seriously injured during the violence which was unleashed by Islamists. Injured person in Nuh violence Injured person in Nuh violence Here is a video of an injured Hindu after the mob violence by Islamists. This is the condition of Hindus due to a mere rumour that one individual would be present at a religious procession that was attended by thousands. And the rumour is being used to paint the Muslims as the victims and whitewash the unbridled violence which was unleashed against Hindus on a religious procession and the attack on temples. Yogendra Yadav, who was also involved in the planning stages of the Delhi anti-Hindu riots “reacted” to the violence and blamed the Hindus instead. This quote was used by Maktoob media to further shield the Muslim mob. In the first paragraph of the report, Maktoob writes, “As the violence broke out during a procession organized by the right-wing group Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) in Haryana’s Nuh district on Monday, it quickly escalated to other parts of the state, including Gurugram, where a Hindutva mob set a mosque on fire and fired gunshots”. First and foremost, they brand the mob Hindutva while they failed to identify who started the violence in Nuh. Then, even in their first paragraph, they fail to mention that the violence was started by the Muslims and give the impression that the attack on the mosque is also a part of the same violence that was done by the Hindus in Nuh, while it was the Muslims who started the violence. It is pertinent to note that the under-construction building, which is a disputed structure and the case is in court, was set ablaze in Gurgaon after the violence spread to Sohna Chown on the 31st of July. Investigation is underway and the police have not ascertained details. There are some Hindus and Muslims who have been detained by the police. While the first report failed to mention Temples being under attack, the second report mentioned a mosque. While the first report failed to identify Islamists and even justified the violence by a Muslim mob, the second report targeted Hindus without giving context to the violence being initiated by the Muslim mob in Nuh. It is evident that the aim of Islamist and Leftist media is to create confusion and shield the Islamists who attacked thousands of Hindus in Nuh. Maktoob media is just one of the foot soldiers shielding the mob and normalizing violence against Hindus.

Ahimsa, essentially, is doing everything to stop Himsa. Ahimsa is not the absence of Himsa, but the use of Sam, Dam, Danda, Bhed to achieve peace. We could see Rahul Gandhi's speech today in the parliament as just another Hinduphobic rant. Or we could see it for what it was - an attempt to keep the Hindu community ashamed and guilty. India has suffered the consequences of the apotheosis of one Gandhi - we certainly cannot afford another blunder. As Rahul Gandhi equates Hinduism with Ahimsa, time to remember why Hindus must not fall for 'another Gandhi' Ahimsa, essentially, is doing everything to stop Himsa. Ahimsa is not the absence of Himsa, but the use of Sam, Dam, Danda, Bhed to achieve peace. We could see Rahul Gandhi's speech today in the parliament as just another Hinduphobic rant. Or we could see it for what it was - an attempt to keep the Hindu community ashamed and guilty. India has suffered the consequences of the apotheosis of one Gandhi - we certainly cannot afford another blunder. Nupur J Sharma 1 July 2024 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Calling it as one sees it is a burden that some bear. While it is often branded a virtue, for me, it has been a physiological reflex, often, much to my detriment. It is almost as if I am simply incapable of shutting up, even when shutting up would certainly have its rewards. One subject that I have, yet again, refused to shut up about and invited the anger of many fellow Hindus, is the merciless defanging of the Hindu community by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. I genuinely and truly believe that the bane of the Hindu community was internalising the lessons of misplaced Ahimsa, predominantly spoon-fed by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi – a man who was ‘christened’, quite literally, as a messiah. The internalised guilt inflicted on the community even when it wanted to defend itself crippled us for generations and to date, we pay the price for trading our right to survival for brotherhood – a sentiment that is delicately nursed by carefully inculcated delusions. I have, of course, been conferred with several not-so-flattering titles for the views I hold on the issue. In fact, I have often had arguments with my colleague Rahul Roushan on the subject as well. While I believe MK Gandhi was the Hindu community’s undoing, Rahul seems to be far more forgiving. He has repeatedly asserted that he forgives MK Gandhi for his shenanigans because he was a practicing Hindu and was not Hinduphobic – like Nehru, for example. While I insist that MK Gandhi and the ideals he professed must be torn down and dethroned, Rahul believes that Hindus gain nothing by demonising Gandhi and is willing to let him have the throne along with others who perhaps deserve the pedestal. I had just about moved on from MK Gandhi and started to shift my focus to Dr BR Ambedkar when I heard another ‘Gandhi’ trying the same tricks that MK Gandhi employed, only in a far more sinister manner. Rahul Gandhi in the parliament said , “Modi ji said once that India has never attacked any other country. There is a reason for that. Because this country is a country of Ahimsa (non-violence), this country is not a country of fear. So all our great personalities spoke about Ahimsa, spoke about removing fear… daro mat, darao mat… and on the other hand, Shiv ji says daro mat, darao mat, shows the Abhay Mudra, talks about Ahimsa and buries his Trishul on the ground. And the people who call themselves Hindus talk about violence, hate and lies 24 hours. You are not a Hindu. In Hinduism, it is clearly mentioned that one should stand with the truth…”. After this, Rahul Gandhi randomly held out his hand to show the Abhay Mudra (essentially, claiming that it was the Congress hand symbol). Now, we know this rant by Rahul Gandhi is insidious. We know it is sinister. But my reaction to Rahul Gandhi’s rant this time was far more circumspect. I found myself not dismissing him as a blithering fool, but instead, trying to put his speech in context – historical and contemporary. For those who support PM Modi politically, their immediate reaction would be to say that Rahul Gandhi insulted the entire Hindu community by claiming that Hindus only talk about violence and hate. Of course, this is the simplest interpretation of what he said. I, however, believe there is more to it. There are two specific components to what Rahul Gandhi said in the parliament. First, Hinduism’s core tenet is that of non-violence. The other is that Modi does not represent all Hindus – this he said after PM Modi made a rare intervention saying that Rahul Gandhi’s characterisation of all Hindus as a people who espouse violence is a serious matter. Both these components were meant to specifically cater to disgruntled Modi supporters and the young voter – who is fed the “Sabarmati ke sant” delusion as a matter of state policy. As for the second component, I believe it is meant to specifically cater to the ‘disgruntled Hindu voter’ – a segment that has started to look beyond PM Modi for a resolution to Hindu issues. This disgruntled voter believes that the political support base has started hyphenating PM Modi and Hindu issues, often sacrificing the latter for the interest of the former. For both these segments, it is essential to see through the sinister, British-esque designs of Rahul Gandhi. Ahimsa – a central tenet of Hinduism? One of the first instances when Hindus were defanged by the British was with the passage of The Indian Arms Act 1878. Right after the revolt of 1857, the British, petrified of another armed resistance to their occupations, passed a law that barred Indians from carrying firearms without a license. The British understood that their best chance to continue their occupation of Bharat was through the de-arming and de-fanging of Hindus. The de-arming and neutering of Hindus to ensure minimum resistance to their own subjugation became a template – followed not only by the British and MK Gandhi but continued to this day by the party created by the British – the Congress party. Rahul Gandhi, quite confidently, spoke about Ahimsa being the central tenet of Sanatan Dharma – as if those who pick up weapons to defend themselves and/or the community are committing a cardinal sin. One can’t possibly blame him for his narrow view of Sanatan Dharma, given his Christian mother must have imparted the hollow punchlines that come with religious moral science lectures in Catholic schools as the gospel truth – at least theoretically, which is never followed by the faithful but prove as a great tool for religious brainwashing by inculcating a false sense of moral superiority. Sanatan Dharma has an illustrious history and the Kshatra tradition which revolves around the destruction of evil and is far from the neutered, comatose version of Hinduism that Congress wants to peddle for their own political gains. One of the primary root words of Kshatra is ‘himsayam’ which relates to the Kshatra’s duty to destroy evil. The etymological explanation of the word Kshatra is, in itself, “one who protects from harm and injury”, the fundamental quality of the Kshatra being to protect Dharma and therefore, the Kshatra-guna itself is related to protection – by force – if necessary. The pacifists, who follow the path shown by MK Gandhi, often feel squeamish because they believe the Kshatra-guna relates to the promotion of violence, however, that is, again, only a result of the historical brainwashing – a political project to knock Hindus down and keep them there so the pliable community can accept their own subjugation without putting up a fight. It is, therefore, said that “without the element of protection, Matsya-Nyaya (big fish eat little fish) would prevail”. It is the eternal Sanatan wisdom that says that if there has to be order, there has to be punishment and only if there is punishment, will order emerge. Kamandakiya – Nitisara , in fact, opens with the praise of the King who holds the sceptre to mete out punishment to maintain order. In the book Ksattra, the authors write, “Among the Vedas, the Rig-veda has been associated with Brahmanas, Yajur-veda with Kṣattriyas, and Sama-veda with Vaisyas. The Yajur-veda has been hailed as an action-oriented, ritual-intensive Veda; while Rig-veda is more aligned to prayer, Sama-veda is aligned to worship, and Atharva-veda forms a bridge between the physical and the spiritual. Yajur-veda is a symbol of kṣättra, of the protection of the good, and of destruction of enemies. The upa-veda associated with Yajur-veda is Artha-Veda (or Dhanur-veda). While explaining a mantra, the commentator Mahīdāsa says, “Dhanur-veda (archery) is the science of war.” Through the Dhanur-veda we see the entire system of war. Yajñas like Rajasuya, Sautramani, Vajapeya, and Aśva- medha that are described in the Yajur-veda are famous as kṣāttra-yajñas. The Vajapeya-Yaga is for preparing various units of the army in order to reclaim lost land. The Sautrāmani-Yaga is for bringing allies together. The Rajasuya-yaga is conducted when an emperor is born or created. The Aśva-medha is for expanding the kingdom and establishing sovereign status over a large