OpIndia Featured Bylines In the years I have worked as first the editor and then the editor-in-chief of OpIndia, my writing has spanned several genres. From ground reports, legal analysis, documenting crimes against Hindus, commentary on the corporate media and their distortions, history, rights of Hindus, politics and more. Here are some select articles. My full body of work can be accessed at OpIndia. To access all published articles, visit https://www.opindia.com/author/unsubtledesi/ Organisation I started my career writing about corporate media, their spins and their utter distortions in 2017. This eventually progressed in to the realisation that while media distortions were important, there was a civilizational battle unfolding right before our eyes. The corporate media was only a tool being used to challenge the very existence of Hindus. I have aimed to shine the light on cries unheard, issues pushed under the rug, taboos that are meant to be broken and history that had been whitewashed. OpIndia has emerged as one of the few voices speaking against the global persecution of Hindus. My journey continues to be a thrilling one, as the editor-in-chief. Visit OpIndia As Rahul Gandhi equates Hinduism with Ahimsa, time to remember why Hindus must not fall for 'another Gandhi' 1 July 2024 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. 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. Read Full Article 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 14 August 2023 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. 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. Read Full Article Why Section 195 of Draft Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita needs relook: A ‘religiously neutral provision’ that may end up criminalising criticism of Muslim separatism 12 August 2023 Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. It would be a great injustice to Bharat if the very doctrine that stabbed her and made her bleed would be beyond analysis and reproach - especially in a Bill that otherwise makes much-needed changes, protecting real victims. One can only hope that the parliamentary debates on the IPC draft address these concerns and necessary caveats and exceptions are added. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. It would be a great injustice to Bharat if the very doctrine that stabbed her and made her bleed would be beyond analysis and reproach - especially in a Bill that otherwise makes much-needed changes, protecting real victims. One can only hope that the parliamentary debates on the IPC draft address these concerns and necessary caveats and exceptions are added. Read Full Article Nuh violence: How the media crafts a narrative to whitewash violence unleashed by Islamists and blame Hindus instead 1 August 2023 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. 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. Read Full Article 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 11 April 2023 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. 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. Read Full Article 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 30 March 2023 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”. 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”. Read Full Article 5 dangerous tropes and falsities that Shivraj Patil is encouraging by comparing Jihad with the Mahabharat war or Dharma Yuddh 21 October 2022 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. 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. Read Full Article From Rangeela Rasool to Kohat riots and Nupur Sharma: An unmissable pattern of insult, aggression, victim playing and vilification of Hindus 21 October 2022 Hindus, as I say, will perish if we refuse to recognise the patterns of oppression that we have been taught to accept like well-trained mules. Hindus, as I say, will perish if we refuse to recognise the patterns of oppression that we have been taught to accept like well-trained mules. Read Full Article ‘Muslims must stay away from Garba’: A viral tweet and a conversation I must have with my readers 3 October 2022 With over 2 million impressions and thousands of mentions (good and bad), I feel it is important I talk about my position to my readers because this position, I believe, is important for the longer civilisational battle that Hindus seem to have been sucked into, willingly or unwillingly - I stand by every single word in those tweets. With over 2 million impressions and thousands of mentions (good and bad), I feel it is important I talk about my position to my readers because this position, I believe, is important for the longer civilisational battle that Hindus seem to have been sucked into, willingly or unwillingly - I stand by every single word in those tweets. Read Full Article ‘Islamophobia’ does not exist: It’s time to push for this ‘politically incorrect’ reality 14 June 2022 Islamophobia as a blanket term cannot stop people from fighting for their own survival by being scared of people who have persecuted those who don't follow their diktat for centuries. Islamophobia as a blanket term cannot stop people from fighting for their own survival by being scared of people who have persecuted those who don't follow their diktat for centuries. Read Full Article Rangeela Rasool, 295A, partition: History threatens to repeat as demands for a special law to punish ‘gustakh-e-rasool’ grows 13 June 2022 We would see a time where we would wish we had learnt our lessons from the first partition of India - and that day, we would look at our children and find it onerous to explain why we did nothing when we could stop what appears to be an eventuality today. We would see a time where we would wish we had learnt our lessons from the first partition of India - and that day, we would look at our children and find it onerous to explain why we did nothing when we could stop what appears to be an eventuality today. Read Full Article Many Hindus still think what Nupur Sharma said was ‘unnecessary’: Here is a necessary read for them 7 June 2022 Hindus today might believe that Nupur Sharma's comment was "unnecessary", but if there was a word of caution, it would be this - tomorrow, they will say your very existence, the existence of the dirty Kafir that they are theologically and viscerally meant to hate is an affront to their faith. Hindus today might believe that Nupur Sharma's comment was "unnecessary", but if there was a word of caution, it would be this - tomorrow, they will say your very existence, the existence of the dirty Kafir that they are theologically and viscerally meant to hate is an affront to their faith. Read Full Article Dharma Sankat over Dharma Sansad: Calls for violence and a dilemma for Hindus 24 December 2021 It is not the Hindus who created a Swami Yati Narsinghanand - it is the Islamists, their rampages, their genocidal dreams and those who soft-pedal when Hindus are victimised on daily basis. It is not the Hindus who created a Swami Yati Narsinghanand - it is the Islamists, their rampages, their genocidal dreams and those who soft-pedal when Hindus are victimised on daily basis. Read Full Article The greatest achievement of Hindus in the past 7 years: Shifting the Overton Window 9 November 2021 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 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. Read Full Article “We will not worship if Muslims don’t want, but please save us”: From India to Bangladesh, how veto of violence works 14 October 2021 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. 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. Read Full Article ‘Dismantling Global Hindutva’ event: Nazi-esque propaganda to justify the genocide of Hindus 19 August 2021 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 time for Hindus to preserve it - in action and words. 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 time for Hindus to preserve it - in action and words. Read Full Article The post-poll violence in Bengal: Where is our Gopal Patha 29 July 2021 The state, historically, has incentivised street veto and it is also our history that the Muslim community has wielded that power effectively The state, historically, has incentivised street veto and it is also our history that the Muslim community has wielded that power effectively Read Full Article Orphans of Bengal: Disillusioned. Resigned. Defeated. Broken 4 May 2021 It is time to stand up straight. It is time to be heard. It is time to fulfill the Dharma BJP was elected for. The BJP needs to realize that apathy is the self-defense of the powerless, and they are now powerless enough to be nonchalant. It is time to stand up straight. It is time to be heard. It is time to fulfill the Dharma BJP was elected for. The BJP needs to realize that apathy is the self-defense of the powerless, and they are now powerless enough to be nonchalant. Read Full Article How and why I went from ‘Beef eating is a culinary preference’ to ‘those who eat beef are not my people’ 4 January 2021 Cows have been slaughtered to insult the Hindu people. And now we are told that beef eating is merely a culinary preference. It is little more than a disguised attempt to undermine our resolve to defend our way of life. To counter such trends, it is imperative that the taboo against beef-eating is strengthened manifold. And only society, together, can find a solution. Cows have been slaughtered to insult the Hindu people. And now we are told that beef eating is merely a culinary preference. It is little more than a disguised attempt to undermine our resolve to defend our way of life. To counter such trends, it is imperative that the taboo against beef-eating is strengthened manifold. And only society, together, can find a solution. Read Full Article Neo-Atheists, Atheists, militant Atheism and everything in between: Caged by Abrahamic Monotheism 7 September 2020 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 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. Read Full Article Muslims chose to stay back in India: An analysis of the mythical, unsubstantiated trope that is used to make Hindus feel guilty 6 August 2020 If Muslims who stayed back in India and their current off-springs were genuinely so connected to the ethos of India and its Hindu majority, one will have to logically explain the rise in radicalism that India has seen If Muslims who stayed back in India and their current off-springs were genuinely so connected to the ethos of India and its Hindu majority, one will have to logically explain the rise in radicalism that India has seen Read Full Article Why the Muslim perpetrators’ name must be mentioned explicitly when the victim is a Hindu 2 December 2019 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. 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. Read Full Article A Hindu perennially ashamed and guilty: How narrative after Ayodhya verdict is trying to achieve it 17 November 2019 It is important to realise that the Jihad apologists don't despise Hindus per se. They simply want that the Hindu community never gets over its insurmountable capacity to absorb hate, humiliation, defeat, murder, rape, conversion and the desecration of their faith. For the capacity to absorb humiliation to continue, the Hindu must be made to carry the burden of undeserved guilt perennially. It is important to realise that the Jihad apologists don't despise Hindus per se. They simply want that the Hindu community never gets over its insurmountable capacity to absorb hate, humiliation, defeat, murder, rape, conversion and the desecration of their faith. For the capacity to absorb humiliation to continue, the Hindu must be made to carry the burden of undeserved guilt perennially. Read Full Article India: A land with Hindu consciousness, which will forever be a natural home for Hindus 10 September 2019 While accepting the truth might be hard with the politically correct narrative of 'secularism' having diseased our discourse, the truth is that Islam as a religion was introduced in India through violent conquests and barbaric Islamic rulers who were alien to the nation While accepting the truth might be hard with the politically correct narrative of 'secularism' having diseased our discourse, the truth is that Islam as a religion was introduced in India through violent conquests and barbaric Islamic rulers who were alien to the nation Read Full Article Prime Minister Modi, Hindus are under siege, and now is the right time to speak up 15 July 2019 After decades, India has found a leader that commands unconditional love and respect. A leader who has the ability to unite his house with one statement even after the world sees it is a divided house with irreparable cracks. After decades, India has found a leader that commands unconditional love and respect. A leader who has the ability to unite his house with one statement even after the world sees it is a divided house with irreparable cracks. Read Full Article Publications In July 2020, I co-authored a fact-finding report for OpIndia which documented the progression of the violence which led to the Delhi anti-Hindu riots in February 2020. This publication traces the three months preceding the riots and how. Explore

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.

