Nupur Sharma Suspension: A Tactical Loss For A Strategic Victory?

Nothing has made BJP's core constituency more upset than the party's decision to suspend Nupur Sharma, a young politician, a feisty woman, and BJP's articulate spokeswoman for many months. I happen to believe strongly in corporate loyalty in the RSS tradition. This means I always frown upon supporters and workers going ballistic over matters that seem to be out of line with the ideology. However, perhaps for the first time in my entire political life, I too found myself rather peeved. I felt that people like me are being taken for granted by the leaders of the ideology.

The reason perhaps is the brazenness of it. Muslims are abusing our dharma openly, and a most reasonable counter rooted in Islamic scriptures, makes the entire ummah go violent. And mind you, I am not complaining about their behavior. I found it appalling that we, the supposedly militant, warrior-like ideologues, who mocked the "softness” of Hindu leaders from Gandhi to Manmohan Singh, we who bravely fought for Ram Janmabhoomi successfully against all odds, capitulated abjectly before murderous supremacists! This was really galling. Exasperated, here is what I wrote to a small group of committed Hindu Nationalists:

"This is unacceptable behavior by BJP. I hope supporters' pressure brings BJP to its senses soon."

However, I always lecture to all that politics requires us to be cool-headed, and perhaps slightly cynical too. In politics, we cannot go berserk with our emotions. We have to assess options coolly in every situation that comes before us. So, I too reflected on what might have happened, and here are the thoughts that followed:

    1. One thing is sure - both BJP and RSS really have ears to the ground. I am talking about top leadership. So there will be corrections.

    2. The only possible (not sure of this too) flaw in Sangh Parivar might be - they still have not developed a thorough knowledge of Islam. Of course they know all about Islamic behavior. But I am not sure if top leadership understands Mohammed and his doctrines so well.

    3. They knew how people would react to this move. Then why exactly did they do it? They are getting no additional vote or support.

    4. Gulf business does not mean so much to India that we should do such a thing. The only thing for which we depend on them is oil. I don't think these countries were going to stop oil supplies. India has a fair amount of diplomatic clout too. The international image doesn't matter anymore. Suspending Nupur Sharma actually worsens India's image.

    5. Then what did BJP expect to gain out of it? If Rahul Gandhi were to do something like this, we could ascribe it to his stupidity. Just can't imagine what BJP is thinking.

    6. Before this there have been only two major political defeats. The first was land acquisition bill. We could argue BJP was too new to push a major thing like that in the face of opposition. The second was Farmers Bills. That is easily explained with votes – we were losing Western UP which we could not afford to. But this suspension of Nupur Sharma?! Nothing seems to explain it.

As of now, I do not have any definite answer. But it is very reasonable to believe that there is some deal that we do not know about. And it is unlikely to be a pure capitulation to ummah's pressure. I would only urge all to bear patience and BJP will deliver something positive on this too. Remember the anguish we felt when Farm laws were repealed. It resulted in a sweet victory in UP. If you were deciding for BJP, and UP election results were to be jeopardized by sticking to the Farm laws, would you rather stick to those laws and risk losing UP to goons and jihadis or would you rather do as BJP did?

I rest my case for patience and forbearance.

Loss Of Favorable Narrative Worries Muslim Intelligensia

In the aftermath of the jihadi-inflicted bloodletting in the Kashmir valley, Rana Ayyub tweeted “we have screwed up Kashmir like never before”. That is as close to a mea culpa we are going to get from this jihadi sympathizer. We have other jihadi sympathizers like Beydoun and Werleman trying to appeal to the Hindu better senses by saying that India can learn from Indonesia. While that is wrong on many levels, what it tells you is that they are realizing that constantly attacking and trying to shame Hindus is not working.

