Search this site

Official website of Nupur J Sharma, Editor-in-Chief of OpIndia. From accidental journalist to advocating for Hindu civilisational causes. Explore her work, publications, podcasts and media appearances. Mother, Accidental Journalist, Editor In Chief, OpIndia “I picked up my pen because they sold theirs” Why I Am I was once an anonymous nobody – sitting in my cocoon and running a small business in a quiet area of Kolkata. Nobody knew me. Nobody cared who I was and what I thought. Perhaps my father did, because he was the other one who cared to listen to my endless rants. One day in 2017, I got a call by a man I deeply admired for his wit. My would-be CEO, Rahul Roushan, asked me if I wanted to lead OpIndia.com – a small website which had the temerity to exist – against the media tides. About An Indian journalist who believes in presenting stories that seldom find mention in the corporate media. The voice of those persecuted. Hindus are one of the most persecuted religious groups and I have chosen to dedicate my life to documenting religiously motivated crimes and advocating for equal human and civilizational rights. During the course of my career, I have investigated several important stories related to religious extremism and terrorism - Delhi anti-Hindu riots being one of the most important. Work From starting my career writing about corporate media, their spins and their utter distortions in 2017 to progressing to the realisation that while media distortions were important, there was a civilizational battle unfolding right before our eyes and the corporate media was only a tool being used to challenge the very existence of Hindus, my journey continues to be a thrilling one. As OpIndia emerges as one of the few voices speaking against the global persecution of Hindus, in my capacity as the editor-in-chief, 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 ↗︎ The Delhi anti-Hindu riots were perhaps a pivotal moment in modern history. The anti-Hindu riots was not a spate of violence which can be viewed and analysed in isolation. 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, the February violence was merely a culmination of Left activists, Islamists and Global propagandist coming together to unleash Khilafat 2.0 against Hindus. Publications ↗︎ There is no better teacher than History in determining the future. While Hindus dream of peace and brotherhood, their History is being whitewashed, genocides watered down and rights being snatched away by brute street veto and the complicity not only of the media and the intelligentsia, but also of a deracinated state. Bharat is being catapulted towards Khilafat 2.0 and Hindus are somewhere in the 100 year timeframe preceding the Genocide of Hindus which was a direct result of the Khilafat movement and Muslim separatism. The Hindus’ collective right to retain the cultural, religious and ethical integrity of the only land they have has to be held sacrosanct – legislatively, judicially and socially. This is, perhaps, the one lesson that history is screaming out, waiting for Hindus to hear. Civilisational Advocacy ↗︎ Podcast Bringing you reports and stories from a perspective often ignored or suppressed by the mainstream media of India. Listen Media Speech is power, speech is to persuade. This section featured select TV appearances, speeches, talks, Q&As and videos. Explore

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

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.

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. Why the Muslim perpetrators’ name must be mentioned explicitly when the victim is a Hindu Intersectionality is thus a theoretical framework for understanding how aspects of one's social and political identities (e.g., gender, race, class, sexuality, disability, etc.) might combine to create unique modes of discrimination. Nupur J Sharma 2 December 2019 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] The brutal rape and murder in Telangana has shaken the very conscience of the nation. With widespread outrage not limited to social media, the case has occupied the media’s primary focus and rightly so. While primarily and exclusively, rape is about men exerting their depraved power over women, it is the Left which often peels layers and concerns itself with semantics. They did so in the Telangana case as well, and this article is to present the other side of the story. It is to understand why the identity of the rapist is also of consequence by extrapolating the Left’s theories. The main accused in the case is one Mohammad Pasha. Pasha was the mastermind of the heinous crime and the one who was responsible for killing her. It was Pasha who smothered her while raping her and it is he who strangled her by putting his hands on her nose and mouth. By all accounts, whether it is the remand report or even Left websites like The Quint who are trying to interview his mother to paint him as a victim of poverty, the foremost accused is Pasha. The other three accused, equally brutal, are Jollu Shiva, Jollu Naveen and Chennakeshavulu. With Mohammad Pasha alias Mohammad Ali alias Arif being the mastermind of this heinous crime, it was obvious for his name to be splashed everywhere. His identity as a Muslim, fuelled his name being highlighted further. The