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. 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 11 April 2023 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Aftermath of attack on Hindus in Himmatnagar (Photo Credits: PTI) Every year, Hindus come under attack when they take their religious processions out and this year was no different. During the Ram Navami Shobha Yatras, Hindus came under attack as Muslim mobs pelted stones, created arson, attacked unsuspecting Hindus and then, blamed Hindus for their own persecution. In Bengal, when Hindus came under attack, Mamata Banerjee, the Chief Minister, said it was the Hindus who pelted stones at their own procession because the Muslims can’t possibly commit violence during the month of Ramzan – they would be busy doing Namaz, after all. “Minority community was not at all involved as they were busy with Ramzan and Namaz”, she said. Not only that, she essentially insinuated that Muslims should annihilate the Hindus. “Can’t you step up now and stop these rioters and goons? If women are with me, then, I will show my power to the rioters…”, she was heard saying in another speech in April. “ Ki sonkha loghu bhai bona ra, Allah Tallah er kache doye kore danaga baaj der khotom korte parbe na (Can’t my brothers and sisters from the minority community pray to Allah to finish off these rioters),” she said . From Gujarat to Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh and beyond, Hindus were hounded, attacked and humiliated while celebrating one of the most sacred festivals – Ram Navami and even as the intolerant minority went on a rampage, from Islamists to Leftists and even politicians blamed Hindus for coming under attack because they had the temerity to take out their religious processions through an area which was ghettoised by the Muslims. For most Hindus, India is a civilisational state of their ancestors, where their faith, culture, tradition and stories lie. A soil that has been soaked with the blood of their ancestors who fought for the integrity and honour of this land. It can safely be argued that if some start believing that Hindus have no right to exist in areas which are ‘no longer Hindu’ (remember ‘Muslim areas’ is now a legitimate term by the ‘secular’ commentariat), then Islamists who tore Bharat apart in the name of Islam, must not be allowed their religious rights in a nation with a distinct Hindu nation, despite the cries of secularism. It could perhaps be argued that the Nehru-Liaquat pact which skirted the full population exchange post-partition is the true culprit of the malaise we face today. Had India been left only with Hindus and Pakistan, created in the name of Islam, only with Muslims, perhaps Hindus would not be humiliated for taking out their religious processions in their own land. These arguments are often shot down as “hate speech” because it supposedly “creates” a divide, a divide that clearly already exists and has existed for 100s of years. For those who believe that Ram Navami processions and other Hindu religious processions have come under attack only recently after the rise of the BJP and perhaps, after the awakening of the collective Hindu consciousness in contemporary times, even a cursory reading of history would rupture that notion. RC Majumdar is one of the most noted historians of modern India. His most noted work was his 11-volume series on the history of India which starts tracing Bharat’s history right from ancient history to the freedom struggle. The final volume of the series, ‘Struggle for Freedom’, is considered one of the most authoritative accounts of the freedom struggle and the events that shaped Bharat, especially leading up to the partition of India. In Chapter 15 of his book “Struggle for Freedom”, RC Majumdar gives a bird’s eye view of the nature of Hindu-Muslim relations in the country, particularly in the 1920s and 1930s – a few years before the partition of India and around the same time of the Khilafat movement and the Malabar genocide of Hindus. The Muslim League, RC Majumdar days, regained its old strength after the Khilafat movement dwindled in India and started playing its old tricks of communalism. Gandhi had managed to reach a hollow “truce” through the non-cooperation movement which was supported by Hindus and Muslims for very different reasons – Muslims, specifically, for their Khilafat dreams. As the non-cooperation movement died down in Bharat, the hollow “peace” was exposed for what it is – naked hatred for Hindus. “At the back of it lay the old Muslim policy of deriving personal or communal advantages by cooperating with the Government against Hindus”, RC Majumdar writes. “The revival of the old communal spirit resulted in discords over petty issues, such as music before mosques, cutting down the branches of the pipal tree, held sacred by the Hindus, which obstructed the very long pole carried in the Muslim Tajjiya procession, the killing of cows in public places during Id ceremony, and things of this sort”, he writes. What is interesting is that RC Majumdar, the veteran historian, deemed it necessary to mention “music in front of mosques” as one of the distinct features which caused violence by the Muslim community. The slaughter of cows openly to humiliate Hindus was a feature that historically, was known, however, the fact that “music in front of mosques” got the Islamists to unleash violence against the Hindus then, a feature that is prevalent even today, is an interesting revelation. 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”. There are certain elements of what Majumdar wrote that deserve greater scrutiny. Firstly, Majumdar writes that the Arya-Samajists said that they were following regular practice and that the processions were never objected to. Several times, when Hindu religious processions come under attack by Muslim mobs, the Hindus are left flummoxed, claiming that they were simply doing what they have done every year, and could never understand why they came under attack that specific time. Even during the Delhi anti-Hindu riots, there were testimonies reported by media portals where Hindus expressed shock over the violence, saying that they have coexisted in the area for many years. This phenomenon does not seem to be new. One possible reason could be that the Muslim population increased over the years and what was acceptable then, became “haram” later, however, that aspect would need deeper study. Secondly, that the Muslims asserted it disturbed their prayers, is also an argument that is often used today to blame Hindus for the violence committed by Muslims. After the Ram Navami violence in Bengal in 2023, a Muslim cleric justified the violence by citing exactly the same reason. When the cleric was asked his views on the violence unleashed in Shibpur, Howrah on March 30, the cleric said that this is the month of Ramzan and when the Hindus were taking out the procession, it was time for Muslims to break their fast with Iftar. It was the state administration’s duty to make sure that the ‘Sobha Yatra’ passed the area either half an hour before or after the Muslims broke their Roza. He stated that the incident occurred in the evening during Maghrib Azaan. He claimed that if the procession had been held in the afternoon, this would not have happened. The violence occurred since Hindus chose an evening schedule for the ‘Sobha Yatra,’ which clashed with the Azaan time. Therefore, it is safe to say that the reasons employed by Muslims in the 1920s to attack Hindus are being used in 2023 to attack Hindus as well. To assume that there is any authentic grievance that leads to violence against Hindus would be naive. Essentially, everything points to the fact that the violence by the Islamists is a mere tool for religious supremacy because the very existence of Kafirs in spaces they assume to be their own offends their religious sensibilities. The fact that violence is indeed a tool for religious supremacy is proved by another incident narrated by RC Majumdar in his book. He writes, “The cause of the riot on Bakr-id day, 15th July, was an official notice closing an additional route through the Hindus quarters for cows destined for slaughter. The attempt of the Muslim butchers to take by force a cow through the prohibited road caused serious rioting in which about 12 Hindus were reported to have been killed and about a hundred seriously injured. Order was not restored till the military was called in and opened fire. Panic prevailed in Hindu quarters and houses and shops were closed for many days. A Hindu temple was desecrated and sporadic attacks on Hindu passers-by continued for several days. According to official estimates, hospital casualties were, Hindus – dead 8, injured 44; Muslims – dead 1, injured 25 and an unknown number being privately treated. Similar but less serious disturbances occurred in many other places on the Bakr-Id day. Some of the bigger street-fightings took place in Nagpur, Jubbulpore, and other places in CP where the Muslims, being much fewer in number, suffered more heavily than the Hindus”. Further, RC Majumdar writes, “On the day of Muharram, some Mohammedans accompanying the punja processions molested Hindu men and women whom they met on the road and afterwards entered the Sharan Vishveswar Temple, remained in possession of it for some hours and did some damage. The next day, a story went around that Hindus had caused mischief to a mosque, thereupon, Muhammadan mobs attacked all Hindu temples in the city, numbering about 15, and broke the idols. They also raided the Sharan Vishweshwar Temple and attempted to set fire to the temple car. The police were eventually obliged to fire”. The chronology of this event seems woefully familiar. While the Muslims committed violence when Hindus passed through “Muslim areas” so to speak, they also created violence on their festivals, forcing their way into Hindu areas and displaying how they were slaughtering a cow. Further, they created violence and took over a temple, and on the basis of a rumour, proceeded to attack all temples, desecrate idols and went on a rampage. Essentially, then and now, it would appear as though it does not particularly matter if the Hindu procession was passing a “Muslim area” or it was the festival of Muslims – the eventual brunt had to be borne by the Hindus either way – it is therefore not far fetched to say that even the outrages today aren’t about Hindus “disturbing” Azaan or “provoking Muslims”. It is merely about Hindus’ presence and the fact that Kafirs exist. Giving further credence to this, RC Majumdar writes, “The Hindu-Muslim relations continued to deteriorate in 1925 and 1926, the Bakr-Id ceremony causing serious riots in Delhi, Allahabad and Calcutta. No less than 16 communal riots took place in 1925, the worst of which were those in Delhi, Aligarh, Arvi and Sholapur. The most serious riot in 1926 took place in Calcutta in April over the question of music before the mosque. The riot which continued in full fury on 3, 4, and 5 April, caused 44 deaths and 584 injuries, besides looting, burning and desecration of both temples and mosques. There was another riot on 22 April, and the casualties were 66 killed and 391 injured. There was a third riot in Calcutta which continued from 11 to 25 July resulting in 28th Deaths and 226 serious injuries. There were also riots in the interior of Bengal as well as in Rawalpindi (14 killed and 50 wounded) and Allahabad (2 killed and 27 injured). There were no less than 5 riots in Delhi. The government made an unsuccessful effort to control, by regulation, the hours of music before the mosque but Hindus reacted very strongly against them”. Interestingly, even in this case, all of these riots happened because Hindus were playing music somewhere in the vicinity of a mosque. The state, then as it does now, tried to control the Hindus and impose legislation on them instead of controlling the Muslim mobs. In contemporary times, one can recall that this year itself, in 2023, almost 100 years after these riots, the Ram Navami procession was banned in Jahangirpuri because the year before, Muslims had created violence during Hindu religious processions. Now, like it was then, Hindus asserted their rights and continued with their religious procession as planned. Even in 1926, after the government tried to impose legislation stopping Hindus from taking religious processions out and playing music, the Hindus asserted their rights and ensured that their religious rights were not curtailed. In fact, over 400 Hindus were arrested after they decided to not pay heed to govt impositions to protect the Muslim sentiment. “Several communal riots broke out in 1927. At Kulkathi (Barisal, Bengal) a Muslim mob refused to allow passage to a Hindu procession which was permitted by the local authorities to proceed. The police opened fire, killing 17 and wounding 12 Muslims. Twenty-seven were killed in a communal riot in Lahore and eleven at Bettiah (Bihar)”, RC Majumdar wrote. In this case as well, the situation was then as it is now. Despite permission and the law being followed by the Hindus, the Muslims would have no part of it and attacked the Hindus regardless. This phenomenon of Muslims attacking processions by Hindus and insisting upon cow slaughter simply to humiliate Hindus was also written about by Dr BR Ambedkar in his book “Pakistan or the Partition of India”. He writes, “Another illustration of this spirit of exploitation is furnished by the Muslim insistence upon cow slaughter and the stoppage of muslim before mosques. Islamic law does not insist upon the slaughter of the cow for sacrificial purposes and no Musalman when he goes to Haj, sacrifices the cow in Mecca or Medina. But in India, they will not be content with the sacrifice of any other animal. Music may be played before. a mosque in all Muslim countries without any objection. Even in Afghanistan, which is not a secularised country, no objection is taken to music before a mosque. But in India, the Musalmans must insist upon its stoppage for no other reason except that the Hindus claim right to it”. The fact that Hindu processions were being taken out from in front of mosques and/or music was being played in the vicinity of mosques was a point of massive riots and communal unrest that claimed the lives of several Hindus and Muslims with the Muslims often starting the violence citing hurt to their religious sentiments. During the Ram Navami violence in 2023, it was emphatically asserted that Hindus were responsible for being attacked because they had the temerity to pass through “Muslim areas”. That they deliberately provoked the Muslims by their presence in that area and that, had the Hindus not provoked them, the Muslims would not have gone on a murderous rampage against them. Their argument today is exactly the argument they were making 100 years ago – that Hindu presence in these “Muslim areas” provokes Muslims. The Hindus are saying today exactly what they were saying then – ‘this is our right’ and sometimes, ‘we have always lived in peace, how did we get attacked this time’. Either way, it would be a grave error for Hindus or the Indian political dispensation to assume that these attacks against Hindu religious processions are sporadic and lack pattern. What happened then led to the 1947 partition based on the principle that Muslims are a distinct nation unto themselves and cannot coexist with Hindus. The “Muslim area” demarcation is merely the same theory in play on a smaller scale. To ignore this violence or to assume that such low-level outrages are not leading to much bigger outrages would be foolish. 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.