Let's try to analyze these two thoughts. Have the Hindus become shameless? No, we have not. So something else has happened. As Thakur in Sholay tells Kaliya - jao ja kar Gabbar se keh do, Ramgarh walon ne pagal kutton ke samne roti dalna band kar diya hai. Yes, the Hindus (despite what their leader utter in public)  have realized that appeasement of Muslims or appealing to their better senses has never worked. So instead of ignoring a red herring name like Gyanvapi for a mosque, or a Hindu symbol at the bottom of a mosque wall or maqbara or living in cities named after genocidal maniacs, and accepting the status quo in the name of social harmony, the Hindus have said ENOUGH!!

They have decided to ignore distorians like Habib, Thapar et. al. They have begun to question the very nature of Indian secularism which is founded on Hindus guilted into accepting the Mughal years as the glory days of India while ignoring our real history. They are noticing and rejecting movies with not so subtle pro-jihadi narrative with the evil Thakur, benevolent Maulana and kind Rahim Chahcha. 

This began in 2014 with the election of our first true Hindu conservative as the PM who rejected to toe the familiar lines, the tropes associated with that office. No iftar parties or wearing mesh topis or keffiyeh or taking the foreign dignitaries to Taj Mahal. To the chagrin of some, he does insist on “sabka saath sabka vikas” but that is a side effect of his love for the nation and propensity to look at the big picture. And in that light he cannot be faulted. 

Since then an awareness has crept into the Hindu psyche as it is clearly visible on social media and other arenas. A new generation of historians like the mysterious Bharadwaj or Vikram Sampath or J Sai Deepak et. al. have questioned and demolished what used to pass for Indian history. Griha vapsi programs run by RSS, Agniveer group, Arya Samaj have challenged and attempted to stem the demographic rot. Twitter handles like @GemsOfBollywood have changed the way people look at movies.

These are small changes but together they show a trend that is challenging the leftist-jihadi ecosystem and changing the Hindu consciousness. While that does little damage to the ecosystem the trend clearly worries them. This loss of pro-Muslim narrative built on the backs of selfish and useful idiot Hindus is a very scary specter for them. 

It is this loss of narrative and sense of control that scares people like Ayyub, Shahid Siddique and other so-called Muslim social leaders. That narrative made them relevant, rich, and powerful. They are not afraid of this so-called Hindu hate - they know Hindus are a pacifist lot. They are afraid of irrelevance.

Mera Wala Abdul Aisa Nahi ho Sakta!

Committed Hindu Nationalists often face this challenge - how to answer those who are outraged by the suggestion that common Muslims should not be insulated from non - Muslims’ justified anger against Islamic Jehad and terrorism, and that they should be held to the same standards of responsibility as any other community when it comes to behavior of their community leaders as well as extremists.

Mind you, you will hear this (leave common Muslims alone) not only from woke “secularists”, but also from those who otherwise sympathize with the nationalist view and have come to agree that something might possibly be wrong in the inherent nature of Islam. These people, because of the mounting incontrovertible evidence, no more argue that Jihadi terrorists are “aberrations”, “a tiny minority of extremists”, and “not real followers of religion”. Sheer weight of evidence against these opinions has finally made them admit that there may be some basic flaw in the “religion” itself. However, they still find it disturbing that we should view our Muslim neighbor or colleague with the same lens.

Let us say, you are, like me, more of an Islamo - realist (as I like to call ourselves). How to answer these well-meaning folks who fear that all decency and civility will die if we bring our view of Islam to seemingly decent Muslim folks around us who look and talk no different from us?

I have been in many such discussions, and I am always struck by the degree to which highly educated, otherwise intelligent folks change the standards of judgement the moment one is talking about Muslims. Really, the malaise seems so deep and widespread that I feel the need for mass scale training programs just so everyone holds all communities to the same standards. If we all did that, this whole challenge will disappear. We will be more clear - eyed about the nature of Muslims, even those Muslims who are well-educated and appear same as ourselves in all other respects.

Time for some specific examples.