portion of land. We see unbridled kṣättra in all these yajñas. There are elements of kṣättra even in the traditional practices related to worship and invoking the Supreme. The unfortunate situation today is that a worship of cowardice has entered military science. We have infused our military with a narrow, ritualistic mindset, thus sapping bravery and energy. However, our Vedic rşis brought an element of kṣättra even in worship and ritual”. It is, therefore, evident that Sanatan has a strong, illustrious tradition of Kshatra – where force and punishment are used to restore Dharma, protect the weak, and defend the ideals we hold dear. Nowhere in the Yajur-Veda, or any Veda, is Ahimsa in its bastardized, Gandhi version mentioned – it is only an illusion, a grand lie, sold to Hindus to ensure they remain guilty, neutered, and defenceless. What betrays the Janeudhari version of himself which Rahul Gandhi projects, is his absolute infantile interpretation of Shiva. To allude that Mahadev buried his Trishul because he believed in Gandhi’s Ahimsa is not just infantile but asinine. Mahadev, is quite literally, the God of Destruction and anyone who is a practicing Hindu would certainly not propagate that he destroys with Ahimsa. The Shivlinga itself is a manifestation of Raudra. His Avatars, like Kaal Bhairav, represent the annihilation of time and preservation of the universe – a symbol of fearlessness, the guardian of Temples, the destroyer of enemies and evil spirits. Of course, there is spiritual symbolism of the Trishul which represents the Nadis, levels of consciousness, and more, however, Rahul Gandhi’s reductionist interpretation of Shiva and his Trishul to talk about some binary of Gandhi-esque pacifism is so outlandish that one has to wonder how someone so oblivious of Sanatan Dharma can even have the confidence to talk about the tenets of the faith. In his supreme confidence, which is, unfortunately, the hallmark of the unlettered, Rahul Gandhi wanted to present Sanatan Dharma as some sort of a hippy cult where its participants are high on some form of hallucinogens, lying around in their comatose stupor, talking about universal peace. In reality, Sanatan has a long tradition of Akharas where community defence was one of the fulcrums of collective survival. Yes, Sanatan Dharma guides every shade and stage of existence. From prosperity to happiness, satisfaction, love, peace – inner and community, punya, karma, moksha, and more – however – it does not look down upon self and community defence, it does not glamourise pacifism and cowardice – in fact – it draws lessons from wars fought for the preservation of Dharma and honour. Non-violence: An age-old political project to keep Hindus neutered and subjugated I believe the very existence of the Hindu community hinges on one simple question – Do we wish to emulate MK Gandhi or Gopal Patha – in the face of aggression and violence? In 1946, the massacre of Hindus in Bengal was rather intricately planned. Jinnah is recalled having said that he would either have India divided or India burnt and that he had given up on Constitutional methods to demand the creation of Pakistan. Jinnah had chosen the 16th of August as Direction Action Day because it was the 18th day of Ramzan, the day when the Battle of Badr was fought and won – a war fought by Prophet Muhammad himself, against the Kaffirs, and is considered to be won by Allah’s divine intervention by Muslims. The battle led to the violent occupation of Mecca. On the 16th of August, Calcutta was littered with posters lionizing Jinnah and reminding Muslims that they had to follow the footsteps of the Prophet. It is reported that Syed Muhammad Usman, mayor of Calcutta, had issued a widely circulated leaflet that said: Kafer! Toder dhongsher aar deri nei! Sarbik hotyakando ghotbei! (Infidels! Your end is not far away! You will be massacred!). The aim was to make Bengal ‘land of the pure’ and rid it of the Kaffirs (Hindus). The aim was to wage another Battle of Badr, in which the Muslims would conquer the heathens. What followed on the 16th right after the Jumma Namaz is Muslims going on a rampage, beheading Hindus, chopping their limbs off, and raping Hindu women. Several women were taken as sex slaves by those who were fighting with the religious fervour of the Battle of Badr. In the Kesoram Cotton Mills at Lichubagan in the Muslim-dominated Metiabruz area, Muslim mobs entered and beheaded over 600 labourers. The Hindus, neutered and asked by Gandhi to die with a smile on their face hardly fought back. There was a mass exodus from Bengal that marked millions fleeing because the massacre seemed too brutal to fight against. During the Direct Action Day, on the 17th of August after 2 days of Hindus being massacred, Gopal Chandra Mukhopadhyay rose like a phoenix. Gopal Patha (Patha means ‘lamb’. He was called so because he ran a mutton shop) had already founded the Bharat Jatiya Bahini, an organization of young men to help fellow citizens during a natural calamity. On the 17th, Gopal Patha turned from a philanthropist to a warrior, ready to defend his people. Throughout the night, Gopal Patha, along with his young men from the Bharat Jayati Bahini worked on a plan on how they could defend Hindus from the Muslim barbarians. The Marwaris offered finances, others spent the night making weapons for them. Muslim League chief minister of Bengal, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy , and the Muslim League goons had decided on the 17th that they were going to take two more days to complete the annihilation of Hindus. But they had not taken into consideration their greatest roadblock. Gopal Patha. From the 18th to the 20th, Gopal Patha and his men put up a brave fight, paying the Muslim League goons back in equal measure, if not more. Historian Sandip Bandopadhyay wrote, “They faced resistance everywhere. Hindu youths counter-attacked with such ferocity that the Muslim League men had to flee. Many were killed. Emboldened by their success in taking on and defeating their Islamist attackers, Hindu youths took the fight to Muslim-majority areas and started killing Islamist men. They did not, however, touch Muslim women and children or the aged and the infirm”. During the Noakhali riots, countless Hindus were raped and murdered. The converted Hindus were made to write declarations that they had accepted Islam out of their free will and Hindus in the 2000 square mile area were made to pay the Jaziya. When MK Gandhi visited Naokhali, he was rebuked by the Muslim League and after that, he travelled to Bihar to stop the retaliatory violence by the Hindus. There, he is famed to have said that Hindus must leave Noakhali or die – this, because the Muslim League had asked him to quell the violence, the same Muslim League that was raping Hindu women, beheading Hindu women, and waging a war against Kaffirs. MK Gandhi famously asked Gopal Patha to lay his weapons down and surrender. Gopal Patha refused. He refused to give into Gandhi’s pacifism to appease the murderous Jihadis. He refused to give into the delusion that surrendering, being cowardly, and dying with a smile on his face was a virtue. Gopal Patha upheld the tenets of Sanatan Dharma – he preserved Dharma. He protected Dharma. He protected Hindus. He did not give up. In fact, while MK Gandhi wanted Gopal Patha to lay down his weapons, in the same year in a prayer meeting, he advised the women in East Bengal to commit suicide by poison or some other means to avoid dishonour. He told the women to suffocate themselves or to bite their tongues to end their lives. In 1921, while the Malabar Muslims were slaughtering Hindus, raping women and forcefully converting Hindus, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi insisted that they had committed a sin against the “Khilafat movement” and not the Hindus. In fact, he went ahead and insisted that Hindus must remain “non-violent” in the face of “extreme provocation”. While Hindus and Sikhs were being massacred and raped in Pakistan right after the partition, MK Gandhi said , “Hindus and Sikhs should become brave and show that even if all the Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan were to be killed there would be no retaliation in India. I do not want to live to see our people copy Pakistan. If I am to live I shall ask every Hindu and every Sikh not to touch a single Muslim. It is cowardice to kill Muslims and we must become brave and not cowards”. On April 6, 1947, Mr. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi said– “If Muslims want to kill us (Hindus), we must face death bravely. Hindus should not harbour anger in their hearts against Muslims even if the latter wanted to destroy them. If they established their rule after killing Hindus we would be ushering in a new world by sacrificing our (Hindu) lives”. There was, indeed, a running theme in what Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi told Hindus. He repeatedly told Hindus that their faith taught them to surrender to evil, murderous mobs who were raping, beheading, murdering, and dishonouring them. He repeatedly told Hindus that his pacifism was a manifestation of the very essence of Sanatan Dharma and if Hindus so much as dared to defend themselves, they would be going against the tenets of their faith. MK Gandhi told Hindus that cowardice was in fact bravery and bravery was betrayal. He truly and genuinely wanted Hindus to believe that by being cowardly and surrendering to evil unquestioningly, Hindus would be doing the greatest service to this land with Hindu consciousness because that is what Hinduism stood for. This glorification of cowardice as a virtue, only for Hindus, was diligently furthered as a political project. It was, and still is, accepted wisdom that as long as Hindus are kept under the spell of Ahimsa, the community would give up their bargaining power with the state. For the ultimate retention of political power, it is no secret that the most violent, the most demanding, and the most petulant community has to be kept in good humour. When they get offended, and go on a murderous rampage after Hindus respond with Rangeela Rasool to books insulting Hindus, they need to be kept in good humour by the passage of a special law. When they want to establish a Caliphate in Turkey, they need to be pacified with unquestioning surrender by the Hindu community, willing to be beheaded with a smile on their face. Rahul Gandhi today did exactly what the political class has done for centuries – twist Sanatan Dharma to convince Hindus that their cowardice is considered a virtue and if they are TRUE Hindus, they would surrender, give in – and die with a smile on their face. It is this political project that leads to the demonisation of Hindutva, the vilification of Raudra Hanuman, the angst at Bhagwan Ram with a bow and arrow, the screaming, screeching uproar at the Ayodhya movement, the aversion to the Ram Temple, the anger at the demystification of history and the unadulterated hate against Hindu organizations – all of it remind Hindus that they are a warrior race, not a herd of sheep who should be led to their slaughter. Ahimsa, essentially, is doing everything to stop Himsa. Ahimsa is not the absence of Himsa, but the use of Sam, Dam, Danda, and Bhed to achieve peace. We could see Rahul Gandhi’s speech today in the parliament as just another Hinduphobic rant. Or we could see it for what it was – an attempt to keep the Hindu community ashamed and guilty. India has suffered the consequences of the apotheosis of one Gandhi – we certainly cannot afford another blunder.