Cows have been slaughtered to insult the Hindu people. And now we are told that beef eating is merely a culinary preference. It is little more than a disguised attempt to undermine our resolve to defend our way of life. To counter such trends, it is imperative that the taboo against beef-eating is strengthened manifold. And only society, together, can find a solution. How and why I went from ‘Beef eating is a culinary preference’ to ‘those who eat beef are not my people’ Cows have been slaughtered to insult the Hindu people. And now we are told that beef eating is merely a culinary preference. It is little more than a disguised attempt to undermine our resolve to defend our way of life. To counter such trends, it is imperative that the taboo against beef-eating is strengthened manifold. And only society, together, can find a solution. Nupur J Sharma 4 January 2021 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Most people who grew up in a traditional Hindu family are well aware of the significance of the cow and the taboo against eating beef. The cow is worshipped and revered and there are quite a few rituals where the cow is required. In a large part of the Hindu society, the taboo against eating beef is such that consuming the meat of a cow could lead to being disowned if people in the family became aware of it. All of this is known and is not challenged by anybody. Most of us who were raised in ordinary traditional Hindu families grew up with the knowledge that beef is the one thing that we were strictly not allowed to consume, under any circumstances. Being from a vegetarian family, the subject of meat-eating itself was seldom discussed, however, for several families I knew, even eating meat in certain restaurants and hotels was avoided because one could never be cent per cent sure what meat was served. And the reasons cited for the taboo were entirely religious. We worship the cow, we do not eat it. It is one of the dogmas that was never challenged, at least, not in my immediate circle growing up. Even growing up in friend circles which were predominantly Hindu, the idea of eating beef somewhere was never voiced. It is something that just never came up. The taboo against beef is so internalized that it became one of the dogmas that are practically unchallenged. Reverence for the cow is part of our identity. It is a part of who we are as a collective. Now the world has changed a lot in the past few decades. Teenagers often travel outside their hometowns for their education and young adults move out because of jobs or education and numerous other reasons. Among a cosmopolitan crowd with liberal values, it is easy to lose touch with our roots and sight of our identity. Even then, the farthest the overwhelming majority of us travel is the opinion that consuming beef is a culinary choice. Some might choose to eat it but we, personally, will not because it goes against the values that have been inculcated within us. The notion that consuming beef is merely a culinary preference is almost always due to our exposure to a cosmopolitan crowd. It never has anything to do with conclusions we have reached after careful consideration following a reading of our scriptures. Just as the taboo against consuming beef is a consequence of upbringing and not scripture reading, similarly, the notion that consuming beef is merely a culinary preference is a consequence of exposure to cosmopolitan influence. The scriptural justification that is often made after that conclusion has already been reached. In fact, my journey was similar. When I was 4, we moved to a new house and the most predominant image in my memory from that time is how we worshipped a cow before we stepped foot in the house. I remember gau-mata dressed up with bells and ornamented cloth. Us putting kumkum on her forehead, and hoping, that her blessing illuminates our new house. Growing up, I remember my grandfather taking me to the nearby gaushala to feed gau-mata on my birthday. On festivals, I remember the first few rotis being made as a prasad to gau-mata. Well into college, even the discussion of beef consumption was not really something that was discussed, as it is today. The first time I was confronted with my ideological position on beef was when I was in Pune, Maharashtra and a bunch of us friends decided to go to Hard Rock Cafe which had only recently opened up in the city. Several dishes had beef in them, and when I looked at the menu, I got uncomfortable. While I wondered whether I should even eat there or perhaps just stick to my coke, a friend proceeded to order a beef burger. I didn’t really say anything. I simply excused myself, told her I had to leave for an assignment and met up with other friends for lunch. We ate Misal Pav. The person who ordered the beef burger was a friend and continued to be so for a long time. At that time, beef-eating was her culinary preference which I did not agree with, and for me, she had a right to that choice and I had simply no right to lecture her or tell her that it was not acceptable as a Hindu (she was one too). But somewhere along the line, my opinions changed. It went from ‘it is her culinary preference’ to ‘beef is ok, but cow-meat is not’ to ‘Hindus should not eat beef, period’. It is under these circumstances that we approach the recent discussion around beef. The Beef Controversy There is a lot of discussion underway regarding the permissibility of the consumption of beef in the Hindu religion. On one side, there are people who say those who eat beef cannot be Hindu while there are others who maintain beef is a culinary preference. I, personally, lean towards the former. I am, obviously, no Dharmaguru to make that assertion, so, of course, I am speaking in my personal capacity. One of the claims that is made to justify eating beef is that Hinduism is a diverse religion and there is nothing wrong if some people eat beef. But this is a bizarre conclusion to reach. There is the diversity of beliefs, yes, but one thing that a large part of the Hindu society believes in is that cow is an animal to revere and beef should not be consumed. It is for these reasons that it is perplexing to me that such a notion is even floated. I think this is where the lack of a central authority in Hinduism is most acutely felt unlike Christianity where there is the Church and in Islam where the book serves as the central authority and leaves very little room for interpretation. The argument often furthered is that there are indeed certain scriptures that allow beef-eating while others condemn it. As I have said earlier, I am no Dharmaguru and hence, the scriptural interpretation is not something I will not get into. Why certain sects evolved and started eating beef, was there a Mughal influence, and which scriptural context should be followed by all Hindus is something I am neither equipped to comment on, nor it is my place. However, I can say with certainty that in most average Hindu households, beef eating is not permissible for deeply religious reasons. For that reason, I mostly find the intellectual discourse around beef-eating rather vacuous and almost tone-deaf to what goes on in most Hindu households. The fact that we may know someone who eats beef cannot be considered the standard by which we take ideological positions on issues. If someone knows a murderer, are we to justify murder on that premise? If someone knows a person who likes to kill exotic animals for sport, are we to start justifying the act altogether? The argument that “I know someone who eats beef and are still Dharmic” is a vacuous attempt to justify personal habits and extrapolate that to taking an ideological position. To me personally, it appears to be disingenuous and I try to keep away from such pursuits. Just because we know someone who is doing something that might be against the basic tenets of Hinduism, doesn’t mean that the dogma has to be done away with. To suggest that it must, signifies arrogance, and not to mention, stupidity. The other argument that is often furthered is that several Hindu communities do consume beef and hence, not consuming beef cannot be a litmus test of being Hindu. Frankly, Hindus have liberalised their religion so much that nothing really is considered to be a litmus test for being a Hindu, however, I have a problem with legitimising beef-eating using this argument. One of the states that is often cited is Kerala. “Kerala Hindus eat beef. Are they then not Hindus?” My argument here is rather simple – it is entirely possible that the sect evolved into eating beef for reasons other than them considering it acceptable from the time of their ancestors. For this, I would redirect you to an article written by user @ dauhshanti . He beautifully traced the Hindu history of Kerala and proved how beef-eating was never a core part of that sect to begin with. He writes, “In the old days, warriors of Kerala who were mostly from the Nair community, once trained in Kalaris, the schools of martial arts, took an oath to protect Brahmins and cows, as part of service to the king. This is recorded by Duarte Barbosa, a 16th-century Portuguese writer”. “The King then asks him if he will maintain the customs and rules of the other Nayres (Nairs), and he and his kinsmen respond ‘ Yes.’ Then the King commands him to gird on his right side a sword with a red sheath, and when it is girt on he causes him to approach near to himself and la, his right hand on his head, saying therewith certain words which none may hear, seemingly a prayer, and then embraces him saying ‘ Paje Gubrantarca, that is to say ‘ Protect cows and Bramenes (Brahmins)” A similar oath was made by the most powerful Nair kings of Kerala, the Samuthiris or Zamorins of Calicut before their royal coronation “At Yagneswaram he is met by Vemaneheri Namputiri, a descendant of Melattur Agnihotri. The Eralped (Zamorin) gives him an ola (text), promising to protect Brahmins, temples and cows.” (The Zamorins of Calicut by K.V. Krishna Ayyar) - 16-17th-century French traveller Pyrard de Laval also writes about reverence to cows given by people of Kerala. ” I must not forget to mention, in passing, and as the opportunity arises, the great honour rendered by these people to cows, however low-bred, filthy, and all covered with dirt and dung they may be. They are allowed to enter the king’s palace, and whithersoever their way leads, without anyone disputing their passage; even the king himself, and all the greatest lords, give place to them with the utmost respect and reverence, and the same with bulls and oxen.” (The Voyage of Francois Pyrard of Laval, Volume 1) These excerpts presented by him clearly point towards the fact that beef-eating was something that was introduced later. This could very well be true for several other sects that consume beef today. Therefore, using this argument to say that beef-eating should be considered acceptable, is to say that the disintegrated version of Dharma must be acceptable to us. I don’t believe in that. Not in today’s day and age when Dharma seems to be slipping right in front of our eyes. While those who take the position that consuming beef is unacceptable and should be considered a taboo (and a non-negotiable) are considered ‘orthodox’, those who say that it is a culinary preference theorise that the former is trying to mirror Islamists and are attempting to ex-communicate people from the Hindu fold for eating beef. That argument is equally vacuous, if I can be honest here. The Hindu society has lost its organisational structure. There is absolutely no way that anyone can be ex-communicated from the Hindu society, least of all, on the say-so of someone like me. There is no metric to judge whether someone is a Hindu or not. Whether that is a good thing or bad, again depends on how ideologically rooted one is. Therefore, to deride those who wish to stick to the fact that beef-eating is a non-negotiable, or at least, should be a non-negotiable in the Hindu society, with this argument, is a strawman at best. Nobody can or should give certificates of Hinduism and nobody is a representative of the entire Hindu society. However, talking about personal non-negotiables is essential because it is out of those personal opinions that a societal opinion is crafted. Why the Taboo against beef eating needs to be strengthened Hinduism is a living, breathing religion. It changes with the times and for the times (again, whether that is good or bad depends on where you stand ideologically). In the current times, it is my personal belief that beef-eating has to be stigmatised as it has now become not only a matter of personal faith but a matter of cultural and religious resistance. Beef, in today’s world, has become the single most subject that is invoked to mock Hindus and show them “their place”. Remind them, that they are nothing in a religionless country where minorities are mollycoddled and the majority faith is desecrated to uphold mythical values of secularism. Beef parties are specifically held to mock Hindus, cows are deliberately slaughtered on the road, Hindus are called cow-piss drinkers by Leftists and Islamists and beef, has become their rallying point against the Hindu faith. One can even draw a parallel with the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. There is a reason why the movement resonated even with those who did not believe in Lord Ram or were his traditional bhaktas. It was a symbol of Hindu resistance and assertion that our faith will not be taken hostage by a secular state that is hell-bent on giving ancient tyrants far more respect than the people of the land. For me, personally, it is this deliberate desecration of my faith that hand-held me from believing that ‘beef-eating is a culinary preference’ to ‘those who consume beef cannot be considered Hindus’. Does that mean I have the authority to excommunicate someone from the faith? No. Does that mean that it is a strict non-negotiable for me? Absolutely. Do I mean that the Hindu society itself should stigmatise the consumption of beef in their own circles? Yes. The cow, traditionally, has been a symbol of Hindu resistance against foreign invasions and imperialism. For centuries, the greatest heroes of our civilization have been motivated to achieve great feats by virtue of their devotion towards the cow. There is the story of the great Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj who was so enraged by the slaughter of a cow that he attacked Adil Shahi soldiers as a young boy. The ban on cow slaughter was strictly enforced during the rule of the Maratha Empire. The devotion towards the cow and the ban on cow slaughter was not only enforced by the Maratha Empire but other great Hindu kingdoms and Empires as well. The cow has always been the symbol of Hindu resistance towards imperialism. It is for this reason that the efforts to normalize beef-eating feels like an assault on Hinduism itself. It is no secret that the Hindu Civilization today is under attack from various nefarious fronts that seek to destroy it. Every day, the news of idols being desecrated and Temples being attacked makes it way to the news. There is a Jihad against the Hindu Civilization in Kashmir and Maoists and Communists and Evangelical Christians seek to destroy our civilization as well. And now, a symbol of our cultural resistance is being reduced to a mere culinary preference. The objective here clearly is to turn Hindus against the ethos of our civilization itself and make our way of life a soft target in the process. Whether beef can be consumed by a Hindu or not is a debate that has been settled long ago and only strengthened by the events that followed foreign invasions. That a debate has been initiated regarding the matter is a further indication of the attacks against our civilization. Historically, Hindus have been force-fed beef in order to forcefully convert them to Islam. That tactic is used even today. In 2019, a Hindu woman was force-fed beef to convert her to Islam. In 2020 a similar case came to light as well. Cows have been slaughtered to insult the Hindu people. And now we are told that beef eating is merely a culinary preference. It is important to note here that in my view, any Hindu who sees how beef-eating is used to undermine the very sanctity of our faith and our very existence, could give up beef since it is a ‘preference’ for them and not a staple diet. For me, the normalisation of beef-eating today is little more than a disguised attempt to undermine our resolve to defend our way of life. To counter such trends, it is imperative that the taboo against beef-eating is strengthened manifold. And only society, together, can find a solution.

