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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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