As a member of the Hindu community, I do believe that 'justice' will forever elude the persecuted majority when the question before the court is that of collective rights. Perhaps the Hindu community as a collective would do well to follow the advice of Isaac Asimov who said, “people who don’t expect justice don’t have to suffer disappointment”. An open letter to Justice Joseph, which I hope he can read if he has stopped smiling at the calls for genocide of Brahmins and Hindus As a member of the Hindu community, I do believe that 'justice' will forever elude the persecuted majority when the question before the court is that of collective rights. Perhaps the Hindu community as a collective would do well to follow the advice of Isaac Asimov who said, “people who don’t expect justice don’t have to suffer disappointment”. Nupur J Sharma 30 March 2023 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Justice Joseph (Image credit: The Economic Times) Dear Justice Joseph, I hope you find the time to read this open letter since substantial time has passed and I am hoping you would have recuperated from your mirth over the calls for the genocide of Hindus and Brahmins. Hindus in general have always had unbound faith in the Judiciary. This is not evidence of the independence of the Judiciary or a testament to how the Judiciary has dispensed justice to 80% of Bharat’s population, but a result of the very idea of ‘Nyaya’ that Hindus believe in and the imagery it invokes for them. When Hindus in general think about Nyaya (Justice, though the English word hardly does ‘justice’ to the concept of Nyaya), Hindus are often transported to their reading of the Bhagavad Gita, with images of Shree Krishna and the great warrior Arjun. The respect for the Judiciary and Judges essentially stems from the ingrained imagery of those meant to dispense Nyaya and restore balance in an ordered, cultured, just, Dharmic society. One may call it the naivety of Hindus or the consequence of their Bhakti, but the respect for Judiciary stems from their Dharmic learnings and not necessarily the actions of the Court. Covering the Delhi Riots, I have pondered on the concept of Justice for a long time. What is Justice? It is said that Justice cannot be delivered but it should seem to have been delivered by the parties involved, which is to say that all parties must feel like they have received their rightful due when Nyaya is dispensed. In a complex society with varying moral standards, that is, of course, an illusion. In the Delhi Riots, the violence unleashed by the Muslim mob was seen as justifiable action by the conspirators of the violence because they believed they had enough reasons for mass action against Hindus. The Hindus, on the other hand, saw their violence and their genocidal rhetoric as an injustice and a sin, so to speak. In the end, the Muslim side would never believe that Justice was delivered to them unless the courts categorically lie and state that the riot, orchestrated for months by Islamists, was actually violence committed by the Hindus against Muslims. For the real victims, the Hindus, justice would never be delivered even if the perpetrators of the violence are punished. A Hindu shop owner, whose shop was burnt down, will refuse to testify because he fears the Muslim mob, his neighbours, would come back for retribution if he did. He will forever burn in the fire of injustice, being incapable of restoring balance and having nobody to speak for his rights. The mother of Dilbar Negi would be left without her son, forever, with his murderers being given undue concessions by the judiciary simply because the Muslim side’s idea of justice is vastly different and institutions are wired to cater to adharmic moral standards. Even if Dilbar Negi and Ankit Sharma’s murderers are punished, those who incited violence for over 3 months, leading to the anti-Hindu riots that claimed their lives, would go unpunished. The Muslim journalists (their words, not mine), the activists (their claim, not mine), the former Judges who whitewashed the purpose of the violence, and assorted participants in the monstrosity would live and prosper. That is no justice. Is Justice the ‘rule of law’ or does ‘justice’ have a more poetic disposition? Is ‘justice’ a long process where the written rule is followed to the letter, or is it the process to assign responsibility? Domitus Ulpian said ‘Justice is the constant and perpetual will to allot to every man his due’. That definition is perhaps one closest to what Dharmics believe and what the Bhagavad Gita teaches us. Every man gets his due. The fruit of one’s Karma and Dharma. Good or bad but just, nonetheless. Yesterday, you heard a contempt plea filed in a bunch of petitions seeking directions to regulate hate speech in the country. You, sir, along with Justice BV Nagarathna made significant observations while hearing the contempt plea filed against the Maharashtra government for allegedly failing to control hate speeches by Hindu organisations despite orders of the apex court. The significance of the observations made by you and your brother Judge is apparent by the ire it has received from Hindus across the spectrum. While I can’t possibly give you sermons on what the concept of Justice should be, the concept of Nyaya dictates that one is impartial, but is true in drawing the line between right and wrong and having drawn that line, has the courage to punish those in the wrong. While that is true, those who sit in authority dispensing ‘justice’ should, at least, start from a point of honest and impartial evaluation. Justice Joseph, I would humbly ask if you have questioned yourself and wondered if you dispensed your Dharma truthfully and started from a place of genuine inquiry rather than tainted prejudice. At the very outset, dare I say, you pronounced your judgement, or at least, hinted at what your judgement would be eventually. The derision and the condescension that the Hindu Samaj counsel had to withstand goes against the general moral fibre of the Judiciary and the principles that Judges claim to espouse. When the counsel said his plea was in the larger interest of Hindus, he was immediately a recipient of your ire. “So you are before us now and you are holding the rallies. Do you have right to break the law? Can you break law of land?”, you said. What happened next only proved that the cloth that covers the eyes of lady justice was opaque, not because she did not want to see who had come to her seeking justice, so she could be impartial, but because the truth was simply too much and looking away was easier. Here, you have asked what happens to the rights of minorities as envisioned by our founding fathers, that tolerance (you make it clear that tolerance means accepting differences and not just putting up with someone) is a legacy we have been handed down and that the Muslims chose this country to stay back in after the partition and their dignity must be upheld. You have also said that they are our brothers and sisters and that if one breaks the law, the law will tumble upon him like a ton of bricks. Proceedings as reported by Bar & Bench Proceedings as reported by Bar & Bench Proceedings as reported by Bar & Bench I truly believe that if Mahatma Gandhi were alive, he would have gladly ‘christened’ you, Justice Joseph as his worthy successor. I don’t disagree with what Justice Nagarathna said. Everyone has a right to conduct a rally but what happens in that rally is the point of contention, and why this same judiciary discarded that principle is something we will discuss further in this article. You, Justice Joseph, asked a pertinent question – what about the rights of the minorities as ‘envisaged by our founding fathers’? First and foremost, Bharat is an ancient civilisation. Perhaps the religious conflict we see today is because we haven’t turned mere mortals into the “founding fathers” of a civilisation founded and nurtured by the Gods. You then said that Tolerance is not putting up with somebody but accepting differences. What you said sounds great for rhetoric, but the actual definition of tolerance is ‘the capacity to endure pain or hardship’. Here, I agree with you. Hindus have developed immense tolerance since we became a nation-state. We tolerated the Naokhali genocide. We tolerated Direct Action Day. We tolerated the Malabar genocide of Hindus. We tolerated being told that we must die with a smile on our faces. We tolerated being held responsible for our own genocide. We tolerate, to this day, overlords denying us our rights. Only yesterday we reported that Hindus had been denied their right of holding the Ram Navami procession because a year ago, in Jahangirpuri, the right-less, offended, aggrieved minority had gone on a rampage against Hindus during Hanuman Jayanti. We tolerated our rights being taken away so they are not offended, My Lord. Yes. We are tolerant. We have a legacy, a recent legacy, but a legacy nonetheless, of tolerating injustice. That you ask us to respect that tainted legacy, is what hurts me as a Hindu. You say that Muslims chose to stay back in India and they are our brothers and sisters. We cannot hurt their dignity and self-respect. I agree with you, sir. If I may be so presumptuous, I would like to point out that you are talking not about tolerance but about pluralism – a concept that requires us to admit that every faith has a grain of truth to it and therefore, every faith is to be respected. Hindus have done their bit. Have those you protect extended that same courtesy? “The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation” – Not my words, sir. The words of one of our ‘founding fathers’ you referred to – Dr BR Ambedkar. He further said, “The realist must take note of the fact that the Musalmans look upon the Hindus as Kaffirs, who deserve more to be exterminated than protected. The realist must take note of the fact that while the Musalman accepts the European as his superior, he looks upon the Hindu as his inferior.” Here is another one – “whether the number of prominent Hindus killed by fanatic Muslims is large or small matters little. What matters is the attitude of those who count, towards these murderers. The murderers paid the penalty of law where the law is enforced. The leading Moslems, however, never