If Muslims who stayed back in India and their current off-springs were genuinely so connected to the ethos of India and its Hindu majority, one will have to logically explain the rise in radicalism that India has seen Muslims chose to stay back in India: An analysis of the mythical, unsubstantiated trope that is used to make Hindus feel guilty If Muslims who stayed back in India and their current off-springs were genuinely so connected to the ethos of India and its Hindu majority, one will have to logically explain the rise in radicalism that India has seen Nupur J Sharma 6 August 2020 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Hindus celebrated across the world as the 500-year-old battle to reclaim the Ram Janmabhoomi culminated with Prime Minister Narendra Modi doing the ‘Bhoomi Pujan’ for the Bhavya Ram Mandir. The 5 century battle by Hindus to reclaim their place of worship, their dignity and their cultural heritage should have been an occasion that was celebrated regardless of religion since, in India, Hindu culture is what has kept the country what it is today. However, unsurprisingly, the ‘liberal’ ecosystem was busy not only ruining the end of their mythical “secular” nation but also furthering inane and baseless arguments to make Hindus feel guilty about reclaiming what is rightfully theirs. One of the foremost arguments used by the apologetics of Islamism when any criticism of the barbarity heaped by invaders is mounted is that any such criticism is misplaced since the current lot of Muslims and their ancestors ‘chose to stay back in India’ even when they had the option to move to the Islamic State of Pakistan after the partition. Essentially, what they intend to say is that the Muslim citizens in India, or even their ancestors, should not be questioned about the acts of Muslim invaders because they are committed to India as much as the next Hindu. For the most part, at least theoretically, the argument that Muslims of India cannot be held responsible for the barbarity heaped by the Muslim invaders on Hindus is correct. Unless they demolished the Ram Temple with their own hands and helped in the construction of the disputed structure that was called Babri, it is theoretically incorrect to blame them for the actions of Muslim invader thousands of years ago. However, practically, we have seen that the rose-tinted image of the Indian Muslim does not always hold true. If Muslims were not beholden to the atrocities heaped by Muslim invaders and were indeed peace-loving citizens who acknowledged the atrocities committed, there would not have been widespread riots and systematic murder of Hindus, even in Pakistan, after the disputed structure was demolished by Karsevaks. In fact, if Indian Muslims were truly mindful of what the invaders had taken away from Hindus, they would have voluntarily given up their claim on the disputed structure, as KK Mohammad had suggested. However, that was not the case. Till date, even after the Bhoomi Pujan, threats issued to Hindus by Islamists and general Muslims have not stopped. From the All India Muslim Personal Law Board to Muslim leaders like Asaduddin Owaisi, the threats to Hindus prove that the image of the Indian Muslim that Liberals want to paint so desperately have a few chinks, to say the least. It is to be noted that these are some of the most powerful representatives of the Muslim community in India. They have been elected by the Muslims and are revered by the Muslims. And hence, to say that their opinion does not represent the popular sentiment amongst the Muslim population could be as ludicrous as saying that PM Modi does not find resonance with Hindus of India. When the apparent and very real reaction of Indian Muslims goes against the stated narrative, liberals then turn to bizarre arguments to ensure that the image they have created, one of eternal victimhood, doesn’t crumble to the ground. One of the favourite arguments that are furthered by this delusional coterie is that Indian Muslims stayed back in India out of choice, allegiance and love for India and thus, casting aspersions on their patriotism or even their “tolerance” of the Hindu faith is unfair. Even as the threats by Muslims threw thick and fast, the narrative that was peddled was that “secular” India was being unfair to Muslims who chose to stay back in India. In fact, the narrative often goes a step further. Many claim that “most” Muslims chose to stay back in India and hence, the Muslim community, on the whole, is patriotic and beholden to India and Indian ethos, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. However, is that premise valid? Did “most” Muslims choose to stay back in India post-partition? What do the numbers say? During the provincial elections in 1946, it is an undisputed fact that Muslims voted overwhelmingly for Muslim League which had stirred up religious passions with its demand for a separate Islamic State at the time. The Muslim League asserted that Hindus and Muslims cannot co-exist in the same country and thus, Muslims should have a country of their own carved out of India itself, post-independence. In total, 87% seats were won by the Muslim League in India in 1946. A closer look at the numbers shows how the demand for a separate Islamic State bolstered the political demand for a separate state. The table shows a comparison between the seats won by the Muslim League in 1937 and 1946. As one can see, the number of states that were won by the Muslim League of Jinnah went up manyfold in 1946. In every state, the rise in the popularity of Muslim League was substantial. In states like Bihar, for example, from zero seats in 1937, the Muslim League won a whopping 34 seats out of 40 seats. In Madras, the increase was from 9 to all 29 seats. The pattern holds across all states, or provinces, as they were called during that period. It is to be remembered that though the two-nation theory itself existed for much longer, a formal political demand was made for a separate state for Muslims in 1940. It was in 1940 that Jinnah formally announced the demand in Lahore. 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.” It was in Lahore that the Muslim League formally recommitted itself to creating an independent Muslim state, including Sindh, Punjab, Baluchistan, the North-West Frontier Province and Bengal, that would be “wholly autonomous and sovereign”. The resolution guaranteed protection for non-Muslim religions. The Lahore Resolution moved by the sitting Chief Minister of Bengal A. K. Fazlul Huq was adopted on 23 March 1940, and its principles formed the foundation for Pakistan’s first constitution. The formalisation of the demand in 1940 led to a huge surge in the Muslim population supporting the Muslim League and by extension, supporting the demand for a separate Islamic State called Pakistan, which would be carved out of India. It is thus intriguing when several apologists claim that most Muslims stayed back in India out of choice and that most Muslims at the time did not want a separate Islamic state. There can be no denying that there was opposition even from the Muslims at the time to the idea of a separate state, however, political statements and what counts during voting are two rather separate concepts. If Muslims wanted a separate Islamic State and voted overwhelmingly in its favour, why did so many Muslims stay back? The obvious argument that is presented, sans facts, to counter the overwhelming support for the creation of Pakistan is that if most Muslims at the time supported the two-nation theory, then why did so many Muslims stay back. And if they indeed did stay back, it only means that they rejected the two-nation theory. To understand the complete context, we will need to travel back in history a little. After partition, several leaders were in support of the full exchange of population, including leaders like BR Ambedkar. In his book on Partition, Ambedkar clearly outlines how and why he was in favour of a full population exchange between India and Pakistan, which would essentially mean that all Hindus and other religious factions other than Muslims would come back to India and all Muslims from India would go to Pakistan. In fact, he had even written a basic framework on how the issues arising out of full population exchange could be dealt with. Sardar Patel had, even after the partition spoken extensively about how Muslims had helped create Pakistan. His famous quote from his speech in Kolkata, 1948, bears testament to the fact. He had said , “Most of the Muslims who have stayed back in Hindustan, helped in creating Pakistan. Now, I don’t understand what has changed in one night that they are asking us not to doubt their loyalty”. Further, one has to remember that the demand for full population exchange was supported by several stalwarts at the time. A report in Sunday Guardian says, “Dr Mookerjee, accompanied by Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, went to plead with Gandhi for agreeing to Jinnah’s proposal for an exchange of population, the old man’s flat reply was that partition was on a territorial basis and not on religious grounds. Hence, no question of exchanging Hindus from Pakistan with Muslims from India. This was when the division was exclusively on the criterion of religion, Hindu and Muslim”. Further, After the partition, which was squarely based on religious lines owing to the demands of Jinnah, widespread riots had broken out in India and the newly formed Pakistan. The non-Muslim citizenry who were in Pakistan started making their way to India and the Muslim citizens in India started making their way to Pakistan. The migration is well documented and proven. In 1950, an accord was signed between Nehru and Liaquat Ali Khan where each side pledged to secure its minorities and give equality of citizenship regardless of religion. Both sides promised to help recover looted property, assist in the recovery of abducted women and not recognise conversions made during communal disturbances. Essentially, Jawaharlal Nehru scuttled the de facto population exchange with the 1950 Accord. After the Accord was signed, Muslims, who had left West Bengal, returned and Nehru ensured that their property was restored to them. However, the travesties heaped on the Hindus continue to this day, unabated in Islamic Nations like Pakistan and Bangladesh. Quoting a report from Daily Pioneer: Syama Prasad Mukherjee resigned from the Cabinet on April 1, 1950, in protest against Nehru’s failure to take Pakistan to task for the continued suffering of his people. At a Cabinet meeting the same day, Mukherjee said, “What do you care for us Bengali Hindus? What do you care for the criminal assaults on our women?” (Soundings in Modern South Asian History, ed. DA Low) Enraged at the renewed exodus of Hindus, which he viewed as deliberate, he suggested an exchange of populations, which Nehru rejected vehemently. Nehru, in his communication to the then West Bengal Chief Minister, had further said (as quoted in the DailyPioneer report): “I have been quite certain right from the beginning that everything should be done to prevent Hindus in east Bengal from migrating to West Bengal…I think the Hindu leaders of East Bengal, who have come away, have done no service to their people. If as you suggest things have gone too far already, then naturally, we shall all do what we can but I shudder at the prospect and the magnitude of the human misery that will come in its train. To the last, I shall try to check migration even if there is war”. Jawaharlal Nehru was thus, quite vehemently against population exchange and was, in fact, willing to fight a war to ensure that persecuted Hindus are not allowed to migrate back to India. The Bihar conundrum A strange argument that was furthered in the Huffington Post article also cited Bihar as an example saying that the drop in population in Bihar was a mere 2% between 1941 and 1951. Citing this example, the author says that this could not be called a “mass exodus” and hence, even if all the people who voted for the creation of Pakistan left, it stands to prove that those who stayed back did not essentially agree with the decision. This argument would be rather hilarious if weren’t so woefully uninformed. The interesting assumption made by the author here is that at the time, it was a free flow of people between Pakistan and India. Much like now, people could simply book their tickets via trains or flights and simply shift to the country of their preference at will. And hence, the ones who stayed back did stay back because they chose to be here. It simply assumes that it was a conscious decision. What the article does not specify, is that from zero seats in 1937, the Muslim League won 34 out of 40 seats in Bihar in 1946 after the political demand for Pakistan was formalised. The fact remains that complete exchange of population, as discussed earlier in this article, was not exactly a proposition that was supported by the two people who were in the position to make most such decisions at the time – Jawaharlal Nehru and MK Gandhi. In fact, Nehru and Gandhi were explicitly against the idea even at the insistence of stalwarts like Ambedkar. By 1950, the Pact was signed and thus, there was hardly any facility that was actively provided by the state for a population exchange. Add to that, widespread riots had also broken out in the countries. Perhaps the reason that far more Muslims managed to make their way from Punjab to Pakistan as compared to Bihar is the greatest proof of the logistical nightmare that people who wanted to travel to the ‘other country’ faced. Therefore, to simply assume that Muslims stayed back in India at will, is a fallacy that has long been propagated by malicious elements such as the author of the Huffington Post article. The argument of suffrage: ‘Those who voted for Pakistan did not represent Indian Muslims’ When facts presented are overwhelming, the intelligentsia that wishes to defend the indefensible often resorts to a strawman argument. One of those arguments were made in the Huffington Post by one Rupa Subramanya. The argument made essentially said that “1946 elections, based on the Sixth Schedule of the1935 Government of India Act, had a limited franchise, which means that only a small percentage of adults—those with money and property—were eligible to vote”. Essentially, the argument depends on the principles of suffrage saying that since only a percentage of people had the right to vote, the overwhelming support for the creation of Pakistan was not representative of the common Muslim sentiment. In fact, it goes a step further to quote “anecdotal evidence” to counter the actual evidence. The article says, “Anecdotally, there are many stories of upper-middle-class and upper-class Indian Muslims, including erstwhile princes, who decamped for Pakistan in 1947 to land up in senior positions in the government, military, and corporate sectors. Such people, whom one might charitably call carpetbaggers, voted with their feet and chose Pakistan”. Depending on “anecdotal evidence” to counter numbers is a straw man that is often used by those who wish to lodge their names in the Liberal roster. However, the straw man argument itself, when extended, hardly represents the truth. To provide further “proof” of this strawman argument, Rupa in Huffington Post extends the argument to Nehru and Congress. She says that Nehru himself was an elitist and hence, did not represent the entire Indian community due to limited suffrage. In fact, she even blames the new age critics of Congress and therefore, Nehru saying that most of the new age critics essentially say that they were elitist and did not represent the interest of wishes of The Hindu community at large back then, and if that argument holds true, it also has to be true that the Muslim League did not represent to wishes of the Muslim population for the same reasons (limited suffrage). This argument is deeply flawed, to say the least. If one extends the limited suffrage argument, then one will have to almost concede that there was no freedom struggle in India, to begin with, or that at least the struggle may not have had the consensus of the masses. The struggle itself was not put to vote and certainly, did not take the collective consensus of the masses by any electoral method. Is that to say that the freedom struggle had no universal acceptance? Further, the argument being extended to Congress is also deeply flawed. Even the staunchest critics of Congress do not say that they did not have popular consensus or were acting in a manner that did not have the will of the people included. The criticism has always revolved around how the people, Hindus specifically, were misled by Congress and by extension, by Nehru into believing principles that were against the very basics of Hinduism or even what India was meant to stand for. That the interests of Hindus were compromised is a fact. But it is also a fact that Hindus did support Congress. The criticism is about how the people were fooled by him to toe their line to their own detriment. Talking about Nehru in isolation to say that Nehru did not have consensus of the people, for the purpose of this argument is flawed too. While Nehru certainly needed the help of MK Gandhi to be catapulted to his political position, it also needs to be understood that at the time, it was not a presidential election that would hinge on the personality himself. It was about the idea that was being presented by the party – Congress, and the idea being presented by the Muslim League. That we criticise those very ideas and how the leaders of Congress fooled the people at the time is a separate