Left immediately sprung up to action and condemned the crime being given a “communal colour”. In fact, The Quint, that is now trying to whitewash the Mohammad by interviewing his poor mother, did a fact-check that essentially slammed “BJP supporters” for communalising the incident. India Today even tweeted that ‘Rapists have no religion’ while using a Hijabi woman as their model. When a heinous crime such as this happened, should the perpetrator be the prime focus or the victim? This is the first, foremost and the eternal question that plagues reportage and conversation around such issues. However, even if the victim is the focus, the invariable glare comes on to the monsters who would so brutally snuff the life out of an innocent. The contention here, however, was not the fact that the perpetrators were being spoken about. The content of the Left was that the ‘right’ was communalising the crime by focussing on Mohammad instead of all 4 perpetrators (the others were not Muslims). At this juncture, one must ask the broader question independent of the Telangana case but not excluding it – is there a rationale of mentioning the identity of the perpetrator when he is a Muslim and the victim is a Hindu? To answer that question we must understand why media and the Left highlight the identity of Dalit victims even in crimes which are not motivated by caste considerations and then understand whether that rationale holds true for crimes where the perpetrator or the main conspirator of a crime is a Muslim and the victim is a Hindu. Why the identity of a Dalit victim is mentioned after a crime and the concept of ‘Intersectionality’ It is often noticed that the caste identity of a Dalit victim is mentioned by the media and the Left while reporting crimes. The non-Left has theorised that this is perhaps to drive a wedge in the society and further the narrative that in Hindu majority India, Dalits and lower-castes are brutalised on a regular basis and therefore, further the ‘Muslim-Dalit unity’ trope that would then help ‘secular fronts’ electorally. Essentially, the non-Left has religated this practice of mentioning the caste identity of Dalit victims to the ‘break-India project’ and the project to demonise Hindus. While that may be the agenda for several media houses and Left intelligentsia, the rationale behind highlighting the caste identity of Dalit victims has a separate origin altogether. The theory essentially believes that the victim would have been at a lower risk had her identity not been that of a Dalit and hence, mentioning the caste identity is essential as even if the crime is not motivated by caste animosity, the victim was at a higher risk by virtue of her caste. To reach this conclusion, the sociological theory of ‘Intersectionality’ must be understood threadbare. ‘Intersection’ is essentially the point where two entities meet. This concept is then extrapolated to society in general. When talking about the sociological concept of Intersectionality, one must understand what society and people are defined as. The society is defined by the people, the social constructs, way of living and belief system. When it comes to the people who make up that society, one needs to understand what a person’s identity is. Identity itself is essential ‘who a person is and what he identifies himself as’. An individual is made up of his beliefs and qualities and those which are unique to him, identify him as a person which, in turn, shapes his perceptions and value systems. A person, through his own perceptions and value systems, identifies himself and what his relationship is with the society on the whole. The perception and value system of the individual is shaped by the messages he receives from the society, his school, parents, neighbourhood, religious institutions, so on and so forth. 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. So for example, a Jewish woman might be discriminated against not exclusively for her Jewish identity or gender identity but because both these identities intersect and create a unique form of discrimination in a place where Christian women are not discriminated against. Or, where a black woman is more discriminated against than a black man. For instance, a White woman is less privileged than a White Man but more privileged than a Black Man. Applying this theory, the caste and gender identities of a Dalit woman are mentioned in the media when a crime is committed, since the victim was at a higher risk of being discriminated against not just because of the historical suppression of Dalits on the whole but also because of her gender identity even if the crime is not motivated specifically by caste animosity. While the media does overdo it and their motivations might be suspect, there is merit to the argument that a Dalit woman living in a disadvantaged area is more at risk than an upper-caste woman in the same area or in a more affluent area and thus, it is not incorrect to mention the caste and gender identity of the victim who might have been at a higher risk due to the intersectionality of her identities. Intersectionality should apply not only to the victim but also the perpetrator Intersectionality as a concept is mostly applied to the victim where intersecting identities of the victim puts her at a greater risk