Here is an experience I had multiple times: Being a student of Sanskrit and Ramayana, I have ended up mentioning the character of Shri Ram in front of friends sometimes. Occasionally, when my interlocutors were “secular” inclined, the very name of Ram aroused strong emotions! How could Ram treat Sita so shabbily, they asked. Doesn’t it show that our religion has some basic problem?!

To me, the questions they asked were of secondary importance. More important was the emotion they displayed. They were literally seething as soon as the name of Ram came up. It was as if I had hit a hornet’s nest simply by mentioning the name. And that got me asking - why are they so angry, so ready to heap odium on a man who lived perhaps 3 or 4 millennia ago? Even if you think he did some wrong, all you need to do is to decide you won’t do such things yourself. In any case, the modern

day Indian laws, promulgated presumably by his followers and descendants, negate the value system under which he is said to have done some wrong.

Today, most Hindu men in India will not exile their wives because any of them had to spend nights in some other man’s place against her will. I cannot imagine even a half educated Hindu doing such a thing. Then why all the anger against Lord Ram?

Anyway, coming back to the point - we can see the standards to which many of us hold Bhagavān Ram. Unless he and other revered figures of Hindus followed, even 10 millennia ago, the most modern of Human Rights, they are worthy of the severest condemnation. It doesn’t matter that their behavior was not exceptional for the times. They were supposed to still know what was coming millennia later and act accordingly.

Contrast this with Muslim attitude towards their revered figure. Mohammed carried out multiple genocides, committed / sanctioned rapes, and married and had sex with a 9-year-old child when he himself was 54 years old. I suggest all to google and read about Bani Qurayza (a brutal genocide approved and supervised by Mohammed), about Saafiya and Kinana, about the fate of Bani Khyber, and so on and on.

And what is the attitude of Muslims towards this man? If you so much as write a Facebook post mocking him, there is arson, violence and beheadings. Literally.

You say that all this is done by extremist elements?! Fine, why don’t you sometime check the attitude of your educated Muslim neighbor towards Mohammed? You again say - but he is not like those woke Hindus who hate Bhagavān Ram. Maybe he is like devout Hindus who revere Bhagavān Ram. Well, how many devout Hindus do you find in the same social set as this Muslim person who is supposed to be “just like us”?

Even so, for the moment I accept that too - that our Muslim neighbor / colleague is like millions of devout Hindus in this respect. But let us dwell on it for a little more.

Imagine that you are part of a community in whose name a proper genocide is carried out. People of your identity, who are clearly driven by core aspects of that identity, brutally murder men, rape and murder women, force degrading behaviors on those of “other” identity. What would be your attitude towards those who do it? And towards those “others” who suffered it? Chances are, you will go ballistic at the perpetrators. And you will also take some action to support those “others” who suffered these barbaric crimes. Right?

And now, when was the last time you saw this kind of attitude in educated Muslim neighbors / colleagues who are supposedly “just like us”? I have never seen it. Indeed, whichever Muslims I have seen, are more likely to be outraged by a mention that such things happened, rather than by their coreligionists actually perpetrating these acts.

You know that I am talking about the genocide in Kashmir, which is now well known thanks to the work of Vivek Agnihotri. But the same thing happened, even at a larger scale, in many other places. In times which are still in living memory. Genocide by Moplas in 1921, Direct Action Day, Calcutta, Noakhali, cleansing of Hindus from Pakistan and Bangladesh. Any of these, even a fraction of these, would arouse revulsion towards perpetrators in a decent person. And I am asking this - why do we never see that sentiment in any Muslim.

The only Muslims who do show humanity enough to feel genuine outrage at all these acts are actually ex - Muslims. Maybe they did not announce their apostasy formally. But that is what they are at their core - apostates. I am not going to go into another big subject here, but I can demonstrate that it is haraam for Muslims to feel outrage at genocide of non - Muslims. Your neighbor may not actually participate in atrocities himself, but if it happens, he will shrug his shoulders and walk away. He will not be outraged. Indeed, he has been like that all the while! You are the one who missed the significance of his attitude!