debate, however, one cannot possibly argue that the consensus at the time was not with Congress by any means. This strawman argument can be extended to suit ones narrative as much as one wants. For example, in today’s day and age, this same argument is used to discredit the election of PM Narendra Modi even when universal suffrage is granted. Often, one hears Leftists say that PM Modi was only elected by 33% of the population and hence, he is not the representative voice of the people. This argument truly has no end. However, even at the time of limited suffrage, the limited voting rights given to Muslims were the exact same limited rights given to Hindus. However, it was not the Hindus demanding a separate state or even asking for separate electoral rights for Hindus and Muslims during the time. It was Pocker Sahib Bahadur, Muslim member from Madras who had moved the following amendment after the partition of India: “That on a consideration of the report of the Advisory Committee on minorities, fundamental right etc., on minority rights this meeting of the Constituent Assembly resolves that all elections to the Central and Provincial Legislatures should, as far as Muslims are concerned, be held on the basis of separate electorates”. Sardar Patel at the time had given a scathing speech that decimated the premise of this. He repeatedly argued that it was the Muslims who spearheaded the demand for Pakistan and now that they got their demand, they want to divide India on the basis of religion. Patel made remarks questioning the forked tongue of the Muslims at the time too, saying that sweet words will not compensate for actions. While this proposition was rejected after a heated debate in the constituent assembly, it was, in fact, a widely popular suggestion in the Muslim community and Patel’s remarks during the debate also stand testament to that fact. The existence and formation of IUML proves that the Muslims who stayed back in India had no special allegiance towards India Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), which claims to be born after Indian Independence in 1948, is actually an off-shoot of Pakistan founder and Islamist Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s All India Muslim League (AIML). The All India Muslim League was succeeded by the Muslim League in Pakistan and the Indian Union Muslim League in India. In its website, the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) claims that its motto is secularism and communal harmony but has often openly indulged in carrying out those objectives which are contrary to its own motto. The Muslim League had strongly advocated for the establishment of a separate Muslim-majority nation-state, Pakistan successfully led to the partition of British India in 1947 by the British Empire. The birth of Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) in December 1947 was a part of that intention to keep these spirit of the All India Muslim League. Muhammad Ismail, the first President of the Indian Union Muslim League after it split up from the Jinnah’s Muslim League, had actively participated in the partition movement of the country and was an ardent supporter of the creation of Pakistan. Interestingly, Muhammad Ismail, who claimed IUML was a secular outfit had, in fact, supported the retaining of Sharia law for Indian Muslims in the Constituent Assembly after India’s independence. Mohammad Ismail, the founder President of IUML, the first political party of Muslims in the new state of India even bargained with Congress to “recognise the League as the sole representative of Muslims”, similar to the policies of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who had always asserted he and his party AIML was the sole representative of the Muslims in undivided India. In fact, it is widely accepted that IUML was formed on the advice of Jinnah just before he left the country post partition. According to historians, Jinnah had even said that “There must be a Muslim league in Hindustan”. The AIML had also observed that the protection of minorities in India depended upon the strength of Pakistan and had promised that they “would do all to protect them”. Essentially, while the Muslims who could travel to Pakistan went to the “promised land of the pure” and the ones who did not, reposed their faith largely in IUML and allied organisations that essentially were created to ensure that Jinnah’s vision in India was preserved. How then can it be argued that those who stayed back in India post-partition did so by some lofty idea of allegiance to India and the Indian ethos? How then can it be said, time and time again, that the Muslims who stayed back in India at the time rejected the concept of the two-nation theory? Conclusion Every factual argument and statistic points to the fact that Muslims who stayed back in India, did not primarily do so out of their innate love for mother India. At least a vast majority of them did not. There are exceptions, however, those exceptions cannot be used to make generic arguments. The ones who further this strawman argument essentially aim to tell the world that the Muslims who stayed back in India are not as “radical” as the ones who chose to move to Pakistan or even fought for the creation of an Islamic nation. Even if we keep all the historical evidence aside, how would the proponents of this theory explain the exponential rise in radicalism and the unwavering faith in the ideology of Jinnah amongst the Indian Muslims? One cannot argue that radical Islam and the propensity towards Jinnah has only increased over the years. One recalls the Jinnah Waali Azadi slogans and the calls to break India up yet again. One also remembers the ruckus that was created over one portrait of Jinnah in AMU. And if that is not enough, one recalls the innumerable riots that were initiated by Muslims against the Hindu majority of India. Essentially, if Muslims who stayed back in India and their current off-springs were genuinely so connected to the ethos of India and its Hindu majority, one will have to logically explain the rise in radicalism that India has seen. This explanation will also have to be plausible and not depend on strawman arguments like the ones in the Huffington Post and other emotional outbursts that form the basis of the propaganda by Islamists and their allies. Nobody denies the existence of good Muslims. Nobody can ever say with certainty that there are no Muslims in India who still pledge allegiance to the sacred soil of India. Who genuinely embrace Hindu ethos while being Muslims. After all, we have had stalwarts like Dr APJ Kalam and KK Mohammad, who was an integral part of Hindus reclaiming their Ram Mandir legally. However, exceptions are just that – exceptions. They cannot be used to discredit the norm. Facts cannot be brushed under the carpet with emotional wails and the truth cannot be buried with strawman arguments – not forever, anyway, and certainly not with the sole purpose of making Hindus feel perennially guilty.

Hindus, as I say, will perish if we refuse to recognise the patterns of oppression that we have been taught to accept like well-trained mules. From Rangeela Rasool to Kohat riots and Nupur Sharma: An unmissable pattern of insult, aggression, victim playing and vilification of Hindus Hindus, as I say, will perish if we refuse to recognise the patterns of oppression that we have been taught to accept like well-trained mules. Nupur J Sharma 21 October 2022 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Protest against Nupur Sharma in Pakistan (Image credit: ChinaDailyHK) The buzzword for 2022 is ‘Islamophobia’. Any criticism of Islam, the conduct of the Muslim community as a whole in an incident where unbridled violence was unleashed on non-Muslims or even stating facts from their religious scriptures, which appear inconvenient to the facade of tolerance that has been created by the Ummah, is considered an aggression against the supposedly oppressed Muslim community worldwide. There are examples aplenty of how the global media helps the Ummah turn themselves into perennial victims after every incident of unilateral aggression. One of the foremost examples in India recently was the Delhi Riots. There is ample recorded evidence that the Delhi Riots of 2020 were a planned conspiracy to target the Hindu community. Some of the players who hatched the conspiracy are lodged in prisons with cases of UAPA slapped against them. If one reads the over 17,000 page conspiracy chargesheet that has been filed by the police, one sees the meticulously documented evidence that includes pictures, dates, WhatsApp chats, CDR details, a money trail, witness statements and far more. The Ummah, however, with the help of a terribly spineless media, turned a planned killing spree against Hindus into an “anti-Muslim pogrom”. They picked up one speech by a BJP leader hours before the violence broke out and general “Islamophobia” that they conjured out of thin air to assert, globally, that the Delhi Riots were a planned “pogrom” against Muslims. While taking into consideration the speech of Kapil Mishra, they ignored the hundreds of Hindumisic speeches delivered by the Muslims in the run-up to the violence, the trail of violence that started in December 2019 against Hindus, the fact that Muslim leaders like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam had gone on the record to state that violence needs to erupt when Donald Trump would be visiting Delhi and the fact that genesis of the violence does not depend on body count. One of the foremost tropes used by the Left to paint the Delhi anti-Hindu riots as an anti-Muslim pogrom is that there were more Muslims who died in the final February 2020 violence than Hindus. It is true that more Muslims died in the February violence, however, it is also true that the violence was unleashed by the Muslim side. As elucidated before, the first murder was that of a Hindu, constable Ratan Lal, and the first incident of violence was initiated by the Muslim community. After days of provocative speeches and a killing spree against Kafirs (Tahir Hussain admitted that the violence was unleashed to teach Kaffirs a lesson), Hindus had decided to defend themselves. In a riot, it is an established fact that unfortunately, lives would be lost on both sides – that is the very nature of communal strife. However, the nature of a riot is not determined by how much damage the numerically superior side defending themselves inflicts, but on the basis of the conspiracy leading up to the violence and honest analysis of who started the violence. It is, however, the nature of the Ummah to cry victim when the Kaffirs decide to so much as defend themselves or, in the rare scenario, decide to retaliate in equal measure. During the Delhi Riots, the conspiracy was hatched by the Islamists, the violence was initiated by them to teach “Kaffirs a lesson” and the nature of the riot was purely anti-Hindu, however, the moment Hindus decided to defend themselves, the Ummah started claiming victim and the global media, with the help of their brown sepoys in India, painted the riots as an “anti-Muslim pogrom”. This is not the first time this has happened and it certainly won’t be the last. The Hindu community has often been subjected to unimaginable violence and branded as the aggressor community if they have dared to defend themselves and/or retaliate against the original aggression by the Muslim community. 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). In response to this provocation by Islamists, Pandit Chamupati Lal, a close friend of Mahashay Rajpal, wrote a short biography of the Islamic Prophet, Mohammed. “Rangeela Rasool” was a short pamphlet which satirised the life of the Prophet of Islam. Pandit Chamupati made Mahashay Rajpal promise that he would never reveal the name of the author – he knew the consequences of it. Anonymously published under the name “doodh ka doodh aur panee ka panee”, the book enraged Muslims. Staying true to the values of one-way brotherhood, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi wrote in his pamphlet “Young India”, condemning Rangeela Rasool. While Gandhi ignored the provocation by Muslims, by the end of June 1924, the colonial government banned the book. The Muslim community, partly emboldened by MK Gandhi’s endorsement of their hurt sentiments and whitewashing of the provocation against Hindus, filed multiple cases against the book under 153A. In May 1927, Mahashay Rajpal, who published the book, was acquitted of all charges with the court observing that commentary based on facts on historical figures, including the prophet of Islam, cannot be said to promote enmity between groups. As soon as the verdict was delivered, Muslim mobs went into a frenzy. They rioted and demanded the head of Mahashay Rajpal. They were chants about how the murder of Rajpal was acceptable because, under Sharia, the punishment for blasphemy is death. On April 6th, 1929 a 19-year-old carpenter named Ilm ud din stabbed Mahashay Rajpal in his chest eight times while he was seated in the outer verandah of his shop. Though he was offered to give up the name of the author, Pandit Chamupati Lal, during the court proceedings, he refused and did not yield. He paid the price for it. The initial provocation in this case came from the Muslim community. Mahashay Rajpal and Pandit Chamupati merely responded in the same coin. The response by the Hindus led to the Muslims demanding the head of Mahashay Rajpal, going on a rampage and unleashing riots, getting a special law enacted that we today know as 295A and the brutal murder of Mahashay Rajpal. Not only this, but it also led to the vilification of the Hindu community spearheaded by none other than MK Gandhi himself. He had written in Young India, “A friend has sent me a pamphlet called R. Rasul written in Urdu, The author’s name is not given. […] The very title is highly offensive. The contents [are] in keeping with the title. I cannot without giving offence to the reader’s sense of fine give the translation of some of the extracts. I have asked myself what the motive possible could be in writing or printing such a book except to inflame passion. Abuse and caricature of the Prophet cannot wean a Musalman from his faith and it can do no good to a Hindu who may have doubts about his own belief. As a contribution, therefore, to the religious propaganda work, it has no value whatsoever.” In fact, MK Gandhi had gone as far as to say that provocation and abuse by Muslims do not justify this response by Hindus, thereby, painting the Hindu community as the aggressors and whitewashing the original provocation by the Muslim community. While Mahashay Rajpal was murdered in 1929 for a book that was published in 1923, in 1924 the Muslim community followed the same pattern during the Kohat violence , where Hindus were massacred for a response to the provocation by the Muslim community. On the fateful days of September 9th and 10th of 1924, radical Islamist mobs unleashed m ayhem in Hindu mohallas (neighbourhoods) in Kohat town of North-West Frontier Province (now known as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) in present-day Pakistan. The carnage was pre-meditated and resulted in the exodus of the entire Hindu population from the area. Since the British depended on the majority Muslim community to maintain their stronghold in the area, it implied that the government of the day turned a blind eye to the treatment meted out to the Hindus. In May 1924, a notorious Muslim publication published a poem that was highly offensive towards Hindus. The poem in “Lahaul” read, “ We shall have to burn the Gita of Kirars. We shall break the flute of Krishna. O Muslims! You will have to take up the sword and destroy the existence of Kirars and burn their goddesses “. The genocidal poem by a Muslim newspaper hurt the sentiments of the Hindu community and especially the Sanatan Dharma Sabha. The local secretary of the organisation, Jiwan Das, then published a pamphlet by the name of ‘Krishan Sandesh’. The pamphlet contained poems meant to reinstate the religious identity among the Hindus. Miffed by the anti-Hindu poem published in Lahaul, Das printed a poem by one author from Jammu wherein he mocked the followers of Allah. It read, “ We have kept quiet so long, we shall have to speak out, O mulla! You must gather up your prayer carpet and taken it to Arabia. We shall build a temple to Vishnu in place of the Ka’ba, And destroy the existence of the Nimaziz. “ After the retaliation by Hindus, which was publishing a poem that offended the Muslims as Muslims offended the Hindus, the Maulvis started their hate speeches baying for Hindu blood. On September 3, 1924, Maulvi Ahmed Gul and Qazi Miraj Din led a Muslim crowd to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, S. Ahmad Khan, and demanded action against Jiwan Das. Khan assured them that Jiwan Das would be prosecuted under IPC 505, 153A. He had also directed the burning of pamphlets. “Alas! Oh impotent Mussulmans! You have spoiled your cause by accepting bribes from the Hindus. You should die! You should have some sense of shame,” the extremist preachings began at the mosque. Maulvi Ahmed Gul then set the stage for the impending riots. He warned the police to take action against Das or that the community would take action as per Shariat . He gave an ultimatum until 8 am on September 9. He received support from other clerics such as Shahin Shah and Mian Fazul Shah. In one such meeting at Haji Bahadur mosque, fanatic Muslims took the ‘oath of talaq’ i.e. they will divorce their wives if they fail to defend their religion. By night, Muslims