of discrimination. However, the concept of Intersectionality must also apply to the perpetrator on how his intersecting identities make him more prone to committing a crime against the victim, whose intersecting identities puts her at greater risk with respect to the perpetrator in question. While the identity of the victim is important and nothing can diminish that, the identity of the perpetrator how the identities of the victim and the perpetrator intersect at a societal level is equally important to understand the risk the victim faces historically. It is pertinent to understand here that in a country as diverse as India, it is not only the identity of the victim that determines the factor of risk but also the identity of the perpetrator. It is important to understand how the two communities view each other through social constructs that determine the factor of risk the victim faces from the perpetrators of a particular identity. For example, the media in India and the Left mentions the Dalit identity to drive home the point that Dalits are oppressed by upper-caste Hindus. Here, it is not only the identity of the Dalit victim that is in play but also the identity of the perpetrator. That the Left mentions the identity even of the perpetrator does not take away the gender identity or the caste identity of the victim. However, the victim was not at higher risk only because of her identity as a Dalit woman but also because of the intersectional identity of the perpetrator – Upper-caste Hindu male. Why the same theory must be applied when the perpetrator is a Muslim and the victim is a Hindu While the Left highlights the intersecting identities of a Dalit woman when a crime is committed, when the identity of a Muslim criminal is mentioned especially in sexual crimes against Hindu women, the allegation that is often hurled is that the non-Left is trying to ‘communalise’ a crime. However, if the same theory is applied to such crimes, would it not justify highlighting the religious identity of the criminal when the perpetrator is a Muslim and the victim is a Hindu? The sociological concept of Intersectionality itself admits that tenets of the concept are fluid and change depending upon time and place. For example, we do not talk about race or gender contracts the way we used to 100 years ago. When we talk about religious identities, one must also acknowledge in no uncertain terms that Hindus and Muslims have been co-existing in India but the historicity of that relationship is strained and blood-soaked at the very least. Hindus have seen over 800 years of Islamic rule where they were beaten, raped, killed and converted. Where their temples were trampled upon and their identity as Hindus was under siege. Post the Islamic rule, in Independent India, the atrocities committed by Islamists have not stopped, whether the Left likes to believe it or not. If we take Kashmir, for example, India’s only Muslim dominated state, the picture becomes evident. The Hindu minority of the state were beaten, raped, murdered and cleansed from the state. The slogans that emanated from the mosques of Kashmir in the 90s said that Hindu men should leave the valley but leave their women behind for the Islamists. The chants also asked the Hindus to either convert to Islam or leave the valley. With these examples alone it is acceptable to conclude that Hindus have been historically at a disadvantaged position with respect to Muslims in India and have often been victimised, brutally, by Muslims. Other than collective crimes by the Muslim community like that of the Islamic invasion and the plight of Hindus in Kashmir, several crimes at the individual level too have proved that Muslims are more likely to victimise Hindus and this barring the acts of rioting that the Muslim community has initiated. A large section of Muslims believe that Hindus are Kafirs and idol-worshippers who deserve sub-human treatment, even death. The mentality is evident in several cases like that of Kamlesh Tiwari, where he was brutally murdered for allegedly insulting the Prophet of Islam. Without getting into a long-winded section explaining an established truth, a list of 50 crimes that were committed by Muslims against Hindus in a short span of time can be read to get the drift. With the established truth that Muslims are more likely to target Hindus, in crimes where Muslims are the perpetrators, mentioning the religious identity of the Muslim is pertinent considering it is the intersectionality of the Hindu and Muslim identities of the victim and perpetrator that puts the Hindus at higher risk of being victimised. Why mentioning Muslim identity is even more pertinent when the victim is a Hindu woman Intersectionality is a sociological concept says that intersecting identifies give rise to unique models of oppression. We have already established the Hindu identity itself puts a victim at a higher risk when the perpetrator is a Muslim. With intersecting identities of gender and religion, the Hindu woman is placed at a higher risk than Hindu men, for example, or Muslim women when the perpetrator is a Muslim. Historically, Hindu women have been oppressed brutally by Muslims. One recalls the rampant rapes during the Islamic rule, and even in Kashmir where women were brutally raped by Islamists. It is a