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.

Nupur J Sharma's journey outlining her commitment towards Hindu rights, media challenges in terms of shifting the “Overton Window” and civilisational advocacy through her editorial efforts. Why I am About 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. It wasn’t much then. But it was a website where I wrote infrequently because I have always believed that words matter. I knew nothing about digital publishing or journalism. But I so desperately wanted to write. I took up this job believing that it would give me a much needed respite from the mundane, work-a-day career I had. I did not particularly understand money and did not much care for it either. I said yes. Overnight, I quit the business. I quit because I felt drawn, not to this profession, but to the prospect of writing for a living. OpIndia as a publication grew exponentially. The day I did my first investigative story, I remember sitting in my father’s chamber and watching Republic TV as Kapil Sibal raved and ranted about the story – threatening to sue me. This was the dopamine hit I had been looking for. I felt exhilarated. I felt liberated. It was a strange feeling because as an average middle-class new mother, threats of a lawsuit should have scared me. It didn’t. The only thought in my head was – “I did it”. The lawsuit never came because the story was solid. From the urge to just write to the proliferating growth of OpIndia, somewhere along the line, I changed. For most of my life and at the beginning of my career with OpIndia, I thought reconciliation was possible. It was hope that drove me then. It is unbridled, unadulterated rage that drives me now. Every dead body, every incident of brutality unleashed against Hindus that I documented drove me further away from “I am sure they will condemn at least this” to “I will only stand for my own”. Over the years, I have closely followed the sheer brutality with which the Left and Islamist nexus hunted those they don’t agree with - their hate gift wrapped in punch words like “secularism”, “harmony”, “morality”, “truth”, “brotherhood”, “idea of India”, and so much more. I have documented them giving a political context to the brutal hacking of Hindu activists. I have watched them ensure that Hindus lose their jobs merely for speaking about the Islamic invasions. I have watched them celebrate the death of Hindus and dance on their dead skull. I have watched them dismiss how Islamists abduct, rape, convert young Hindu girls. Pretend to be Hindus and then convert them to Islam after they’re in too deep. I watched them stay quiet after Hindu girls were brutally dishonored and hacked. They turned a well-planned killing spree against Hindus into an “anti-Muslim pogrom”. Those of us who documented the truth were hounded, abused, smeared, character assassinated, black listed by publishers. They cropped images of images where weapons could be seen atop mosques. They weaponized the innocence of Hindus. A Hindu chants Jai Shree Ram because of centuries of unshakable faith. A Hindu puts the sticker of Hanuman on his car because he believes He is the protector. They took that innocent faith and turned it into a marker of “terrorism”. Hindutva was meant to arm Hinduism to adapt to a world order based on nation states. A concept which for Muslims meant Ummah and for Hindus meant this civilizational state. Hindus gave up their Monarchs to get “secularism” and they needed Hindutva to find their political identity. Hindutva is meant as a shield against those who weaponize the innocence of Hindus and because they needed to weaponize the innocence of Hindus, Hindutva had to be tarnished by the Ummah and the Global Left Conglomerate. I watched it happen. I documented it. They regularly unleash a Nazi-esque propaganda, globally, where the persecution or beheading of any of us would not draw condemnation, but cheers and celebration. When we are murdered, when we are lynched, when we are beheaded, we will be blamed for it - even by our own Judges. They have lied for years. Fake Jai Shree Ram crimes. Fake threats. Fake Musalman Khatre Main hai. Fake church crimes. Fake “Hindus raped a nun” (turned out to be Bangladeshis). Fake history. Fake alternate realities. They have lied, cheated, misled, to demonize us. All of us. They guilt tripped us enough so millions of Hindus shut up, sit down, and don’t celebrate the Ram Janmabhoomi verdict - a battle Hindus won after 500 years of sacrifice. “You will provoke them”, they said. And we. shut. up. Weaponized the innocent of Hindus, as I said. When journalists who were not blatantly sympathetic to the cause of the Left and/or Islamists were hounded, dragged and arrested, they laughed. When death threats were issued to Hindu women, they justified. When I was hounded out of West Bengal for speaking the truth, they cheered. I am now driven by rage. Rage that comes with knowing what they are doing. What they have done. What they want to do. The rage that comes from watching and documenting Hindus being beheaded. The rage that comes with them justifying our civilizational demise. I would, ideally, like to be dewy eyed too. To stand for lofty ideals uniformly. Nobody is born with rage. Mine comes from their conduct. Between fairness and survival, I will choose the survival of MY PEOPLE, a people they want wiped out. When you hold us by the hair and try to drown us repeatedly, you cannot expect us, any of us, me, to stand with a rope to rescue you when you drown in the same pond. You just can’t. That’s not human nature. Retribution the purest emotion. I have been asked several times why I chose to fight for Hindus and only Hindus when I could have simply feigned neutrality and achieved the success, I can’t possibly achieve being honest about my work. I have been asked to speak for the rights of the very Islamists and Leftists who want me dead. Who want us dead. Who want this civilization wiped out. I