were seen parading with arms. On September 9, 1924, a crowd of 1000-1500 Muslims first went to meet Deputy Commissioner Reilly, forcing him to give in to their demands. At around mid-day, half of the mob disappeared and surfaced outside the Hindu mohalla. The Hindus were anticipating trouble after learning about the ‘oath of talaq’, and hate speeches delivered at mosques. They sent telegrams to the Deputy Commissioner, SP but in vain. Muslim mobs, particularly young boys, stormed into Hindu colonies and began wielding sticks and pelting stones. Fearing an impending pogrom, the Hindus fired shots at them. Amidst the chaos, one of the stone pelters died while several others were injured. This gave the fanatic Muslim mob a free pass to kill the Hindus. Shops, temples and houses were set on fire and destroyed. Properties belonging to the Hindus were vandalised and looted. The riots continued until 7 pm at night when the law enforcement authorities dispersed the mob and brought the situation under control. At about 11 am on September 10, 4000 Muslims from Kohat and nearby tribal areas gathered outside the Hindu mohalla. The large-scale arson forced about 3000 Hindus to flee Kohat town and take shelter in a nearby temple. It was at this point that the Muslims began torching Hindu homes after looting them and slaughtering those who chose to stay behind. Several Hindus were killed, others went missing and tens were wounded according to official figures. In the case of Kohat violence, the Hindus paid a price for first responding to Muslims with a poem after they published one that offended Hindus and thereafter, for defending themselves after mobs stormed their colonies. It is hard to miss the parallels that these cases, and so many more like them have. In the Nupur Sharma case, for example, it is an established fact that she only responded to the provocation by a Muslim panellist, who had ties to PFI and other terror organisations. However, it was the Muslim panellists who escaped scot-free and Nupur Sharma who became the subject of threats from across the world, Muslims hankering to rape her, kill her and behead her. The pattern seems to have been established rather firmly: Insult Hindus and their faith with vile words. Provoke a reaction from Hindus. Play victim about the reaction of Hindus. Demand special laws, special treatment and the prosecution of the Hindu for his response, while escaping themselves because they played the victim and partly because the state is incapable of dealing with radical Islam. Despite police action against the Hindus who merely retaliated, the Muslim community will often claim that the action was not sufficient. Soon after that, the Maulanas will start spewing venom against Hindus as a community. There would be intellectuals who would condemn the retaliation by the Hindus and help in painting the Muslims as the victims of hate from Hindus, completely ignoring how the Muslim community either initiated the provocation or the violence, as the case may be. Emboldened by this support, the Muslim community will step up their vitriol and start initiating violence. They will then unleash violence against the Hindus, in some cases, hatch a conspiracy to teach “Kaffirs a lesson”. When the Hindus defend themselves, they will turn the table and claim that the violence was perpetuated by the Hindus against the Muslim community. Most cases of such violence have common elements from the 10 points cited – from the Rangeela Rasool fiasco, to Kohat riots and even Nupur Sharma were a result of the permutation of some of the 10 points cited above. Essentially, the Muslim community has been sending a rather powerful message to the Hindu community – we will insult you but you have no right to retaliate in the same measure – if you do, we will hunt you down. We will also unleash violence against you, but if you defend yourself, we will tell the world that you organised a pogrom against us. This pattern has repeated over and over again, to a point where Hindus have, to a great extent, stopped responding to any sort of insult to their faith and assault against their families. A glimpse of that syndrome was seen during the Nupur Sharma case when Hindus wondered “what was the need” for Sharma to respond to the bile being spread by the Muslim panellist since she “knows the consequences”. Here is what I had written back then: Therefore, why it is “necessary” for Hindus to talk about, dissect and analyse Islam openly and honestly is because it is a faith that demands the sacrifice of Hindus. There is nothing remotely similar in Hindu texts that goad the Hindu community to annihilate those who follow another religion. Therefore, for Nupur to clap back at a Muslim panellist denigrating Hinduism by merely quoting the Hadits is necessary. It is necessary because the Islamic community needs to acknowledge, at the very least, that their insult to Hinduism comes from religious hate while the Hindus’ comment on Islam comes from a place of either self-defence or frustration at being subjugated for centuries. For aeons, we have been told that the onus of maintaining peace, harmony and brotherhood rests on the shoulders of Hindus. And those Hindus, who think merely the fact that Hindus don’t indulge in violence fulfils this responsibility of maintaining brotherhood, are wrong. Hindus are expected to maintain brotherhood by ceding everything they hold sacred and by giving up large parts of their personal liberty. Hindus are not supposed to be offended when their faith is mocked, not supposed to utter a word against Islam, understand that Islam is peaceful and all the violence in the name of Islam does not represent Islam, die with a smile on our faces if we are murdered by Islamists, shut our eyes to facts, give up claims on our places of worship, accept that we are devil worshippers and believe, deep in our heart, that Islamists think of us as brothers and sisters while they hold a sword to our neck. This cast of mind is so set in the Hindu psyche that any comment on Islam, even innocuous ones, seems “unnecessary” because it would lead to friction, violence and “disruption of harmony” – a harmony that only existed because the victims of Islamist violence and hate, the Hindus, had Stockholm Syndrome and were beaten to believe that accepting that subjugation with a smile on their face was their eternal responsibility. It is, therefore, not surprising that one of the main criticisms of Nupur Sharma is that her comments were completely “unnecessary”. She, in order to maintain this mythical harmony, must give up her rights, her hurt, her thoughts and essentially, the damn truth because one just never knows what might irk the intolerant minority off. While Hindus do as Hindus were taught, this trope pushes us down a slope where the slide will ensure that it pulls the entirety of our civilisation down. Sita Ram Goel had said, “To start with, we want to take up what we consider to be its most important contribution, namely, the unravelling of two behaviour patterns – Muslim and National – which collaborated closely for years and precipitated Partition in the final round. The Muslim behaviour pattern was characterized by acrimony, accusations, complaints, demands, denunciations, and street riots. The National behaviour pattern, on the other hand, was characterized by acquiescence, assent, cajolery, concessions, cowardice, self-reproach, and surrender”. Hindus, as I say, will perish if we refuse to recognise the patterns of oppression that we have been taught to accept like well-trained mules.

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.

Hindus today might believe that Nupur Sharma's comment was "unnecessary", but if there was a word of caution, it would be this - tomorrow, they will say your very existence, the existence of the dirty Kafir that they are theologically and viscerally meant to hate is an affront to their faith. Many Hindus still think what Nupur Sharma said was ‘unnecessary’: Here is a necessary read for them Hindus today might believe that Nupur Sharma's comment was "unnecessary", but if there was a word of caution, it would be this - tomorrow, they will say your very existence, the existence of the dirty Kafir that they are theologically and viscerally meant to hate is an affront to their faith. Nupur J Sharma 7 June 2022 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] On the 5th of June, BJP suspended the now-former spokesperson of the party, Nupur Sharma, after certain Muslim countries started getting irate about certain comments she had made during a debate (basically, quoting the Hadit). The BJP claimed that Nupur had taken a stand contrary to theirs on several occasions and therefore, an inquiry would be initiated against her pending which she would stand suspended from the party – a party she had been associated with for over 15 years. The move led to widespread condemnation predominantly from those who support and vote for the BJP since the move was seen as the party taking away institutional support from her amidst death and rape threats by Islamists. Those who prefer to support the party with utmost loyalty have theorised that she is being given protection against the threats she has been receiving, however, her suspension is in the national interest because India cannot afford to dent its hard-won relationship with the Muslim world. I would not be getting into that argument since it is beyond the scope of this article. However, there were certain other arguments made to essentially justify the suspension of Nupur Sharma. One of the most predominant ones relied on the classic argument – ‘But it was unnecessary for Nupur to get into that argument’, ‘It was unnecessary for her to insult their faith’, ‘It was unnecessary for her to lose her patience on national television? Does she not know they get violence about perceived blasphemy?”. The obvious problem with this argument is that it essentially blames the victim. By saying this, even if it is said with reference to her suspension, one tacitly ends up justifying the threats that she has been at the receiving end of. The Islamists use exactly this argument to justify their calls for “Sar Tan Se Juda’. They say, “Nupur Sharma should have known that if she comments on Prophet Muhammad, we will get offended and demand her head”. The logical slide of this argument is staggering. If the “She should have known better” argument is to be accepted, every victim of every crime can be shamed using it. One basically places far more value on someone’s whim than facts when one uses this argument – Because Nupur Sharma chose to legitimately exercise her freedom of expression, the calls to behead her are justified because she should have known that her speech can lead to hurt feelings which can, in turn, lead to her execution. But beyond the logical slide of that argument, there is a civilisational aspect that is far more concerning. First and foremost, we perhaps need to understand the civilisational illiteracy from which this argument stems. For the longest time, Indians, even in schools, have been fed with tropes about all religions being equal. It is a trope that has made Indians, especially Hindus, rather blind to reality and insufferably sanctimonious. One of the reasons why certain Hindus believe that Nupur Sharma’s comments were “unnecessary” is because they truly believe that all religions are fundamentally equal and it is not completely abnormal to be offended when remarks about one’s faith are made. That argument is not off the mark – it is natural to be a little hurt – but it is certainly not the characteristic of every faith to give calls to behead. What is also untrue is that all religions are equal. The ‘all religions are equal’ claim stems from notions of religious pluralism. 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 to co-exist 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. At the very outset, it suffices to say that Islam lays out a doctrine for the humiliation of Kafirs. When verses of the Quran 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 aspire 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? Therefore, why it is “necessary” for Hindus to talk about, dissect and analyse Islam openly and honestly is because it is a faith that demands the sacrifice of Hindus. There is nothing remotely similar in Hindu texts that goad the Hindu community to annihilate those who follow another religion. Therefore, for Nupur to clap back at a Muslim panellist denigrating Hinduism by merely quoting the Hadits is necessary. It is necessary because the Islamic community needs to acknowledge, at the very least, that their insult to Hinduism comes from religious hate while the Hindus’ comment on Islam comes from a place of either self-defence or frustration at being subjugated for centuries. For aeons, we have been told that the onus of maintaining peace, harmony and brotherhood rests on the shoulders of Hindus. And those Hindus, who think merely the fact that Hindus don’t indulge in violence fulfils this responsibility of maintaining brotherhood, are wrong. Hindus are expected to maintain brotherhood by ceding everything they hold sacred and by giving up large parts of their personal liberty. Hindus are not supposed to be offended when their faith is mocked, not supposed to utter a word against Islam, understand that Islam is peaceful and all the violence in the name of Islam does not represent Islam, die with a smile on our faces if we are murdered by Islamists, shut our eyes to facts, give up claims on our places of worship, accept that we are devil worshippers and believe, deep in our heart, that Islamists think of us as brothers and sisters while they hold a sword to our neck. This cast of mind is so set in the Hindu psyche that any comment on Islam, even innocuous ones, seems “unnecessary” because it would lead to friction, violence and “disruption of harmony” – a harmony that only existed because the victims of Islamist violence and hate, the Hindus, had Stockholm Syndrome and were beaten to believe that accepting that subjugation with a smile on their face was their eternal responsibility. It is, therefore, not surprising that one of the main criticisms of Nupur Sharma is that her comments were completely “unnecessary”. She, in order to maintain this mythical harmony, must give up her rights, her hurt, her thoughts and essentially, the damn truth because one just never knows what might irk the intolerant minority off. While Hindus do as Hindus were taught, this trope pushes us down a slope where the slide will ensure that it pulls the entirety of our civilisation down. Sita Ram Goel had said, “To start with, we want to take up what we consider to be its most important contribution, namely, the unravelling of two behaviour patterns – Muslim and National – which collaborated closely for years and precipitated Partition in the final round. The Muslim behaviour pattern was characterized by acrimony, accusations, complaints, demands, denunciations, and street riots. The National behaviour pattern, on the other hand, was characterized by acquiescence, assent, cajolery, concessions, cowardice, self-reproach, and surrender”. It has been decades since Goel wrote these words and to this day, they hold true. You see, the Muslim community has an insatiable appetite for concessions. You make one, they will demand another. You concede, they will demand 10 more. Soon, you will realise that the Hindu community has given up everything to placate the petulant minority and yet, has been met with nothing but acrimony. If today, we believe that Nupur Sharma’s statement was “unnecessary” because it ended up provoking the Islamic community, that is a needless concession that the Hindu community is extending to the Islamists. They have the right to be hurt, but not the right to be riotous. The concession accorded makes them believe that their hurt is justified to the extent of giving calls to behead. Now once that concession is extended, their insatiable appetite will raise its ugly head. Once you accept their murderous sentiments, they will claim that your places of worship, your mandirs, are an affront to the Islamic faith. Once you concede that, they will say that you cannot even pray in your home because according to the Islamic community, there is no god but Allah and therefore, the fact that you believe in another god and pray to him is hurting their religious sentiments. The slide would end with them demanding your head on a pike because the very existence of Kafirs offends them. We must remember that the very basis of the partition was their demand for a ‘land of the pure” untarnished by the existence of Kafirs. When Gandhi allowed the Islamic community to run riots and murder Hindus, it validated their two-nation theory, enough for them to demand the dismemberment of India. When concessions were made to them about the Khilafat movement, terming it a nationalist movement instead of an Islamic one (that held allegiance to the Turkish Caliphate), MK Gandhi emboldened them to set their barbarity in motion and massacre Hindus in accordance with the Ummah they were fighting for. Hindus today might believe that Nupur Sharma’s comment was “unnecessary”, but if there was a word of caution, it would be this – tomorrow, they will say your very existence, the existence of the dirty Kafir that they are theologically and viscerally meant to hate is an affront to their faith. They won’t only claim this openly, but they will make you guilt-ridden enough to truly believe that your existence is “unnecessary”, impeding their faith, and therefore, you must die with a smile on your face when they come for you.