technique that many Islamists adapt to convert Kafir women to Islam. In recent times too, we have seen several cases where the Muslim perpetrator victimised the Hindu woman. There have been rampant cases of Love-Jihad where Muslim men trap Hindu women with the excuse of a relationship and then, convert, rape and/or murder. It is thus established that the intersecting identities of gender (women) and religion (Hindu) do put women at a higher risk. In individual cases, one can never judge the risk factor. Even when Dalit women are victimised and their identities mentioned as such, it is entirely possible that in a particular case, the intersecting identities of gender and caste played no role in her victimisation. However, the identity is mentioned due to Intersectionality, as a matter of principle keeping in mind the history of abuse and oppression faced by Dalit women. In the case of Hindu women too, nobody says that in every case, the Hindu woman’s religion and gender identity is necessarily a contributing factor for the Muslim perpetrator, but as a principle, considering the historicity of atrocities by Muslims on Hindu women, the identity of the perpetrator must be mentioned. In the Telangana case, for example, the head of the gang that committed the heinous crime was Mohammad Pasha, a Muslim. The victim was a Hindu woman. Now, we do not know the religiosity of Pasha himself, however, as a principle, one is to ask if the women would have been at less risk if she was a Hijabi woman instead and was the victim at a higher risk because of her intersectional identity of being a Hindu woman in front of a Muslim perpetrator. While there is no correct answer considering we do not know the level of indoctrination or religiosity of Pasha, the identity of the Muslim perpetrator is to be mentioned, just as the caste and gender identity of the Dalit woman victim is mentioned regardless of motivating factors of the crime. What happens when the victim is a Dalit woman and a perpetrator is a Muslim man? We have already established that the Muslim identity of the perpetrator is an essential component and should be mentioned when the victim if a Hindu woman. However, what happens when the victim is a Dalit woman and the perpetrator is a Muslim man? The media is often extremely dishonest when it comes to such crimes. As explained in detail, intersectionality is when the intersecting identities of an individual put her at a higher risk. As also discussed above, when the perpetrator is of Muslim identity, the intersecting identities of both the perp and the victim play a role in determining the risk factor that the victim faces. When a Muslim man victimises a Dalit woman, one must ask the very important question of which intersecting identity of that woman put her in harm’s way. Was it her identity as a Dalit woman or as a Hindu woman? When the perpetrator is a Muslim, one has to assume that for him, the differentiation between a Brahmin woman and a Dalit woman does not exist. For him, the two intersecting identities that put the victim at a higher risk is that of gender (woman) and that of her religion (Hindu) and not of her caste (Dalit). For a Muslim, per his religion, all Hindu women are Kafirs and thus, the Muslim will not differentiate between different castes. In such a scenario, one has to ask why the media and the Left continue to highlight the Dalit woman identity of the victim instead of the intersecting identities of a Muslim man victimising a Hindu woman? While the concept in itself holds merit, it is this chicanery of the media that raises several doubts on their intent. Conclusion This theory of Intersectionality, while a sociological concept is rooted in Marxism. While the roots and their explanation is a subject for another day, it suffices to say that the concept itself is rooted in communism and its allied offshoots such as feminism. One has to wonder why then does the Left often raise hell when the Muslim identity of the perpetrator is mentioned? Is it because if their denial to accept empirical evidence that Muslims are often the oppressing force or their blatant agenda that Hindu lives aren’t as precious as Muslim lives? Their misplaced notions that Dalits are not Hindus and are in fact closer to Muslims in their political fantasy? Either way, while we reject Communism, their theory of Intersectionality, to have merit, must be applied to all categories of crimes, which also means that the Muslim identity of the perpetrator must be explicitly mentioned when the victim is a Hindu woman. Identity is the principal focus of the theory of intersectionality. It mandates that every individual be viewed through the prism of his collective identity, This theory is extremely mainstream in the Left and acquired the status of a hallowed doctrine in academia. Concepts such as ‘Savarna privilege’ and ‘White Male Privilege’ have their origins in this theory. Therefore, leftists cannot discard this theory simply because the current situation does not suit their agenda. It must be applied in all situations uniformly. Leftists cannot argue that every individual and situation must be viewed through the prism of the identities of the individuals involved and then claim that the Muslim identity of the rapist does not matter when the victim is a Hindu woman.