won’t. I never have and I never will. I never will because this higher burden of morality on Hindus will be the death of us. “We are better than them”, I am told repeatedly. I say - We are. But we will certainly be deader than them if we hold on to this moral high ground and sacrifice survival of Hindus because we have this undying need to be morally superior. We are morally superior because we didn’t start the fire. We didn’t start this cycle of hate and viciousness. We didn’t behead. We didn’t kill. We sacrificed our own so peace could be maintained. Enough. Thus far and no further. I believe that I exist not because it was my divine destiny to be a journalist, but perhaps, be a conduit in shifting the Overton Window – so what is considered “radical” today by the deracinated, comatose Hindus, is considered a policy tomorrow by those who rule the world. The Overton Window, simply put, shifts when an acceptable idea becomes popular and then translates to policy. Or better yet, when a radical idea journeys its way through being considered ‘sensible’ to ‘popular’ and then translates into policy. There are broadly 6 degrees of acceptable of public ideas: Unthinkable Radical Acceptable Sensible Popular Policy What was unthinkable yesterday, could possibly be a policy tomorrow. The idea that Bharat was a land of Hindu consciousness was an unthinkable proposition a few years ago because of the deracination of the pollical class. Today, it is an acceptable dinner table conversation and perhaps, the CAA even signaled that Bharat was discreetly whispering that the then “unthinkable” idea could possibly be a policy tomorrow. While there have been signs of hope, there has been a sea of despair. While my soul prays for a revival, every morning, I wake up to documenting our end. OpIndia 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. Explore

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 India: A land with Hindu consciousness, which will forever be a natural home for Hindus 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 Nupur J Sharma 10 September 2019 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Ever since the 2014 elections, India has experienced a sea change not just attitudinally, but also in terms of the policy. One of the policy decisions that aims to right a historic wrong is the Citizenship Amendment Bill. In 2016, the Modi government tabled the Citizenship Amendment Bill that aimed to cleanse the country of illegal immigration. The Bill, introduced in the Lok Sabha on July 15, 2016, seeks to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955 to provide citizenship to illegal migrants, from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, who are of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian extraction. The acceptability of the propositions furthered by the Citizenship Amendment Bill was split in the middle. As is India’s wont, the ideological divide was as stark as a bright sunny summer morning. The Left opposed the provisions tooth and nail. The ‘idea of India’ that has long been touted as the existential foundation of India had been shaken, as per them, with one swift motion. The Left has long espoused the principle that India is an all-giving, all-embracing entity, especially when it comes to Muslims. Whether this special corner of the heart that bleeds only for Muslims is a result of political compulsions, the Gandhian dystopia or the engrained false persecution complex is unclear. Perhaps it is a culmination of all of the above. Either way, while the Left detested the idea of law finally being honest enough to give citizenship to persecuted minorities from neighbouring Islamic nations, the non-Left rejoiced the decision as one that rights a historic wrong. The foundation for the citizenship amendment bill is rather simple – India is a natural home for persecuted Hindus, Buddhists and Jains from neighbouring Islamic countries. Essentially, all people belonging to non-Islamic religions should see India as their natural home. The objection that the Left raised was rather a simple (and expected) one as well – why are Muslims being left out when all others are being given the chance to become Indian citizens. An example of the outrage that is expressed by the Left is journalist Rajdeep Sardesai voicing his concerns during an interview with website Lallantop. An incensed Rajdeep spoke at length about how we are moving towards Jinnah’s India and how the Citizenship Amendment Bill should have a human element in it. He also spoke about how the Hindu refugees in India are political refugees and not those persecuted on religious lines. Before we go into the details of Rajdeep’s assertion that Hindu refugees are merely economic refugees and not ones borne out of religious persecution, it becomes essential to examine why the Citizenship Amendment Bill is bang on target and why India has to be considered the naturalised home for persecuted Hindus. Dominant religions of the world According to theregistere.co.uk, nearly 75% of the world’s population practices one of the five most influential religions of the world: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. To quote from the report, “Christianity and Islam are the two religions most widely spread across the world. These two religions together cover the religious affiliation of more than half of the world’s population”. if one sees the world map at a glance, the dominant religions, country-wise, draws a rather obvious picture. Country-wise majority religions. Source: pbslearningmedia.org (OpIndia doesn’t endorse the map of India depicted here, it has been used only to show the religious demographics of the world) The interactive map by PBS visually displays the countries of the world and the dominant religions in those countries. While the extent of the spread of Christianity is evident by the ocean of purple, Hinduism and Islam deserve a closer look. The interactive map can be used