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 time for Hindus to preserve it - in action and words. ‘Dismantling Global Hindutva’ event: Nazi-esque propaganda to justify the genocide of Hindus 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 time for Hindus to preserve it - in action and words. Nupur J Sharma 19 August 2021 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] A 3-day conference cosponsored by 60+ Departments or Centers from 45+ Universities most from the USA is set to take place on the 10th, 11th and 12th of September. The event titled “Dismantling Global Hindutva” is set to see the participation of several Hindumisic elements like Audrey Truschke , Naxal sympathiser Anand Patwardhan and Nandini Sunder, Quint journalist Neha Dixit and many others. While the Hindumisic elements globally have tried to equate Hindus to Nazis, the Nazi-esque propaganda to justify the impending genocide of Hindus, is hard to miss. It is evident that this declaration of war against the Hindus has gone from a few rants of deranged minds on Twitter, to an organised campaign with journalists, academics and career Hindumisic activists joining hands. Nazi-esque propaganda and the dehumanisation of Hindus The poster of the ‘Dismantling Global Hindutva’ event depicts an inverted hammer ‘uprooting’ brutally on what appears to be an RSS Swayamsevak, clad in saffron. The brutal, horrifying imagery has a subtle message to it, not unlike the ‘moderation’ that was peddled by the Nazis right after Röhm Putsch (The night of the long knives) where over 150 political opponents were murdered by the Nazi regime. The pseudo-moderation technique that was adopted by the Nazis essentially modelled the murderous purge as a ‘preventive measure’ to control violent people. One can see how the parallels play out in the poster of the event. In the poster, it is apparent that an RSS Swayamsevak, almost a representative image of all Hindus who are no longer ashamed of their culture, is uprooted by a hammer. However, to hide the blatant Hindumisia and the endorsement of genocide against Hindus, the poster craftily fashions the tip of the murderous hammer as a pencil. The global propaganda against the Hindus have, especially in the past few years, focussed primarily on the dehumanisation of Hindus. One recalls the posters during the anti-CAA protests and the slogans that were raised for the murder of Hindus – the most prominent ones being the slogan of ‘Hinduon se Azadi’ – essentially meaning that Muslims wanted freedom from the Hindus – supplemented with the image of sacred OM being morphed as the Nazi symbol, a Hindu woman being made to wear the Hijab and songs that called for the religious symbols of Hindus being destroyed so only the name of Allah can remain – “When All Idols Will Be Removed… Only Allah’s Name Will Remain”. The imagery in the poster also draws from the same concept of dehumanisation that has been followed against a persecuted lot since the Nazi regime. A man clad in saffron, with his roots in Bharat, being crushed by the revolution to save the country from ‘violent barbarians’. It is hard to miss the parallel to Der Stürmer (The Attacker), that printed cartoons that used antisemitic caricatures to depict Jews as not only ‘dangerous’ but also enemies of the nation – not unlike what the narrative of this poster or the Hindumisic elements have been throughout the past few years. Propaganda 101: Select a few points and repeat them over and over again “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”, said Joseph Goebbels one, the chief propagandist and faithful soldier of Adolf Hitler, right before he proceeded to murder millions of jews in one of the worst organised genocides that the world has seen. The ‘Dismantling Global Hindutva’ event employs, effortlessly, the Goebbels technique of the demonisation of a people by proxy, to justify their eventual genocide. When one reads the ‘eventbrite’ description of the event, the following points are reiterated to justify their campaign of hate: Militant Hindu groups exist and are growing exponentially Rampant violence against minorities Citizenship Amendment Act Crackdown on dissent Imprisonment of “activists” fighting for Tribals Equating Hindutva and racism – drawing a false parallel to white supremacy The demonisation of the diaspora Demonetisation and farm laws Overall erosion of democratic practices and freedoms in India These are tropes that have been used by the propagandists at home far too often and the counter to each of these tropes have been discussed several times, at length. There really are no “Hindu militant groups” that exist in India. The ones being called the “nails” to be uprooted from India wade in knee-deep water to rescue those who need help, brave Islamist terror to save Hindus when they are being slaughtered as Muslims unleash their terror on the streets, rescue women being raped and forcefully converted to Islam, work relentlessly to offer humanitarian assistance at the times of pandemic and live lives stripped of the wine and dine luxuries that the ‘liberals’ decrying them enjoy. In fact, they trudge along their path of humanism even while their murders are whitewashed, given a political context and even celebrated. So why have these organisations been termed as ‘militant’ by these Hindumisic forces? These organisations epitomise three things, as their very foundation – self-defence, the reclamation of Hindu heritage in all its glory and the organisation and unity of Hindus – all of which poses a threat to the global hegemony of Islamists and leftists. In reality, “uprooting the RSS” is mere symbology. Hindutva, that these elements define as a “political, authoritarian ideology” that has “nothing to do with Hinduism” is nothing but a dogwhistle used to target Hindus and everything Hinduism stands for, without really explicitly talking about their genocidal dreams of “Hinduon se Azadi”. In an attempt to do so, every institution that has rallied Hindus to unite must be demonised and dehumanised. Apart from the RSS, it is also the Modi government that has been relentlessly targeted for being the political faction behind which Hindus have united in the 2014 and 2019 general elections in India. Interestingly, the tropes they use gives us a peek into their nefarious designs. While the “Dismantling Global Hindutva” event aims to talk about the mythical “violence against minorities” trope (Let’s be clear here – my minorities, they mean only Muslims. Jains being attacked by Muslims only recently, for example, is a case of religious hatred that will not even be discussed), they have conveniently used Citizenship Amendment Act as a hammer with which to beat the Modi government. This dichotomy itself explains their delirium – while they believe that Muslims in India need protection from the Hindu majority, their concern for ‘minorities’ starts and ends with Muslims – The Hindu minorities suffering in Islamic nations like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan are those ‘heathens’ who perhaps deserve to be sacrificed to the Islamic demon, simply for daring to be pagans in an age where Islam and its barbarity are aided and abetted by self-proclaimed ‘liberals’. Further, the fact that the event has even demonised the diaspora who refuse to submit to the ‘Liberal’ agenda and continue to be proud of their roots, is a classic case of trying to equate merely being proud of ones own religious and cultural heritage to the Muslim ‘Ummah’ and the global evangelist designs whose idea of a nation-state is based on the ‘brotherhood’ between their co-religionists and the eradication of ‘Kafirs’ or ‘non-believers’. A trend has emerged over recent years to find an equivalent of monotheistic fundamentalism in the faith of polytheistic Hinduism. The saffron terror narrative of the Congress party might have collapsed but people of a particular political ideology haven’t deterred from their efforts to find in pagan Hinduism the most nefarious aspects of monotheistic faiths. It is not just the ‘Dismantling Global Hindutva’ event that equates Hindus with the KKK, not so long ago, in an issue of Outlook magazine, an attempt was made to equate Hindutva with the vicious ideology of the Ku Klux Klan by having the cover of the issue portray a member of the white supremacist American outfit sporting a Tilak. Needless to say, there is no equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan in India just as there exists no saffron terror. Those who genuinely believe that Hindutva could be equated with an ideology that asserts the supremacy of a particular race fails spectacularly at grasping the core tenets of the Hindu faith. Racial supremacy has never been a core tenet of polytheistic faiths in its entire history. Yes, the Greeks and the Romans did practice slavery, however, it was never the defining aspect of their culture or faith. In contrast to that, monotheistic faiths have continually harboured and encouraged sentiments of racial supremacy through their concept of the ‘chosen people. In this day and age, it can be most blatantly observed in Islam where the Arabs believe in the superiority of their race as a consequence of the ancestry of the Prophet of Islam. It has surely not escaped the notice of people that when a particular community converts to Islam en masse, they give up on their own heritage and adopt the traditions and customs of the Arabs so much that they could even be dubbed pirated Arabs. And if we look back at history, we can observe that white supremacy stems in part from Christian theology as well. Thus, racial supremacy is so alien to the Hindu faith that only a fool or the ideologically blinded would equate the Ku Klux Klan with Hindutva. History stands testament to the fact that Hindus, by and large, have existed together without enmity to any serious degree for hundreds and thousands of years. Despite the atrocity literature spread by vested interests, Hindu society has never witnessed a race war or a caste war ever in its ancient history. Of course, liberals are working hard to change that fact by continuously fueling regionalist and casteist sentiments to divide Hindu society but despite various political leaders’ attempt at inciting violence along caste lines, they have failed spectacularly thus far and the riots and violence that did occur was more due to political motivations rather than any indication of a deep fissure within Hindu society. And in their continued effort to create deep fissures in The Hindu society and dehumanise those who refuse to submit to this agenda, the event that is set to take place in September, even extends support to the Urban Naxals who have been arrested for waging a war against the country and those protesting Khalistanis who orchestrated an attempted insurrection on the 26th of January, using the newly passed farm laws, that actually benefits the farmers, as an excuse. When all else fails, decry democracy The cries of “democracy being in danger” in India is a fallacious, empty, abstract fall-back argument that the “liberals” often mention, to decry the Hindus who dared to elect a government they thought would look after their interests. One recalls how India was classified as an “electoral autocracy” by the very “liberals” who are repeating these tropes with this event. Autocracy essentially means a country where power is concentrated in the hands of a few people. A democracy, on the other hand, is antithetical to an autocracy – meaning the people elect the government they want in the coutry. The ‘liberals’ craftily decry India as an ‘electoral autocracy’ to give the impression that the democracy in India is dysfunctional to an extent that while it may appear to have democracy, the power actually rests in the hand of a few authoritative individuals. In reality, the only trope that they mean to cover in academic humbug is the fact that Hindus, perhaps for the first time in a long time, united to elect a government that they believed would look after their interest. Funnily enough, the Modi government itself has done paltry little to uphold the interests of Hindus exclusively. All of the policies of the Modi government has been aimed towards better governance of the nation as a whole. Even CAA, for example, that has become a thorn for these liberals, included the Sikh and Christian minorities under persecution in Islamic nations, much to the chagrin of Hindus. Despite this, the mere fact that Hindus voted overwhelmingly for a government that would not actively work against the Hindus, like Congress peddling the ‘saffron terror’ narrative or attempting to introduce the ‘communal violence bill’, has spurned the narrative that power in India rests in the hands of a few. What they mean by this, in reality, is that Hindus united and decided the government they want in power by voting in one voice and the Muslims failed to thwart the democratic will of the people. The aim of the ‘dismantling global Hindutva’ event and the solution For decades now, Hindus have been massacred and their genocide has been whitewashed in the name of ‘secularism’, ‘brotherhood’ and ‘peacekeeping’. Not just that, over time, as we see now, Hindus have been painted as the perpetrator of violence against Muslims instead of the victims of Muslim violence. From the Moplah genocide where Hindus were raped and slaughtered, to the Direct Action Day, the Noakhali massacre, the en masse genocide of Chitpavan Brahmins to the current anti-Hindu Delhi Riots, the brutal attacks against RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal members while they collected money for Ram Mandir construction to the thousands of Hindu girls being trapped in the unending loop of Grooming Jihad, Hindus have been the victims of years of onslaught. Instead of talking about the real barbarians, “liberals” whitewash Islamist crimes and paint Hindus as the perpetrators of violence. And once painted as the perpetrators of violence, they proceed to dehumanise the very existence of Hindus so when the barbaric hoards come to slaughter, the world simply looks away – because who cares about the pagan demons being slaughtered anyway? While the ‘liberals’ have spent years creating atrocity literature to prove that Hindus are monsters who deserve to be eradicated, Hindus have just about begun to document the atrocities they have been subjected to. The solution to such events is to ensure that every crime against every Hindus is documented painstakingly and spoken about widely – without filters. To tell the world out story, repeatedly, loudly. The more practical aspect is, of course, the involvement of the Indian government. US universities, many of which are funded directly by the United States government, are joining hands with Indian propagandists to demonise Hindus. These very universities have their offices in India and earn millions from Indian students. As Sandeep Balakrishna writes : “Most of the universities sponsoring this xenophobic event have their branch offices on Indian soil and they regularly recruit Indian students and therefore, a good chunk of their income comes directly from Indian taxpayers. Not to mention the fact that they use Indian resources for their operations. The question thus arises: are they recruiting Indian students to indoctrinate them in how to wage war against the native culture of their own country by using their own money in fees? This “conference” seems to prove exactly that. Two, India’s economic ties with the US and vice versa should not come at the expense of slaughtering the heart of Indian culture, which is Hindu Dharma. Three, and this message has to ring loudly in the US academia: it has to be sent from both the Indian Government and Indian businessmen and wealthy individuals–withdrawal of funding for expensive chairs and endowments. The right amount of pressure applied at all levels should hopefully do the trick”. Much remains to be said about the event itself, the organisers, the money trail and the tentacles that are out to devour the nation whole – because India does not remain what it is without the Hindus who give her basic characteristics of pluralism, culture, tradition and grandiose. However, it is time for the Indian Government to exert the right amount of pressure and for Hindus to stand up and be counted – not to cower and ask for sympathy from the devil, but to talk about the historic atrocities against Hindus, the cultural pushback that is our right and the propaganda against a people that will no longer be allowed to fester. 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 time for Hindus to preserve it – in action and words.