'Reality Bytes' is a podcast series where the truth is not taboo. Hosted by Nupur J Sharma, the editor-in-chief of OpIndia. Podcast 'Reality Bytes' Interviews with Nupur J ... Play Video Play Video 02:26:38 BJP, Modi, supporters and dissent: A discussion on caste, politics, Hindutva, tradition and more In this conversation, OpIndia and UpWord collaborate to bring a scintillating conversation about the varied opinions on the Dharmic spectrum. The conversation touches upon difficult and sensitive subjects like caste, jati, worshipping politicians and political parties, BJP supporters self-censoring, tradition vs science, and more. Watch this discussion as Rahul Roushan, Ashish Dhar, Anand Ranganathan, and Nupur J Sharma agree, disagree, and vow to continue the discussion. 00:00:00 - Intro 00:00:47 - Why this conversation? 00:07:22 - Bigotry accusations on Anand 00:18:25 - Is Anand a Congress stooge? 00:25:32 - What does it mean to be a Modi supporter today? 00:31:44 - Political views evolve 00:38:42 - Censorship & cancel culture 00:51:56 - Hindu unity 00:53:06 - Caste politics 01:00:16 - Birth-based caste and Hindu society 01:12:55 - Science, Philosophy, and Hindu culture 01:30:13 - Inter-caste marriage 01:46:38 - Hindu tradition, justice and equality 01:53:02 - The narrative of caste atrocities 02:15:07 - Non-negotiables for Hindus Play Video Play Video 02:44:11 Fake ‘Hindu terror’ bogey: TRUTH about Dabholkar murder, conspiracy against Hindus & Sanatan Sanstha Narendra Dabholkar, the leader of the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti and a supposed 'rationalist', was fatally shot in Pune on August 20, 2013. Almost immediately, Sanatan Sanstha, a Hindu organisation, was blamed for the murder. What followed a terribly botched-up investigation and a deep conspiracy to implicate Hindus and further the mythical Hindu terror bogey. In this podcast, Nupur J Sharma talks to Advocate Virendra Ichalkaranjikar, the lawyer representing the accused Hindus in the murder and Ramesh Shinde, the national spokesperson of Hindu Janjagruti Samiti. Note: This podcast was recorded on the 4th of May, a week before the Dabholkar verdict was out. The Sanatan Sanstha members, NT surgeon Tawde, Sanjeev Punalekar, and Vikram Bhave were acquitted in the verdict. Two accused were given life sentences - Sachin Andure and Sharad Kalaskar. While they were convicted, the sessions court removed UAPA charges against them. Advocate Virendra believes they will be acquitted in the High Court. Play Video Play Video 51:22 Reality Bytes Ep 12: 'Modi's Northeast Story' by Tuhin Sinha and Aditya Pittie The book ‘Modi’s North East Story’ by Tuhin Sinha and Aditya Pittie is a collection of essays featuring contributions from people like Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, Union Minister Kiren Rijuju, Nagaland MP Phangnon Konyak and many others. In this, Nupur J Sharma speaks to the authors Tuhin Sinha and Aditya Pittie Play Video Play Video 01:34:29 Reality Bytes Ep 11: The Long Struggle for Gyanvapi Temple and 'Waiting For Shiva' I Vikram Sampath Hindus have been waiting for Shiva, much like Nandi. The book by historian Vikram Sampath, Waiting for Shiva: Unearthing the Truth of Kashi’s Gyan Vapi, traces the historical, religious, archaeological, and legal arguments to bring forth the truth about the Temple - and to explain the undying significance of the campaign to reclaim Hindu places of worship. Recently, the ASI survey of the Gyanvapi premises (disputed Masjid) revealed evidence that Hindus knew existed. But why was the survey opposed? What is the significance of the Gyanvapi Masjid case? What is the historical significance of Kashi? In this podcast with Nupur J Sharma, Vikram Sampath answers questions about the history of the Temple, the struggle by the Hindus for its reclamation spanning centuries and the lessons we can draw from that struggle today. Blog This is your section paragraph. As the first text your readers encounter, this copy should clearly convey what your site is all about. Explore

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.