to see the spread of Hinduism and Islam. From the map, one can see that there are only 2 countries in the world that have a Hindu majority population today. India and Nepal. There is not one country where the Hindu population is between 40% to 70% and most other countries where there is a remote presence of Hinduism ranges between 1% and 10% of the population. In India’s neighbouring countries, Pakistan, according to this map, has a Hindu population of 1.9%, which some may believe is an exaggerated number in itself, Bangladesh has a Hindu population of 9.1%, Myanmar of 1.7% and Bhutan of 22.6%. Map showing Muslim population % (OpIndia doesn’t endorse the map of India depicted here, it has been used only to show the religious demographics of the world) Above is the map that visually displays the number of Islamic countries or countries with a Muslim majority in the world. According to the Pew Research Center in 2015, there were 50 Muslim-majority countries. Worldatlas.com (April 2017) identified 45 ‘Islamic countries’. Among the Islamic states are Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Oman, and Yemen. Other states where Islam is the politically defined state religion are Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Algeria, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Somalia and Brunei. Other Muslim-majority countries include: Niger, Indonesia, Sudan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sierra Leone, Djibouti, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Chad, The Gambia, Guinea, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Northern Cyprus, Nigeria, Senegal, Syria, Lebanon, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Turkey and Uzbekistan. According to a 2010 study and released in January 2011, Jones (2005) defines a “large minority” as being between 30% and 50%, which described nine countries in 2000, namely Bosnia and Herzegovina, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Macedonia, Nigeria, and Tanzania. Islam has 1.5 billion adherents, making up c. 22% of the world population. The argument about India being a naturalised home for Hindus stems first and foremost from the demography of the world. As is evident, India and Nepal are the only two countries in the world where Hindus are the majority population. With Nepal being a rather small country, the onus to be the naturalised home for Hindus falls on India, and rightly so. With 50 Muslims Majority countries and the entire world painted purple as is evident from the world demography map shared, there is no other country in the world that can be called their own other than India. India a ‘secular’ state? The obvious counter to this argument by the Left is that India is a ‘secular’ nation with no state religion. The concept of ‘secular’ was inserted in the Constitution only at a much later date by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. It was after the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution of India in 1976 that the Preamble to the Constitution asserted that India is a secular country. It is thus fair to assume that the makers of the Constitution did not envisage India as a secular state, to begin with. Moreover, even if accept that India is a ‘secular’ state by virtue of the 42nd amendment to the Indian Constitution, that would only mean that India does not have a State religion. As Pakistan is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, India, is not a Hindu state where the state religion is Hinduism. For the purpose of the Citizenship Amendment Bill, that still does not take away from the fact that by virtue of demography, India will remain a naturalised home for persecuted Hindus. It is often the wont of the Left that they tend to recognise the existence of India from the moment of its political freedom. They recognise the Indian State as having come into existence only after the political boundaries were drawn in 1947. However, Bharat exists for as long as civilisation has existed. The consciousness of Bharat does not exist from the moment political boundaries were drawn. The sacred land as described by our scriptures is India. This land is the mother of our entire existence. All our heroes, our greatest stories, our greatest accomplishments, our entire history basically, happened in this piece of land. India’s consciousness will, forever, remain Hindu. 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. Does this mean Indian Muslims are not just as Indian as the Hindus? Certainly not. However, the very cultural and existential foundation of India has been and shall forever remain Hindu even if the Indian State has no State religion constitutionally speaking. The Nehruvian Blunder 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 DailyPioneer: 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. While since the time of Nehru, Hindus were disallowed from migrating to their natural homeland, India, despite persecution, the influx of Muslim illegals continued un-checked. If today, the Citizenship Amendment Bill seeks to right that historic wrong that, in the name of ‘secularism’, sacrificed Hindus at the altar of Islamic Jihad, the Left must introspect why it is vehemently against the move in the very name of secularism. One has to ask at this point, where else are Hindus supposed to go if not India. The double standards of the Left While the Left has vehemently opposed the Citizenship Amendment Bill in the name of secularism, in the very name of secularism have rallied behind Rohingya illegals and demanded that the Indian State accept the influx from Myanmar. The Left has demanded that on humanitarian ground, India should accept Rohingya Muslims as refugees in India. India has, in its part, repeatedly asserted that firstly, India has no legal obligation to accept international refugees and secondly, Rohingya Muslims pose a security threat to India. It is thus intriguing that while the Left does not