condemned these criminals. On the contrary, they were hailed as religious martyrs, and agitation was carried on for clemency being shown to them. ” As for how the Muslims stayed back because they are our brothers, I am sure you know that is not entirely true. Numbers have proved otherwise. Evidence exists to the contrary. I would merely point you in the direction of this article and leave it at that. Nevertheless, it confused me that after saying to the Hindu Samaj counsel that you would stick to the contempt petition, you went ahead and issued factually and morally inaccurate sermons to him, Hindu Samaj and I presume Hindus in general. I won’t lie, however. While reading the report by Bar and Bench, I was momentarily swayed by your assertions of brotherhood and fraternity. I was tempted to shed everything I know to be factual and let go of all my anger against a community that has historically oppressed my people. Then, however, something happened that jolted me back to reality. After talking about the self-respect and dignity of the minority community and the brotherhood that we seemingly share, you almost justified the calls for genocide against my people. Proceedings as reported by Bar & Bench When SG Tushar Mehta pointed out that when hearing a matter on hate speech, one must also consider hate speeches made against the Hindu community, you smiled and your statement gave the impression that you, and your brother judge, were justifying those calls. I understand why SG Mehta brought it up – you were indicting one community for alienating another. When hate speech is evaluated based on religion, both sides must be heard. You, however, denied Hindus that opportunity. When Justice Nagarathna asked SG “why” the DMK leader said that “if you want equality, all Brahmins must be butchered”, he essentially asked what Brahmins or Hindus, in general, had done which forced the DMK leader to ask for their genocide. When you smiled and asked the SG if he knew who Periyar was, you essentially said that because Periyar wanted the genocide of Brahmins, the DMK leader asking for the same is justifiable. By the same logic sir, would you say that demand for the partition of India is justified because Jinnah wanted it too? Would you accept separatist calls as justified? If a Muslim calls for the genocide of Hindus saying that they should be bothered on the day the Battle of Badr was fought and won by Allah, would you smile and remind us of Jinnah to justify those calls? If an Islamist says that he has the right to butcher non-believers, would you then quote the Quran to say that his genocidal call is justified? You did not just stop there, sir. You went ahead and gave context to statements inciting the murder of Hindus by a proscribed terror outfit and blamed Hindus for these calls. Here is why I say this. Proceedings as reported by Bar & Bench Proceedings as reported by Bar & Bench When SG Mehta insisted that you see a video clip of a speech made at a PFI rally, calling for the genocide of Hindus, you refused. For your benefit, here is the content of the video that SG Mehta wanted you to watch: “Be ready for your death rituals if you won’t live in our land quietly. Be ready with rice flakes to fill your mouth, if you won’t live quietly (For Hindus ). Be ready to burn amber in your home if you won’t live quietly ( For Christians). Because we are coming, we are your death. We won’t go to Pakistan or Bangladesh, you have to live here as we say, or else we know how to make you live quietly, we will kill you even if we are attacked. We take pride in being a martyr, we salute them. If you won’t live quietly, we know how to ask for ‘Azadi’. Be prepared for your death,” the PFI members shouted in Malayalam. Furthermore, the mob also vowed to conduct ‘Sujood’ (a kind of prayer) in the disputed building of Babri Masjid at Ayodhya again. Also, they have decided to continue ‘Sujood’ in the disputed structure called ‘Gyanvapi Mosque’ which is built on the ruins of a temple in Varanasi. They said they are not leaving for Pakistan or Bangladesh and if they do so, they will take the Sangh Parivar along with them. “Will do Sujood in Babri Masjid again. We will do Sujood in Gyanvapi too. Insha Allah Insha Allah…Reminding you Sanghis..Won’t leave for Pakistan, won’t leave for Bangladesh. We will go to 6 feet down under instead. Sanghis, listen to us before we go, If we go, we will “take” you also with us,” said the protesters who attended the PFI demonstration. In the video, a boy could be heard raising the slogan, “Hindus should keep rice for their last rites, and Christians should keep incense for their last rites. If you live decently, you can live in our land, and if you don’t live decently properly, we know Azadi (freedom). Live decently, decently, decently.” People attending the rally were repeating the slogan. To this speech, Justice Joseph, you said that hate speech is a vicious cycle and that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. What you essentially hinted at here was that the speech calling for the genocide of Hindus and Christians was a reaction and therefore, justified. I would remind you that PFI is a banned terror outfit. You, with your comment, ended up blaming Hindus for the genocidal comments by a banned Islamic terror outfit. You then went on to repeat your incendiary remark when advocate Vishnu Jain mentioned the calls for Sar Tan Se Juda being given to Hindus over allegations of perceived “blasphemy”. At the insistence that the petitioner must include these hate speeches in his petition as well, given that he seems to be extremely concerned about fraternity, brotherhood, and peace, you called the submissions a “drama” and summarily moved on after calling the state impotent. As a citizen and a Hindu who has spent the better part of the last decade documenting hate speech and crimes against Hindus, sir, I have a few questions based on this exchange. I can only hope that an institution that believes that dissent is the safety valve of democracy would directly, or indirectly, provide an answer to my questions. 1. Earlier during the hearing, you had said, “if you break the law then the law will befall you like a tumble of bricks. If you want to become a superpower there has to be a rule of law”. I agree with you. I have for a long time advocated for the State to enforce its writ with force. Why did you abandon this principle completely when lawyers like SG Tushar Mehta, Vishnu Shankar Jain, and PV Yogeshwaran pointed towards calls for death, murder, and genocide being given to the Hindu community – individually or as a group of people, based on their religion? 2. When someone who is meant to dispense justice smiles at the mere mention of calls for Brahmin genocide and then proceeds to offer a justification for such calls based on what a politician said decades ago, do you truly believe you have the moral fortitude to be the arbiter of Nyaya. 3. If you truly believe that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, as an educated, ordained dispenser of Justice, would you say that Hindus taking out rallies against their rights being trampled by an intolerant community and demanding that the state takes appropriate action is also a reaction? Let me attempt to break this down. As 2022 drew to a close, at OpIndia, we attempted to analyse 153 cases of “Love Jihad” that we had reported. Every one of them had a religious angle where the Hindu woman was persecuted based on her religion. Some Muslim men pretended to be Hindu, Hindu women were force-fed beef, being converted to Islam or pressured to do so, cases of forced Halala, and so on. In the 153 cases, we saw that in 22 of these cases, the Muslim man had either force-fed beef to the Hindu woman, forced her to wear a hijab, or broken idols, stopping her from following her faith and converting to Islam. In 21 such cases, the Muslim man had threatened to make private videos public and in 3 cases, threatened the Hindu woman with beheading. Out of the 153 cases, 125 cases were those with adult victims whereas 28 were minor victims. Now, these are just the cases OpIndia managed to cover. There were several more that we missed or did not know about. This is just one year. Under the circumstances, wouldn’t it be fair to say that a rally by Hindus demanding an anti-conversion law in the state of Maharashtra is a justifiable reaction? I would certainly not say it is an “equal and opposite reaction”, thank God, but it is a justifiable one nonetheless. Let us take this further. I am sure you must have seen the video where two Islamists beheaded Kanhaiya Lal. The man who insulted Hindus’ faith and provoked Nupur Sharma into making that statement on television roams free today. Nupur Sharma’s life has been ruined forever. The court, at that time, blamed Nupur Sharma’s “loose tongue” for the murder of several people by Islamists. After losing hope in the State and the Judiciary in this case, if Hindus say that they will economically boycott the community murdering their brethren so that they can get the Islamists to maybe feel the consequence of going on murderous rampages, would you not consider that a “reaction” (still not an equal and opposite one). Why were the calls for genocide by DMK politicians and PFI terrorists considered a “reaction” by you but not the protests of the Hindu community? 4. When hate speech against Hindus was brought up in court, you said that the State was impotent in handling such hate speech on time. I agree with you, sir. The state is impotent when it comes to dealing with an intolerant minority. I have written extensively to that effect. But I have two questions. Firstly, when the State becomes impotent, citizens turn to the judiciary with the hope that their rights will be protected. Why were you more than happy to hear the pleas of a Muslim petitioner while dismissing those of Hindu lawyers representing Hindus demanding their rights? Secondly, by saying that the State is impotent and that they should have acted against hate speech against Hindus, you essentially insinuated that the court has no business getting into those aspects and that curtailing such genocidal calls is the job description of the state. If that is true, why did you not reach the same conclusion as far as the petition in question by a Muslim man is concerned? 