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.

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.

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. Dharma Sankat over Dharma Sansad: Calls for violence and a dilemma for Hindus 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. Nupur J Sharma 24 December 2021 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] For the past two days, Twitter is rife with videos of a three-day event called Dharma Sansad, organised in Haridwar, Uttarakhand. During the event, several Hindu leaders like Yati Narsinghanand allegedly called for violence. The videos doing the rounds on social media have content that, on the face of it, appear divisive and inflaming. If the videos doing the rounds are authentic, no individual in their right mind could condone the speech being made where they are essentially saying that they are ready to murder Muslims the first chance they get. Snippets of the Dharma Sansad were splashed on Twitter. There were claims that Hinduism and Hindutva are the same, given that these statements were made by saffron-clad “sadhus” and others said that these videos indicated that Hindu terrorism was real. In a video shared by the Left, Yati Narsinghanand was heard saying that Hindus need to collect better weapons than the Muslims, given that in a battle, those with better weapons win. Thread on a 3 day "Dharm Sansad" organised in Haridwar by Hindutva groups where explicit calls were given for Hindus to pick up arms against Muslims. #HaridwarGenocidalMeet Day 1, 17 Dec: Yati Narsinghanand said, "swords won't be enough to kill Muslims. We need beater weapons." pic.twitter.com/MTL8u1H7F3 — Kaushik Raj (@kaushikrj6) December 22, 2021 He said that more kids (to fight the demographic battle) and better weapons are the only things that would save Hindus in a civilisational battle. He said that every Hindu had the responsibility of protecting their own kids and the women of their house. The next was a short speech snippet of Swami Sagar Sindhu Maharaj from Roorkee. The tweet said that he appealed to Hindus to “at least keep swords” and asks them to purchase weapons of at least Rs. 1 lakh. In the video, Swami Sagar Sindhu Maharaj could be heard saying that one could use mobiles that cost only Rs 5,000, but Hindus should have good weapons of at least Rs 1 Lac so that, if anyone ever enters their house, they would not escape alive. The important point to note here is that he said that those weapons would be used as a means of self-defence if anyone enters the house, not for unprovoked genocide. On Day 2, Swami Dharam Das Maharaj made a speech that was indefensible. He said that he would have killed former PM Manmohan Singh if he could gather weapons. Another problematic video was where one Swami Prabhonanand called for a “safai abhiyaan” of Muslims. There were other videos where it was allegedly said that Hindus need someone like Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and Prabhakaran to save Dharma. OpIndia personally cannot vouch for the authenticity of these videos, however, given the statements being made, it leaves little to the imagination as to what the full content of the Sansad was. In a civilised society, elements that call for violence and provoke citizens to pick up arms against other civilians would be rounded up and put behind bars. But in an increasingly polarised society, divided into religious lines, we see far too many fissures and desensitisation to calls for violence. When these speeches became viral on social media, the first reaction of most Hindus who follow the news regularly was to either look away or to post a video of AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi making an equally hateful speech. In that video, Owaisi was seen warning police personnel and saying that once Yogi returns to his temple as the Mahant and PM Modi returns to the mountains, there would be nobody to save them from their eventual fate. The video that several Hindus shared on social media went unnoticed by those outraging against Dharma Sansad. In fact, it was Asaduddin Owaisi who took to Twitter to share how his party had filed a complaint against the speeches made during Dharma Sansad and that he was willing to launch a nationwide agitation if the Hindus sadhus were not arrested. When Vir Das went to the US and spoke about the two India’s that exist, perhaps this is one aspect that he should have spoken about. Two Indias – one where Hindus are booked when they make speeches like the ones made during Dharma Sansad, and another, where those like Owaisi go scot-free after calling for the genocide of Hindus on multiple occasions and real hate crimes like that in Punjab