recognise India as the natural home for Hindus, the only country in the world apart from tiny Nepal that has a Hindu majority, it is insistent that India strain itself by accepting Muslim refugees who pose a security threat. Interestingly, even Saudi Arabia, the country which is considered to be the birthing place of Islam, has also deported hundreds of Rohingya Muslims from the country. Al Jazeera had reported that hundreds, who had outlived their visa had been put in detention camps and deported. The ones who resisted were handcuffed and deported. In fact, some who had lived there for their entire lives were also deported from the country when the police found that they did not have adequate documents. This begs two important questions: 1. If the Left is so concerned about the dignity of Human Life as it claims to be, then how is it that they have a problem with India accepting Hindus, Sikhs and even Christians persecuted in neighbouring Islamic countries? 2. How is it that the Left heart beats only for Muslim refugees whom even the Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia are not accepting? The ‘secular country’ bunkum that is furthered by the Left is used to browbeat India into accepting Muslim refugees when over 50 Islamic countries are not coming forth to help them. The narrative is also used to ensure that India forgets its Hindu consciousness thereby following Nehru’s path to abandon the Hindus who are regularly persecuted in Islamic Nations. As discussed earlier, the argument of ‘secular country’ can only be limited to the political Indian State not having a State religion, however, the argument can in no way be used to erase the Hindu foundation and consciousness of the country. The fact of the matter is that Islamic Nations are violent towards ‘Kaafir religions’. It a fact that can no longer be glossed over with mere rhetoric. With India, being a large ‘Kaafir nation’ surrounded by Islamic nations that seek to annihilate it, one has to ask oneself honestly how well the ethos of ‘secularism’ will serve the interest of the nation. For the purpose of this argument, I will club Jawaharlal Nehru with the Left as well. While he was vehemently against the Hindu population of East Bengal coming into West Bengal, he firstly did nothing to arrest the influx of Muslim illegals. Secondly, with the 1950 Accord, he scuttled the full exchange of population that could have taken care of the woes of India that it is diseased with today. This is not to say that Muslim citizens of India should ‘go to Pakistan’, an argument often used by the Left to show the non-Left as anti-Muslims. However, the fact does remain that a full transfer of population between India and Pakistan was the only logical step when a nation was carved out of India on the basis of Islam. The Muslims who stayed back often like to cite that as an excuse to whitewash the crimes of the Muslim community in India. However, the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) is a testament to the fact that while several Muslims stayed back, the full population exchange was scuttled by Nehru and several of them are certainly loyal to India, the Ummah does reign supreme with a large section of Muslims. 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 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, which 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 part of that intention to keep the spirit of the All India Muslim League alive. 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. Thus, while a large section of the Muslim population in India still does advocate for Sharia and vehemently supports Pakistan owing to its Islamic foundation, Hindus have no home to truly call their own because of tenets of ‘secularism’. While a portion of the Muslim population still bats for Pakistan, Hindus have one land that they can call their own, that have them as the majority. The fact remains that India’s foundation is Hindu and when that is acknowledged, it would in no way mean that Minorities don’t get their rights since a Hindu Nation would not function as an Islamic nation that has the concept of Kaafirs. In such a scenario, one has to concede that while the change from ‘secularism’ to ‘Hindu nation’ would take years if not decades, at least for the purpose of the Citizenship Amendment Bill, India is and always will be the natural home for all Hindus. Just like Israel is considered the natural home for Jews or any one of the 50 Islamic Nations should be considered the natural home for Muslims. Conclusion The arguments against India being the natural home for Hindus are mostly based on facetious arguments. That India is a ‘secular’ country, that it goes against the ethos of humanity and often, scriptures quoted out of context to assert that Hinduism itself talks about embracing everyone. Other arguments against the Citizenship Amendment Bill talk about why Ahmadiyyas, who are also persecuted in Islamic countries are not a part of the section of people who deserve asylum. The last argument has an explanation, albeit, a rather harsh one. Muslim Nations often persecute certain sections of the Muslim community because they claim that certain sects are not following the ‘true’ version of Islam. Hindus, cannot be held responsible for the internal troubles of the Muslim world. That is something that the Muslim world needs to reform to tackle all on its own. India is the only land that has a Hindu majority. Hinduism, Sanatan, is engraved in its consciousness since before the political boundaries were drawn. Our stories, our heroes our legacy is attached to this land and no other. Hindus deserve a land they can come back to when the world seems too harsh, when their rights are denied and when they are persecuted because of their very identity.

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

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

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