5. You, Justice Joseph, believe it is your right to criticise the State where it errs and therefore deemed it appropriate to call the State impotent – an assessment I happen to agree with. However, if the unelected can call the elected impotent based on their morality, why is the court above questioning by ordinary citizens? Why does the court deem it appropriate to haul citizens over the coal over “contempt” charges when their opinions are questioned? The Supreme Court has in the past taken judicial notice of ‘off the cuff’ remarks in a petition filed by the Election Commission against some oral observations made by a Judge of the Madras High Court in Election Commission of India v. M.R. Vijayabhaskar , (2021) 9 SCC 770 . The Court clarified that oral remarks are not a part of the official record and do not express any formal opinion and hence, cannot be expunged. The Court has highlighted that most such oral observations are elicitation-oriented. However, the Court relayed some apprehension about an increasing trend of Judges making caustic observations against litigants during hearings. The Supreme Court highlighted that “ We must emphasize the need for Judges to exercise caution in off-the-cuff remarks in open court, which may be susceptible to misrepresentation”. The case of the Election Commission was that in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, the oral observations of the Judge of the Madras High Court of a “murder charge” was incorrect. The Supreme Court observed, in this context, that the remarks of the High Court were “harsh” and that the metaphor was “inappropriate”. If not in the interest of Justice and Nyaya, at least in the interest of being consistent, I am pressed to wonder if you would be more mindful in your oral comments and observations going forward. Personally, I have immense faith in the Judiciary as an institution. However, as a member of the Hindu community, I do believe that ‘justice’ will forever elude the persecuted majority when the question before the court is that of collective rights. Perhaps the Hindu community as a collective would do well to follow the advice of Isaac Asimov who said, “people who don’t expect justice don’t have to suffer disappointment”.

The Hindus' collective right to retain the cultural, religious and ethical integrity of the only land they have has to be held sacrosanct - legislatively, judicially and socially. This is, perhaps, the one lesson that history is screaming out, waiting for Hindus to hear. 5 lessons from History: As we remember horrors of partition, here is what Hindus need to learn to ensure that Bharat is never torn apart again The Hindus' collective right to retain the cultural, religious and ethical integrity of the only land they have has to be held sacrosanct - legislatively, judicially and socially. This is, perhaps, the one lesson that history is screaming out, waiting for Hindus to hear. Nupur J Sharma 14 August 2023 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Direction Action Day 1946 On the 15th of June 1947, Congress along with Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi accepted the Plan to tear India into two – Islamic Pakistan and Secular India – the horrific effects of which can be felt to this day. Much has been written about the lives lost in the process of Bharat being torn into two and the credit for the lives lost has often been given to Mohammad Ali Jinnah – a man who spearheaded the demand for a separate Islamic state to be carved out of Hindu majority Bharat. However, the root of what led to the partition is often pushed under the rug, because one of the consequences of our leaders actively skirting a full population exchange in 1947 is that an honest conversation about the ideology which led to the partition is often considered taboo. While individuals are often the medium for change – good or bad – if one needs to honestly evaluate what leads those individuals to change the course of history – one has to honestly and truly analyse the belief that led them to do what they did. In the case of the partition of India, talking about the actions of Jinnah is far from being sufficient if one wants to truly understand what led to the partition and the dangers that face India to this date. What drove Jinnah to spearhead a campaign to tear Bharat apart was Islam and the inherent separatism embedded in the religious doctrine of Islam. The logical extension of that argument is that while the partition of India took place 75 years ago, given that India chose to be a ‘secular nation’ with no full population exchange at the time, the dangers of Muslim separatism continue to haunt India. It is said that there is no better teacher than history in determining the future. While the conversation around the Partition of India has mostly been partially dishonest and wholly myopic, it becomes imperative, as we stand today at the cusp of Khilafat 2.0, to draw lessons from history. If one truly looks at historical facts, leaders had almost a century to truly understand the perils of Muslim separatism, what causes it, and the inevitable tactics that would be deployed by Muslim leaders to eventually tear Bharat apart. That we failed to draw lessons then led to a blood-soaked, cataclysmic blunder then, is a lesson in itself – a lesson to ensure that empirical truths are acknowledged and understood before we stand at the edge of Partition 2.0. Acknowledging the inherent two-nation theory embedded in Islamic theology The discussion on partition often revolves around Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the British and the evil plans of that alliance, however, Jinnah was not the first person to propaganda the idea of the two-nation theory – a theory that essentially says that Hindus and Muslims cannot live in the same country because the Muslims are a nation unto themselves. Their culture, ideology, religiosity, ways and means of living their lives, beliefs and the code they live by is so different and set in stone from those of the Hindus, that co-existence is an impossibility. One has to realise that the very concept of the two-nation theory is based on Islamic theology. Even if one does not delve into theology, the very definition of the two-nation theory separates Muslims from non-Muslims on the basis of their faith. To understand how Jinnah was not the first to propagate the two-nation theory and how Muslim separatism is embedded in Islamic theology, we must evaluate what others had said about Muslim separatism much before Jinnah. In 1876, Syed Ahmad Khan, the founder of Aligarh Muslim University, said that Hindus and Muslims could never become one nation as their religion and way of life were quite distinct. Twelve years later, he said, “Now, suppose that the English community and the army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannons and their splendid weapons and all else, who then would be the rulers of India?… Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations—the Mohammedans and the Hindus—could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable. But until one nation has conquered the other and made it obedient, peace cannot reign in the land.” While Khan spoke in the context of India specifically, the nature of Muslim separatism was not new and was certainly not an alien concept that anyone who was willing, to be honest, could not see for themselves. Karl Marx, the Father of Communism, stated in 1854, “The Koran and the Mussulman legislation emanating from it reduce the geography and ethnography of the various people to the simple and convenient distinction of two nations and of two countries; those of the Faithful and of the Infidels. The Infidel is “Harby,” i.e. the enemy. Islamism proscribes the nation of the Infidels, constituting a state of permanent hostility between the Mussulman and the unbeliever.” It was only in 1940 that Jinnah formally announced the demand for a separate Muslim nation. At the 1940 Muslim League conference in Lahore Jinnah said: “Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religions, philosophies, social customs and literature… It is quite clear that Hindus and Muslims derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes… To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.” Essentially, while Jinnah only made the formal demand in 1940, the verbalisation of Muslim separatism had taken place much before that – almost 70 years ago by the founder of AMU. Even the argument that both these individuals spoke in the specific context of India and therefore, the concept of separatism cannot be extended to Islamic theology falls flat since before Syed Ahmad Khan, Marx had already spoken extensively about how Muslims are incapable of surviving with non-Muslims because their very faith reduces people to two nations – those of the faithful and those of the Infidels. Islamic theology, in itself, is based on this strict distinction between believers (of Islam) and Kafirs (non-believers). When the doctrine itself mandates the believers to slay the infidels and turn Dar-Ul-Harb (the Land of the non-believers) into Dar-Ul-Islam (the land of the pure), one has to acknowledge that the partition was not necessarily an India-centric and India-specific problem but one that emanates from Islamic theology – one that is a threat even today. There are at least 26 verses in the Quran as pointed out by an erstwhile Muslim himself that talk about waging a battle against disbelievers (Kafirs). When the Islamic theology itself is based on the premise that Muslims are supposed to wage a war against non-Muslims (Hindus in this case) until they are killed, converted or driven out of their land (to make Dar-Ul-Harb into Dar-Ul-Islam) it is an exercise in naïveté to believe that the two-nation theory was specific to India and limited to the age of the struggle for India’s freedom. Unless the theological roots of the two-nation theory are not acknowledged and accepted, Bharat as a modern nation-state would always be caught off-guard, like it was in 1946, into carving out pieces of itself to satiate the insatiable appetite of the believers to cast Kafirs into hell-fire and turn Bharat into a Muslim nation. This theory is proved by the fact that over 70 years after