don’t even invite an FIR against the murderers. As I said, in any civilised society, both these elements would be thrown in jail and the locks thrown away in the Ganges – but that is not what happens. When statements are made criticising Islam and Prophet Muhammad, Muslim mobs take to the streets to shout “Gustakh-e-rasool ki saza sar tan se juda”. When that happens, as we saw in the case of Kamlesh Tiwari who was eventually murdered by Muslims, the law enforcement agencies arrest the one criticising Islam, not the one shouting for the beheading of the one who exercised his freedom of speech. We have seen examples aplenty where Muslim mobs have not only screeched genocidal slogans but acted on their slogans and gone on a rampage against Hindus. From the Delhi anti-Hindu riots to the mob violence in Bangalore, from the several cases where Muslim mobs lynched Hindus to more organised instances of violence like the one we saw in Bangladesh against Hindus, or even the violence in Maharashtra after lies of “blasphemy” were spread in Tripura. 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. 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 hoards exercise their street veto and make the State bend to their violent whims, Hindus have often taken to social media to talk about liberal hypocrisy, the impotence of the state, that is meant to have the monopoly on violence, and the overall neutering of the Hindu samaj, that sits back and merely watches their women getting raped, their men getting beheaded and the streets being permeated with Hindu blood. Amidst all of this, one cannot really discount the helplessness that the average Hindu feels. When Hindus were being massacred in Bengal and OpIndia covered the story of a Hindu girl who was gang-raped in from of her father by Muslim TMC goons looking for “Hindu women”, and the Bengal govt enabled the violence while the central government looked away, it was only human to, in between the sighs and wails, look for our Gopal Patha – Gopal Patha who could pick up weapons and save Hindus from the inevitable and horrifying end that was awaiting them. Did that make Hindus barbarians? Did the prayers for a saviour and the hope for retribution make them genocidal animals? Do victims become aggressors just because they want to be saved? It is from this stems the reality why we have been numbed to a large extent to speeches where the stray Hindu asks others to ensure they have weapons with which they can defend themselves. Firstly, even the Hindus who have been desensitised to these speeches know on a deeper level that these are merely empty words. When was the last time that rousing speeches gave rise to Hindu mobs that took to the streets with weapons, looking for Muslims to cut up? In the liberal fantasy universe, it is an everyday occurrence, but in real terms, it never really happens. The fact is that these leaders can call upon Hindus to maintain arms and fight for Dharma, but in the end, the actual “fighting” has to be done by average Hindus who hold work-a-day jobs and don’t attend genocidal sessions at their local madrassas, given that temples are certainly not used to congregate mobs, despite the wet dreams liberals seem to write about in Washington Post. This is exactly why Liberals and assorted Islamists are pressed to focus on “hate speech” while trying to villainize Hindus because there is no on-ground impact of these speeches that they can really focus on. Hindus don’t have a Mahmood Paracha who makes speeches in mosques asking to raise an armed militia. There is no Hindu equivalent of ISIS that will lionise terrorists, hail genocide, splash images of beheadings. There is no Hindu equivalent of the word “kafir”, there is no Hindu equivalent of ISIS and there is no Hindu equivalent of the Quran or Jihad. While focussing on hate speech, liberals and Islamists conveniently brush aside actual hate crimes against Hindus. It is how the Delhi anti-Hindu riots got morphed into an anti-Muslim pogrom even before the funeral pyres of Ankit Sharma and Dilbar Negi had gone cold. It is this sophistry that makes Hindus become desensitised to such speeches. While they know this will hardly translate to any bloodshed on the ground, they are pressed to keep their sane, peaceful core aside to look the other way because they know that those demanding for the arrest of these saffron elements would happily whitewash a Hindu’s murder to embolden radical Islamists, Khalistanis and swords for hire. They have lived through those experiences where jokes on their genocide were passed off as free speech, where their murder was whitewashed to peddle the “Muslim pogrom” narrative, where their daughters being abducted and forcefully