Which brings me to what I started with - we all have learned to hold Muslims to very different, and I daresay very low standards. We have thus made ourselves party to genocide of non - Muslims wherever Muslims are in majority. We think of ourselves as decent, civilized folks. It is time we applied principles of decency correctly. We have already agreed that those who perpetrate heinous crimes don’t deserve our sympathy. Now, let us also agree on our view of those who observe such atrocities, and have no visible problem with them.

If your Abdul was any different, he would not only have been outraged long back, millions like him would have gotten together, and you would see a political movement that genuinely fights extremism in his community. There is no such political movement, and there is no movement towards one. Indeed, your Abdul will be outraged by this article, but not by an actual genocide of non-Muslims.

Ergo, aapka wala Abdul bhi waisa hi hai. Face this brutal reality in the eye.

Kapil Mishra and Wasim Rizvi: Unlikely Champions For United Hindu Votes

BJP expanded rapidly. That vacuum was filled by opportunists and gems alike. One such gem is Kapil Mishra. Like so many of us, he was moved by Anna Hazare's anti corruption crusade and joined hands with Kejriwal. You can listen to him describing AAP motto. He like many found out later that Kejriwal turned out to be the exact opposite of what he had set out to be.

Needless to say he realised that AAP was no place for a conservative Hindu and he joined hands with the BJP which continues to be the only option for Hindus in India. Mishra, like so many other's is truly disturbed by this constant bickering amongst Hindus. He pointed out at the Digital Hindu Conclave, it's time to REALIZE & ACCEPT the presence of the "Enemy at the Door" & without any further delay and before our decline worsens, we need to create a Hindu Ecosystem.

Like so many of us, Kapil Mishra is truly pained by Hindus fighting Hindus. In his own inimitable manner, he points out those Hindus who are constant critics of every move by Modi sarkar. He literally begs them to let those of us who are fighting for the right and not be a modern day Shakuni or Shalya and try to sink the entire ship for the sake of their egos. We would like to add those Hindus who stay home instead of going out to vote. We would also like to further add that we all rise above "what has BJP done for our caste" and try to imagine the knife's edge that Modi walks every day trying to be the PM for ALL Indians.

When you watch the following video, you'll realize that he like many of us dreams of the kind of unity that Sikhs and Muslims have because that is where they draw their political power. 

The one topic that he avoids (and understandably so) is the responsibility PM and HM to protect those Hindus who are participating in an existential fight in states like WB and Kerala. But one fight at a time.

The topic of Hindu unity is very near to our hearts. As we had said in an old post on our blog, that Hinduism is the glue, which unites this disparate country of ours. We know that regionalism and casteism have created a very nasty atmosphere in the country where we face xenophobia even without leaving the country. But as much as we may hate each other, we stay united not because of any reason but Hinduism. If you believe that (unless you are a leftist liberal) then you realize that the future of our country as it is now, depends solely on the Hindus staying united in face of pseudo-secularism and militant minorityism.

 

Back in 2013, we had written a post where a frustrated Muslim, Dr. Mohd. Sajjad posed some tough questions for Akhilesh Yadav and shredded votebank politics bare. But he steered clear of what needed to be done by Muslims, and by corollary, the Hindus. This is where we can appreciate the value of the stand adopted by Wasim Rizvi who an ex Chairman of the Shia Waqf Board. As we have said that future of India lies in her Hindu identity. Now we can hear a Muslim say the same thing. In this video, he affirms our belief that we are locked in an existential battle and unified voting for our own interests is of paramount importance. DO watch the following video.

So there you have it. An ex AAP member and a Muslim are convinced that the Hindus need unite and exercise their political power of vote in a united fashion. In that manner we have two unlikely warriors for the cause. Now if they can see the importance of such a unity, there is no reason why those who actually practice the faith can rise above so many reasons which divide and work for what unites us. Our survival depends upon it.