the partition of India, while our lawmakers believe that we have managed to achieve a nation where general brotherhood between Hindus and Muslims exists as a norm, we saw the rise of organisations like the Popular Front of India (PFI) which vowed to turn India into an Islamic state, convert Hindus and even commit genocide of the Kafirs in their holy war. One must ask the question today – as we remember the horrors of the partition – that if the partition of India on the basis of religion was time and geography-specific why does India with one of the largest Muslim populations in the world see the rise of Muslim separatism repeatedly? If the two-nation theory is not embedded in the Islamic doctrine, and if those fighting for a land of the pure are not following “true Islam”, as is the favourite punchline of secularists, why is it that the same principle is repeated in the name of the same doctrine across centuries, across geographies and across situations? Are the Muslims of Thailand fighting for an independent Muslim south Thailand, Muslim separatist groups in the Philippines, the East Turkistan movement in China, the Palestinian terrorism problem, the Rohingyas fighting against the Buddhists for Rakhine and the endless list of separatist and terrorist movements fighting either for independent Muslim states of fighting internally and globally against the Kafirs, all not following the “real Islam”? Unless this harsh global reality is acknowledged, understood and remedied, Bharat – the last standing, surviving, home of polytheism will perhaps fall like it did once, only to realise that another genocide of its indigenous Hindu people could have been avoided with a little honesty and study of history. Realising that Muslim victimhood is a stepping stone to separatism When one thinks of the partition, the predominant theme that is often eulogised is that it was a human tragedy with several lives lost – the lives of Hindus and Muslims. Mainly, one remembers those horrific pictures of trains with people perched on top of it while crossing the newly formed border between India and Pakistan. We are told that post-partition, Hindus were killing Muslims in India while Muslims were killing Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan. All of that is true. There is no contestation to the fact that the lives of Hindus and Muslims were both lost due to a partition of which, the foundation was Islamic theology. However, apart from the actual partition and the lives lost thereof, there were several instances in the century leading up to the partition that formed the foundation of the mindset which allowed the country to be torn apart. It was essentially the same pattern that we see today – Muslims kill Hindus because they are waging a war against Kafirs – Hindus, after being killed, murdered, beheaded and raped, eventually and somewhat meekly decide to defend themselves – once they start defending themselves, the Muslims play the victim – once they start playing victim they say that they feel unsafe because Hindus are in majority – the leaders of the time (then and now) start pandering to the ever so fearful Muslims forgetting how it was them who were the aggressors – Hindus are then blamed for making Muslims feel unsafe – born out of that feeling of being “unsafe”, Muslims say that they are unable to live with the terrible Hindus and deserve a separate land for themselves where they can feel secure. The entire existence of Bharat has been about oscillating in this cycle, one way or another, then and now. Just a few examples where Hindus were subjugated by the Muslims and the events that followed would substantiate the preceding supposition. In this regard, it would bode well to remember the case of Mahashay Rajpal , who published Rangeela Rasool and was ultimately assassinated for it. We mostly hear that Mahashay Rajpal was assassinated for publishing satirical work on Prophet Muhammad called Rangeela Rasool, but we seldom hear why he chose to publish the book. In 1923, Muslims published two particularly offensive books to Hindus. “Krishna teri geeta jalani padegi” used derogatory and vulgar language against Shri Krishna and other Hindu deities and “Uniseevi sadi ka maharshi” which contained derogatory remarks on Arya Samaj founder Swami Dayanand Saraswati (incidentally written by an Ahmadi). It was in response to these two books by the Muslims that Mahashay Rajpal published Rangeela Rasool. The Muslims, after the publication of Rangeela Rasool went on a rampage. MK Gandhi along with several other leaders condemned Mahashay Rajpal for publishing a book that offended the sensibilities of Muslims. No mention was made of the aggression that was initiated by the Muslims. No mention was made of the two offending books which were published by the Muslims. Ultimately, the British, to pacify the ever-enraged Muslims, passed 295A. That, however, was not sufficient. The Muslims, playing the victim and touting their hurt sentiments, murdered Mahashay Rajpal. The assassin, Ilm ud Din, was hailed by Jinnah and Iqbal – those who ultimately demanded the partition of India. In 1946, the massacre of Hindus in Bengal was rather intricately planned. Jinnah is recalled having said that he will either have India divided or India burnt and that he had given up on Constitutional methods to demand the creation of Pakistan. Jinnah had chosen the 16th of August as Direction Action Day because it was the 18th day of Ramzan, the day when the Battle of Badr was fought and won – a war fought by Prophet Muhammad himself, against the Kaffirs, and is considered to be won by Allah’s divine intervention by Muslims. The battle led to the violent occupation of Mecca. On the 16th of August, Calcutta was littered with posters lionising Jinnah and reminding Muslims that they had to follow in the footsteps of the Prophet. It is reported that Syed Muhammad Usman, mayor of Calcutta, had issued a widely circulated leaflet that said: Kafer! Toder dhongsher aar deri nei! Sarbik hotyakando ghotbei! (Infidels! Your end is not far away! You will be massacred!). The aim was to make Bengal ‘land of the pure’ and rid it of the Kaffirs (Hindus). The aim was to wage another Battle of Badr, in which the Muslims would conquer the heathens. After thousands of Hindus were beheaded and raped, two days later, Gopal Patha picked up his weapons and started defending his brethren. Muslim League chief minister of Bengal, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy and the Muslim League goons had decided on the 17th that they were going to take two more days to complete the annihilation of Hindus. But they had not taken into consideration their greatest roadblock. Gopal Patha. From the 18th to the 20th, Gopal Patha and his men put up a brave fight, paying the Muslim League goons back in equal measure, if not more. Historian Sandip Bandopadhyay wrote, “They faced resistance everywhere. Hindu youths counter-attacked with such ferocity that the Muslim League men had to flee. Many were killed. Emboldened by their success in taking on and defeating their Islamist attackers, Hindu youths took the fight to Muslim-majority areas and started killing Islamist men. They did not, however, touch Muslim women and children or the aged and the infirm”. By the 19th of August, suddenly, the Muslims started feeling unsafe. Only two days of retribution, of self-defence, and the Muslim League started running with their tail between their legs. It was only on the 21st of August when the Muslims had started feeling unsafe because the Hindus dared to defend themselves, did Viceroy’s rule come into action in Bengal. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi asked Gopal Patha to lay down his weapons so the Muslims could start feeling safe again – because the ever-oppressed Muslims deserve to feel safe even after beheading and raping thousands. Gopal Patha refused. But, the pattern was evident – Muslims kill Hindus. Hindus defend after thousands of them are killed. Hindus get blamed for making Muslims feel unsafe. Muslims demand a separate nation because they can’t live with Hindus who are by then, branded as the original aggressors merely for defending themselves. This Muslim victimhood that we see today too, follows exactly the same pattern that it did then. Let’s take the example of the recent Nuh violence . Islamists unilaterally and brutally attacked a Hindu religious procession in Nuh. They held hostage several thousand devotees in a temple. Killed multiple Hindus. Rained bullets, petrol bombs and stones. Celebrated the brutal hacking of Hindus. And then, after the unilateral violence was unleashed, played victims when the government started bulldozing the homes of rioters and the perpetrators started getting arrested. Ultimately, the global media and the Jihadi media at home painted Hindus as the aggressors and Muslims as the victims. Now, given what we see today follows the same pattern that we saw in the run-up to the partition, one has to wonder where we are going to be if we don’t draw lessons from what happened then. If the Muslim victimhood after unilateral violence is unleashed by them is indulged now as it was then, how long would it be before they claim another partition of India because they perpetually feel unsafe with the terrible Hindus who just won’t die as they want, without having the temerity to defend themselves? Every Hindu murdered for being Hindu because of the Islamic doctrine is a brick that paves the way for partition Often, cataclysmic events are the culmination of smaller events that lead to a tectonic shift. When we delve into history and historical blunders in great detail, we are often told that what happened in the past must remain in the past and should not affect how one deals with the current offshoots of the same ideology – in the name of brotherhood and unity, of course. There is no point discussing the ideology that led to the partition of India because the Indian Muslims today are different from those who demanded a separate nation then, we are told. There is no point talking about the regular murders of Hindus by Islamists owing to their religious doctrine because it sows the seed of division in society leading up to the Muslim population feeling unsafe – because those who murder are just