converted were branded as “voluntary love affairs”. The Dharma Sansad poses a Dharam Sankat for most Hindus – give in to their basic survival instinct and look away from such speeches or preserve what is inherently good in them and condemn any call for violence thereof. I am not really ashamed to say that there is no right answer. If the Hindu genocides did not exist, if the Muslim mobs did not go on a rampage, if I had not covered the Delhi anti-Hindu riots and the flawed narrative of “Muslim pogrom”, if I was but a work-a-day citizen far divorced from the reality of the onslaught against Hindus, it would be so much easier to denounce such speech. It would be so much easier to take the moral high ground and say that everyone, whether it is a Yati Narsinghanand or an Asaduddin Owaisi, making speeches provoking violence should be arrested and left to rot behind bars. And somewhere in my heart, I believe this to be the case even now. I want all of these elements to be jailed and removed from society. It is only human to harbour dreams of peace and brotherhood. But when reality hits and one has to cover the brutal murder of yet another Hindu and one is hit with the realisation that even before you can document another step towards our civilisational end, the “liberals” have already started giving the murder a “context” to save their Islamist brethren, one gets jaded, jaded enough to suffer a dilemma when such videos emerge. 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. The speeches made during the Dharma Sansad barely helps the cause of Hindus or Hindutva. Open calls to violence or wanting Hindus to become another Bhindranwale is not the answer. The solution to civilisational causes is the will of the people and that will translating to policy by the government of the day, not thuggish behaviour and calls to violence by political aspirants. It is the classic Godse conundrum – one knows why he did what he did, but with the murder of Gandhi, the Hindutva cause was forever damaged.

An in-depth report on the Delhi anti-Hindu riots of February 2020, authored by Nupur J Sharma, reveals the premeditated violence against Hindus since December 2019. Learn about the brutal murders, media misrepresentation, and the conspiracy detailed in her work, also available on Amazon: https://www.amazon.in/dp/B08DNNWNXR?ref_=cm_sw_r_cp_ud_dp_2ECQ0YQQQEG59X1HJHRG. Image Info 3 This is your About paragraph. Write a short introduction about yourself, your product or a specific feature. Image Info 4 This is your About paragraph. Write a short introduction about yourself, your product or a specific feature. Image Info 2 This is your About paragraph. Write a short introduction about yourself, your product or a specific feature. Image Info 1 This is your About paragraph. Write a short introduction about yourself, your product or a specific feature. Publications The Delhi anti-Hindu riots were perhaps a pivotal moment in modern history. The anti-Hindu violence which broke out on the 26th of February 2020 in the national capital was a testament to how a deracinated state and the corporate media capitulate to the Islamic mob. The anti-Hindu riots was not a spate of violence which can be viewed and analysed in isolation. As per the chargesheets in the case, the planning for the violence started right from the 5th of December 2019 and after almost 3 years, the conspiracy led to several Hindus being brutally murdered – Ankit Sharma stabbed multiple times, Dilbar Negi burnt alive after his hands and legs were chopped off and many others, who were hacked to death merely for being Hindu. The corporate media, on its part, shamelessly branded the anti-Hindu violence an ‘anti-Muslim pogrom’, ignoring the conspiracy and 3 months of violence which led to the February violence, initiated by the Islamist mobs. 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. Ever since December 2019, almost on a regular basis, there was low level violence against Hindus, misinformation against CAA/NRC and genocidal calls being made. This publication traces the three months preceding the riots and how, the February violence was merely a culmination of Left activists, Islamists and Global propagandist coming together to unleash Khilafat 2.0 against Hindus. Purchase E-Book Delhi Anti-Hindu Riots 2020, The Macabre Dance of Violence Since December 2019: An OpIndia Report Civilisational Advocacy While Hindus dream of peace and brotherhood, their History is being whitewashed, genocides watered down and rights being snatched away by brute street veto and the complicity not only of the media and the intelligentsia, but also of a deracinated state. Explore Publications

Loyalty Program is not available.