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”.

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.

Islamophobia as a blanket term cannot stop people from fighting for their own survival by being scared of people who have persecuted those who don't follow their diktat for centuries. ‘Islamophobia’ does not exist: It’s time to push for this ‘politically incorrect’ reality Islamophobia as a blanket term cannot stop people from fighting for their own survival by being scared of people who have persecuted those who don't follow their diktat for centuries. Nupur J Sharma 14 June 2022 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Protests against Nupur Sharma in India (Image credit: Al Jazeera) At the very core of humanity, is a war to survive. It is a paradigm that no animal or man can escape. The civilisational war we see today may be dressed up differently depending on the issue we choose to debate – reclamation of cultural heritage and places of worship, judicial reforms, police reforms, demographic challenge, citizenship to persecuted minorities from neighbouring Islamic nations, the law against forceful religious conversion and the list is endless – however, at the very heart of it, every issue revolves around the survival of an ancient civilisation that has now morphed into a “secular” quip or a people, who have fought, for centuries, for the preservation of that ancient civilisation. When Rangeela Rasool was published by Mahashay Rajpal, the court had clearly exonerated him saying that commentary on historical figures, including Prophet, does not promote enmity between groups. That, however, did not stop the Islamists from murdering him brutally. It was also craftily brushed under the rug that Mahashay Rajpal had published Rangeela Rasool (written by Pandit Chamupati Lal) after serious provocation by the Muslim community where they chose to publish two books mocking Hindus and their faith. In this case, Mahashay Rajpal and Pandit Chamupati Lal chose to answer words with words. Book with a book. However, for the Islamists who constantly want special treatment and concessions from the Hindu community, that was “blasphemy”, a crime punishable by death under Sharia. The trajectory of the Nupur Sharma case was not too different. After the discovery of the Shivling, Islamists on television debates and social media started mocking Hindus and their faith. They called Hindus penis worshippers and far worse. During the TimesNow debate, when panellists started mocking the Hindu faith yet again by calling the Shivling a fountain, Nupur had had enough. She lashed out asking the Islamist panellist how he would feel if she was to mock their faith. She did not mock him per se – she asked how he would feel. And boy did the Islamists answer. They took to the streets, shouted ‘sar tan se juda’ slogans, pissed on her picture, hung her effigies and did everything that one expects from uneducated barbarians. So far, Nupur Sharma is safe. Alive. However, one has to reconcile with the fact that she is a woman marked for life. Wouldn’t take much for us to reconcile with it, sadly. That is just how the human race is. An atrocity that shocked us yesterday would become the norm tomorrow. The Hindu memory is painfully short and soon, the community would move on to the next outrage cycle leaving Nupur Sharma alone to deal with the consequences of bruising the extremely fragile sentiments of the Islamists. One would expect the Nupur Sharma issue to be one that united the Left and the Right (for the lack of a better phrase) in India. After all, it is the Left and the Liberals who claim that India is stifling freedom of speech and expression. They also rally vociferously for the right to offend and the right to criticise religion – we saw that in several cases – Munnawar Farooqi being a case in point. The Right, let us assume, would speak up because Nupur Sharma commented on Islam specifically, a religion they allegedly despise, but the Left would speak up for Nupur’s right to speech, therefore, uniting the two factions. That did not happen. Instead, there were cries about Hindus becoming increasingly hateful under the Modi regime, atrocities against Muslims being on the rise and general wails of Islamophobia that we have heard all too often. Pakistan approached the United Nations demanding action against India due to Nupur Sharma’s “Islamophobic comments”. Bhutto demanded that the UN take note of “rising Islamophobia” in India. Attempting to arm-twist the UN further, Bilawal Bhutto reportedly said, “Silence could be taken as complicity and could lead to further incitement to violence, communal discord and hate incidents”. Essentially, Pakistan told the UN that if it does not get involved and chastise a nation of 1.3 billion people because one woman politician went on a TV debate and made a 10-second innocuous comment that repeated what the Islamic hadiths say, Hindus would get emboldened to exercise their free speech further and incite the Muslims to riot and indulge in violence. If you find something fundamentally flawed in that argument, where 1.3 billion people need to be condemned for a factually correct statement by one person so that the tolerant, peace-loving, sar tan se juda chanting, stone-pelting and rioting Islamists do not indulge in violence, you are an Islamophobe. We live in an age where any criticism of Islam or even a comment on the collective behaviour of the Ummah based on facts is seen as Islamophobia. If you report a crime committed by Islamic fundamentalists with a clear religious motive, like conversion, it is Islamophobia. If you condemn the violence that the intolerant minority indulges in, it is Islamophobia. In this case, Nupur’s response to Hinduphobes was Islamophobia and the Hindu community’s condemnation of rape, death and beheading threats to Nupur Sharma was also Islamophobia – they are just upset about the comment, after all. A little anarchy is justified. A little violence is a part of the democratic process, it was said – the state must allow it. If you disagree with this asinine view, you, my friend, are an Islamophobe. So what is Islamophobia? The United States House of Representatives in December passed a bill called ‘Combating International Islamophobia Act’. It was introduced by famed Jihad supporter, Ilhan Omar. The bill aims to combat global Islamophobia. The bill allows the Department of State to establish an office to monitor and combat Islamophobia and address related issues and of course, it requires the submission of annual reports to Congress about global Islamophobia and what countries have done to act against it. The vague, subjective law allows all speech directed at Islam, forget criticising it, to be termed as Islamophobic – a term that in itself is problematic on several levels. A phobia, by its very definition, is an irrational fear. Islamophobia, essentially means, that anybody who comments negatively against Islam has an irrational fear of Muslims and Islam similar to that of xenophobia or racism. Firstly, it is rather hilarious that a bunch of converts believe that they are a separate race. But beyond that, to accept absolutely anything as “Islamophobia”, we need to evaluate if the fear of Islam or that of the Ummah is one that is irrational, to begin with. According to the UN definition, Islamophobia refers to irrational hostility and fear toward Islam, and therefore aversion and fear toward Muslims or the majority of them. It also refers to the practical consequences of such hostility in the form of discrimination, unequal treatment toward Muslims (individuals and communities) and their exclusion from the main political and social agenda. Let us break this down. The first defining characteristic of Islamophobia is that the fear and/or hostility has to be ‘irrational’. The predominant fear against Islam is that it treats non-Muslims as sub-humans and believes in waging Jihad against those who don’t follow Islam. That Jihad is violent and humiliating. They believe in converting non-Muslims by force and have indulged in several genocides of non-Muslims in the name of Islam. These are all factual statements. We have seen the rise of Al Qaeda, ISIS, Jaish e Mohammad, Lashkar e Toiba, Hamas, Al Shabab, Hizballah, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Lashkar e Jhangvi, Boko Haraam etc and the common aim of all of these Islamic organisations that have been designated as terror organisations, is to establish an Islamic Caliphate. India, specifically, has seen Islamic terrorism perhaps far more than any other nation in the world. Even if we move past the Mughal invasions, the Khilafat movement and the Malabar genocide of Hindus itself is an examples of how Muslims executed Hindus in a concerted manner because they had sworn their allegiance to the Turkish Caliphate. We have seen grooming gangs in the UK, grooming jihad in India, Taharrush in Egypt, Germany, the UK and other places like Pakistan, genocides across the world and sporadic incidents of violence directed at non-Muslims from Sweden, to Africa, the US, UK, Germany, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and everywhere else where a substantial Muslim population exists. The go-to reason to brand such basic facts as “Islamophobic” is to claim that none of this is the true representation of Islam. An erstwhile Muslim, Waseem Rizvi, had once gone to court with a list of Quranic verses that directed violence towards Kafirs. Here are some of them: 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 4 (An-Nisa) Verse 56: Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses – We will drive them into a fire. Every time their skins are roasted through, We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted in Might and Wise. Verse 89: They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away [i.e., refuse], then seize them and kill them [for their betrayal] wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper, Verse 101: And when you travel throughout the land, there is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer,1 [especially] if you fear that those who disbelieve may disrupt [or attack] you.2 Indeed, the disbelievers are ever to you a clear enemy. This is a short indicative list. The full list of 26 verses listed by Waseem Rizvi can be read here . Therefore, the argument that it does not represent Islam is certainly not an accurate one. Let us, for a moment, assume that none of this represents Islam and it is indeed a peaceful religion that wishes nothing more than peaceful coexistence. Given that assumption, one has to then ask the question of why so many factions of the Muslim community take to terrorism and overall violence against non-Muslims. Who are those thousands and lakhs of Muslims who have, in India, taken to the streets to demand the beheading of Nupur Sharma? Are they not Muslims and do their wishes not adhere to true Islam? I am no Maulana and these are questions that the Muslim community has to answer. Given this, and the fact that their conduct has been similar throughout the world, can we really blame someone for being scared of Islam and can we, logically, call that fear irrational? For most living organisms, anything that threatens their right to exist would be deemed an enemy. Nobody in their right mind can say that all Muslims are the enemy, however, their fear that Islam threatens their existence is not misplaced, given the mountain of evidence and the trail of blood that stand as a witness. In fact, the term Islamophobia itself reveals the true intent of the Muslim Brotherhood in coining and furthering this term. Islam as a religion has to be open to criticism and it is completely rational to be scared of certain aspects of Islam, as detailed above. One may want to fight “Muslimphobia” and if that is the aim, the phrase used has to be that and not Islamophobia. When one shuts down all criticism of Islam and even deems quoting the Hadiths as blasphemy, one can safely argue that it is not the non-Muslim who is Islamophobic but those taken offence who are truly Islamophobic since they have a fundamental problem with their own texts being quoted. Frankly, one suspects, that the Muslim community themselves don’t believe that these facts are “Islamophobic”. This term, which was popularised by the widely fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, was only a tool to ensure that all comments and criticism of Islam is stifled. It was a tool to scare people into submission and exploit the innate goodness in the world that makes people not want to hurt the sentiments of others, overall. It is a mythical beast that has been peddled with influence and money to ensure that the atrocities of the Islamists get shielded by piggy-backing on the victims of real atrocities – those who have been discriminated against because of their colour, race or worse, religion (Hindus and Jews come to mind). If the Muslim community believes that the terrorists, stone pelters, those demanding Nupur Sharma’s beheading etc do not follow “real Islam”, they need to give the world a reason to trust them and explain the parts of their faith that propagate violence. If they think it is a part of Islam, they need to evolve and summarily denounce the last stone pelter and hardliner on the streets. Failing this, Islamophobia as a blanket term cannot stop people from fighting for their own survival by being scared of people who have persecuted those who don’t follow their diktat for centuries.