murderers – not followers of Islam, we are told. I have no qualms in believing that all Muslims are not the same. I wholeheartedly accept that even when Bharat was torn apart on the basis of Islamic theology, there were Muslims who wanted to see the integrity of Bharat Mata preserved – who thought of themselves as Bharatiya and not just Muslims. While that was a truth then and is a truth now, the partition did happen on the basis of religion. While that was a truth then as is a truth now, Hindus are being murdered on a regular basis merely because they are Hindus and deemed “Kafirs” by Islamists. Talking about history and drawing lessons for it cannot be skirted simply because the fragile feelings of a few would be hurt because the truth is a bitter pill to swallow. Often, when one says that the threat of a second partition never truly dispersed from the skies of Bharat, one imagines a cataclysmic event leading to another cataclysmic event. One perhaps believes that only an equivalent of a Malabar Genocide of Hindus or a Naokhali Genocide would be a marker that we stand at the cusp of separation. However, history proves that is untrue. Every Hindu murdered in Bharat for being a Hindu by an Islamist who carries out that murder/attack by virtue of being a follower of Islam is a brick, building the road that leads to another separation. When Mahashay Rajpal was murdered then, even though it was right after the Malabar Genocide of Hindus, nobody truly imagined that a Naokhali Genocide would happen. Nobody also imagined that Iqbal, who hailed the murderer of Mahashay Rajpal, would be hailed today as a patriot. When Mahashay Rajpal was murdered and Jinnah defended Ilm-u-Din, nobody imagined that a decade later, it would be he who would launch a formal demand for Pakistan and certainly, nobody imagine that almost over 100 years later, we would see blasphemy killings and beheadings take place in India even after Muslims carved a land where they would supposedly feel secure. Every Hindu that is killed for being a Hindu is killed by those Muslims who believe that they are waging a war against Kafirs and are in the quest for a land where Sharia will reign supreme. Every Islamist is a Ilm-u-Din in the making and every moderate is a Jinnah in the making – I say this with utmost responsibility since even Jinnah is often touted as one – the man who ate pork and drank alcohol. Every Kanhaiya Lal takes us closer to the demands for a separate nation because after every Kanhaiya Lal, the victim is forgotten and what is remembered eternally is that the ire of the Hindu after a Kanhaiya is beheaded will make the Muslim community feel insecure. Unless the Hindu society refuses to get desensitised to the killing of their own and truly realise the dangers of such communal onslaughts, history might not only remain etched in black and white. Giving concessions in the name of religious freedom and sentiment There have recently been several attacks against Hindu processions by Muslim mobs. In 2022, there was a spate of attacks against Ram Navami attacks in India. Several Hindus came under the onslaught of Islamic violence with stones being pelted from mosques and rooftops, guns being fired and more. Almost immediately, the reason that was given by the Jihadi media in India was that it was the fault of the Hindus because they dared to take their religious procession out from an area they deemed a “Muslim area”. According to them, the fact that Hindus took out their religious procession from an area where the Muslim population was substantial, hurt their religious sentiments and ultimately, the mere existence of the Hindus chanting Jai Shree Ram provoked them to commit violence against the Hindus. This was then used as a justification for the violence eventually blaming the Hindus for their own persecution. In almost every age, the fact that Muslims seem to have sentiments that require special concessions to be preserved seems to be a given that the State and the Hindu community have almost internalised. Christopher Hitchens once said, “It is very clear to me that the most toxic form that religion takes is that of Islam. All religions claim to reveal the truth, but Islam rather dangerously says ours is the last and final one. There can’t be any more after this. Now, that is straightaway a temptation to violence”. And that is truly at the crux of why religious processions come under attack when Muslims find themselves in substantial numbers in an area. Essentially, theologically, Islam is antithetical to the existence of any other religion and therefore, any religious procession in itself is a religious affront to their faith. That this is a theological issue and not a recent political one is again proved by historical evidence. 1923 onwards, communal riots were an order of the day especially after the Hindus had started a shuddhi movement which was condemned by the Muslims, who were regularly converting Hindus by force at the time. In 1918, given the discord between Hindus and Muslims, a committee had been appointed at the Delhi session of Congress to draw up an “Indian National Pact”. A draft of the pact was placed before the committee in 1923. In the meantime, the Bengal Provincial Congress Committee, under the direction of CR Das, approved a strange “Hindu Muslim Pact”, specific to Bengal, that essentially curbed the rights of Hindus. Even in this pact, the “music in front of Mosques” played a prominent role. Two features of the pact, which was later rejected by the Congress committee, as was the National Pact, need to be analysed specifically. No music should be allowed before a mosque There should be no interference with cow killing for religious sacrifices, but the cow should be killed in such a manner as to not wound the religious feelings of Hindus. While no music in front of a mosque is something that the Muslim side specifically demanded, they also demanded their right to slaughter cows. The fact that the pact said that the manner of killing should not offend Hindus, it is pertinent to realise that any slaughter of cows would hurt the religious feelings of Hindus, regardless of the method adopted. While this Pact was rejected later, it goes to show this history of attacks against Hindus because of the establishment of so-called “Muslim areas” where even music being played by Hindus invited violence from the Islamists. RC Majumdar in his book then talks about incidents of violence that marred the period, with many of them revolving around music being played in front of mosques and Hindu religious processions being taken out from “Muslim areas”. Mr Majumdar writes, “One of the worst communal riots broke out in Calcutta in May 1923. It arose out of an Arya-Samajist procession playing music while passing before a mosque. The Arya Samajists contended that they were merely following a regular practice which was never objected to before, while the Muslims asserted that the music disturbed their religious prayer. So fighting commenced and continued for several days, in the course of which there were many casualties on both sides”. Therefore, the concessions that are demanded by the Muslim community in the name of religious freedom and hurt have always been and perhaps, will always be not about their right to practice their religion, but about establishing their religious supremacy over religions that they are theologically opposed to. While in any functioning democracy, every individual should have the right to practice his religious in the confines of his home and place of worship, that right cannot be held sacrosanct when it a) infringes upon the rights of others b) demands constant concessions from other religions in the name of hurt sentiments. Attacks against religious procession is just one thread of a larger problem. Whether it is the demand for the Hijab to supersede school uniforms, the opposition to Uniform Civil Code (made in 1947 as well with Muslim sentiments prevailing as always), the insistence on conducting namaz in public places to assert their religious supremacy to their demand for a law protecting them from “Islamophobia”, it is all aimed at demanding concessions, chipping away at the very fabric of the nation. Historically, the Islamists were emboldened when the community as a whole were given endless concessions – whether it was participation and endorsement of the Khilafat movement, legislative reform in personal law being skirted or the places of worship act which denied Hindus their historic right to their places of worship. While every individual has the right to worship, collectively, the nation would have to decide if one community’s right to be offended is above the right to life and peaceful worship of another. Pandering to leaders such as those of the Khilafat movement The Khilafat movement is perhaps the template that would be repeated if Bharat does not learn from history. The first Khilafat Conference was held in Delhi on November 22-24, 1919. More than half the delegates at this conference were from today’s Uttar Pradesh. In this conference, resolutions were passed to stay away from victory celebrations, boycott British goods and send a delegation to England to find a just solution to the Khilafat. Leaders like Mohammed and Shaukat Ali brothers, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Dr Ali, Hasrat Mohani emerged from this conference. On 24th November, MK Gandhi, at a well-publicised joint Hindu-Muslim conference, announced that Hindus were united with Muslims in their grievances over the Caliphate because it was a just cause. Motilal Nehru, in his presidential address on 27th December, strongly condemned the Jallianwala Bagh massacre but he also condemned the partition of the Ottoman Empire. He said, “It is impossible for one part of the nation to stand aloof while the other part is suffering from a serious grievance.” In Resolution XV on the issue of Khilafat, the Congress urged his Majesty’s government to settle the Turkish question in accordance with the just and legitimate sentiments of Indian Mussalmans and the solemn pledges of the Prime Minister without which there will be no real contentment among the people of India. At the Nagpur session on December 1920, the Congress gave the British a deadline of one year to meet its demands on the Jallianwala Baug massacre and the Khilafat and warned of a nationwide non-cooperation movement. MK Gandhi assured civil disobedience. At the annual session of the Congress in 1920 in Nagpur, the Khilafat leaders read Quranic verses that call for Jihad and support the killing of Kafirs (non-believers). When it was pointed out to MK Gandhi, he smiled and said: “They are alluding to the British bureaucracy”. While Gandhi and Nehru shut their eyes, the outrages by Moplah Muslims against Hindus continued and the Ali Brothers gave a violent call to jihad as a part of the non-cooperation movement. As MK Gandhi, Nehru and other leaders of the Congress shut their eyes to the blatant calls for Jihad against Hindus as a part of the Khilafat movement, a movement which had nothing to do with Indians and India’s independence, after hundreds of incidents of low-level violence against Hindus by the Moplah Muslims of Malabar, in August 1921 over 10,000 Hindus were mercilessly killed. A large number of women were raped, temples were vandalized, people’s homes were burnt and they were banished. There were many incidents of burning people alive and peeling their skins, people were asked to dig graves for themselves and were buried in them. From BR Ambedkar to Annie Besant spoke about the hideous atrocities that were heaped against the Hindus during the Malabar genocide of Hindus, a genocide that was 100 years in the making. While the genocide of Hindus took place, MK Gandhi, yet again to appease the Muslim leaders of the Khilafat movement essentially put the onus of peace on Hindus. He told Hindus that the Muslims were killing Hindus in Malabar because the Hindus had not made the Muslims feel like brothers. Gandhi said, “If the Mussalmans of India offer non-cooperation to the Government in order to secure justice on the Khilafat, it is the duty of every Hindu to co-operate with their Moslem brethren”. It is to be kept in mind that this speech was made in August 1920 when the Muslims had already started to massacre Hindus in their demand to establish a caliphate and in their support for the caliphate in Turkey – while Hindus died, Gandhi asked Hindus to participate in the very movement that was leading to genocide, simply to appease the Muslim leaders of the Khilafat movement. Historian RC Majumdar in his seminal book ‘Struggle For Freedom” writes, “The so-called Nationalist Muslims who had joined Gandhi in the anti-British crusade of 1921 were really pan-Islamists who merely exploited Gandhi for securing redress of the Khilafat wrong. As soon as the Khilafat agitation came to an ignoble end after the abolition of the office of the Caliph by Kemal Pasha in 1924, most of these Muslims, including the Ali Brothers, whom Gandhi identified with his cause, appeared in their true colours. Muhammad Ali, who was the principal lieutenant of Gandhi in his first Satyagraha campaign in 1920, refused to join him in the second campaign in 1930. At a meeting of the All-India Muslim Conference in Bombay held in April 1930, attended by over 20,000 Muslims, he bluntly stated: “We refuse to join Mr. (no longer Mahatma) Gandhi because his movement is not a movement for the complete independence of India but for making the seventy millions of Indian Musalmans dependants of the Hindu Mahasabha”. He made no secret of the fact that the Muslims, as a whole, were guided by Pan-Islamism. He told the members of the Round Table Conference: “Islam was not confined to India. I belong to two circles of equal size but which are not concentric. One is India and the other is the Muslim World…. We are not nationalists but super-nationalists.”2 In his address as Congress President in 1923 he reminded the audience that “extra-territorial sympathies are part of the quintessence of Islam”. I reiterate what Muhammad Ali, the leader of the Khilafat movement and MK Gandhi’s trusted “nationalist Muslim” said – “Extra-territorial sympathies are part of the quintessence of Islam”. While MK Gandhi trusted a “nationalist Muslim” and branded the Khilafat movement as a part of the freedom struggle against the British (the Left historians still wish to peddle that the Khilafat movement was a nationalist, freedom movement), the Nationalist Muslim who spearheaded the Khilafat movement clearly denounced Gandhi and India, to say that the Muslim’s loyalties ‘extra territorial’ since they are a part of the Muslim world. Gandhi and other Congress leaders sacrificed the lives of thousands of Hindus, kept quiet about the massacre of Hindus by Muslims, forced Hindus to support a movement which was for the benefit of the Muslim world leading to their own genocide, pandered to them to fulfil their demands, essentially, they later got spat in their face because they refused to acknowledge simple realities. They closed their eyes even when calls for killing Kafirs were being made as they extended support to the Khilafat movement. Today, there are several political alliances and schemes which are aimed at ensuring the welfare of Muslims. While that is all well and good, the fact that Hindus are forced to live under the notion that all Indian Muslims are “Nationalist Muslims” only gives rise to the possibility that while we sleep under the comfortable blanket of brotherhood, a Muhammad Ali will spearhead a 100-year long path to another genocide of Hindus, under the garb of nationalism, only to later claim that his loyalties are extraterritorial. Conclusion I come back to a statement I had started with – there is no better teacher than history in determining the future. History shows that progressively, a violent minority has strengthened the legislative, judicial and societal cover it gets to assert its religious supremacy aspirations. These aspirations are often negotiated after a violent, vehement and shameless assertion of street veto. The State and leaders who are meant to protect Bharat have bent a knee to the street veto and tried their damndest to assuage the perennially offended, the often violent and the perpetually demanding lot. Their constitutional special status keeps getting reaffirmed either by politicians or the judiciary in the hopes that the ever-so-offended lot will not take to the streets and indulge in rampant violence which the state is woefully incapable of controlling simply to prove just how downtrodden and oppressed they truly are. The intolerant minority has often held a sword to Bharat’s neck and forced her to concede that she has oppressed the sword-wielders. I have no hesitation in saying that Bharat is somewhere in the 100 years which preceded the Malabar genocide of Hindus, soon after which, Bharat was torn apart. When Bharat pandered to the sword-wielders and their supremacist demands, she was mercilessly broken in two – losing millions of her sons and daughters. The question that we collectively need to answer now is what can be done to ensure that the progression is arrested. India is the only land that has a Hindu majority. Hinduism, Sanatan, is engraved in its consciousness since before the political boundaries were drawn. Our stories, our heroes our legacy is attached to this land and no other. It is a fact that while even the most “extreme” Hindu’s crime is saying that this is a Hindu land – taking ownership of this civilisation and vowing to preserve it – the most extreme Muslim has a completely opposite view. He believes that India is Dar-ul-Harb which must be converted to Dar-Ul-Islam. When such notions are harboured, there is obviously no allegiance to the Constitution and it is precisely the sovereignty and integrity of the nation that they wish to hurt – as it was during the brutal partition of the nation. A strong, confident, sovereign Hindu India is perhaps the only thing that has the potential to stop the balkanisation of Bharat. A Hindu nation, built on Hindu ethos where every citizen, including Muslims, has equal rights but Abrahamic religious supremacy is not pandered to, but rather, prosecuted by the law. In order to do that, there are two elements that have to be asserted – one by the State and the other by Hindus. The State has to ensure that it has the ultimate and final monopoly on violence. Any attempts at an Abrahamic religious insurrection have to be quelled with an iron fist and brute force without repeating the mistakes of MK Gandhi, pandering to those who wear the masks of being “Nationalist Muslims” or “Moderate Muslims”, which supporting the supremacist aspirations. The people, on the other hand, need to with pride where the responsibility of preserving the Hindu character of Bharat. Hindutva was meant to arm Hinduism to adapt to a world order based on nation-states. A concept which for Muslims means Ummah and for Hindus meant this civilisational state. Hindus gave up their Monarchs to get “secularism” and they needed Hindutva to find their political identity. Hindutva is meant as a shield against those who weaponise the innocence of Hindus and because they needed to weaponise the innocence of Hindus, Hindutva had to be tarnished by the Ummah and the Global Left Conglomerate. The Hindus’ collective right to retain the cultural, religious and ethical integrity of the only land they have has to be held sacrosanct – legislatively, judicially and socially. This is, perhaps, the one lesson that history is screaming out, waiting for Hindus to hear.

Why the Muslim perpetrators’ name must be mentioned explicitly when the victim is a Hindu Intersectionality is thus a theoretical framework for understanding how aspects of one's social and political identities (e.g., gender, race, class, sexuality, disability, etc.) might combine to create unique modes of discrimination. Nupur J Sharma Next Item Previous Item

Ram Navami violence is not sporadic: If one read RC Majumdar, one would know that history, leading up to 1947, is being repeated right in front of our eyes One must remember that Moplah Muslims committed sporadic atrocities against Hindus for 100 years before the Malabar Genocide of Hindus took place. We, dare I say, are today somewhere in those 100 years - where what trajectory we might take depends on how the Hindus decide to steady their heart and if the state wakes up to uncomfortable realities that history has been trying to teach us for decades. Nupur J Sharma Next Item Previous Item