Kapil Mishra Represent BJP's Third Generation Well

In America, taking the fight out of a dog means you are taking the courage out of the dog. Congress, with its carefully mapped plan and British blueprint, have done exactly that to the Hindus. Even when out of power, Congress established system (eg supreme court) continues their work. It used to be the whole बिना खड़ग बिना ढाल/bina khadag bina dhal nonsense. Now it's, Hindu is good and Hindutva is evil nonsense. PM Modi who was the first PM born after independence, clearly had no fond memories of anything Pakistani which was a breath of fresh air. But sometimes it feels that the Ganga Jamuni Tehzeeb nonsense may have had some impact on him (either that or his fervent belief in sabka sath sabka vikas). However, one second generation leader has turned out to be the kind of leader Hindus need and deserve and that is Yogi Adityanath. He is not the focal point of this post though.

As D.K. Singh (Editor at The Print) says, Yogi Ji, is not just a role model for BJP chief ministers but is also inspiring the third generation of BJP leaders. As we all know that Yogiji's way of administration has raised an erstwhile BIMARU state of UP to the second largest economy in the nation. Law and order has been restored. UP is on a path it deserves. While that in itself should be inspirational, there is another trait in Yogiji and that is his faith and his refusal to apologize for it. Yogiji has shown that progress and unapologetic belief in Hindu faith can go hand in hand. Yogiji is putting fight back into the Hindu. He is waging a war against the Congress ecosystem

There are a number of third generation leaders (we should be indebted to PM Modi's ability to identify and nurture them) who are getting inspired by Yogiji. Of all those BJP young guns, the one who stands out is an ex AAP member Kapil Mishra who has not only surprised us but also impressed us with his outspokenness, energy, willingness to help others with money and support. But the thing that impresses us most is his ability to stand up to Congress' ecosystem. He does not shy away from a fight and is vociferous about his beliefs. 

We believe that his work needs to be highlighted.

Like Kapil Mishra said clearly at the Digital Hindu Conclave, it's time to REALIZE & ACCEPT the presence of the "Enemy at the Door" & without any further delay and before our decline worsens, we need to create a Hindu Ecosystem. 

Links of the complete speech of Kapil Mishra 

https://youtu.be/2qMVzgVGUZM

https://youtu.be/o9GyM4sRU3Y

This post is the result of Kapil Mishra's recent and earlier appearances on TV debates. When the ecosystem stifles you, telling the truth isn't just rebellion. It becomes an act of revolution where truth becomes a weapon. Few wield that weapon better than Kapil Mishra. Watch the following and decide for yourself. 

Watch Kapil speak from 25:53 to 28:15 in the video above.  

                       You too will say: आपके शब्द सुन सच-मुच सीना चौड़ा हो गया.

Even when the Hindu RW leaders are peddling their own version of Ganga Jamuni nonsense, Kapil Mishra has been exposing the hypocrisy of the so called moderate Muslim. 

No sooner does one even hint at criticism of murderous Mughals, these Muslim moderates shed that veneer of "tehzeeb" and become abusive. The Islamic apologists in the panel, Shoaib Jamai and Taslim Rehmani invariably and immediately resort to violent abuse and name calling instead of engaging in a civic debate. It is the astha/faith of Islam and the community that non-believers are not even considered humans that enables them to use terms like innocent and humanity in a selective way. They don't even attempt to hide behind taqiyya any more. Issuing fatwas for beheading like 'sar tan se juda' (Kamlesh Tiwari) scarily commonplace these days. The Azad maidan riots, the Delhi CAA riots, and the recent Maharashtra riots are repeated reminder that the enemy is at our door and we desperately need a Hindu ecosystem. A safety net, a support system.

Must Read: https://nethindu1.blogspot.com/2021/07/on-common-muslims.html

Note: Taqiyya, in Islam is the practice of concealing one's belief and foregoing ordinary religious duties when under threat of death or injury.

Kapil MIshra Represent BJP's Third Generation Well

Here is one more of Kapil Mishra interventions in favor of the Hindu ecosystem. 

Gurugram में सड़क पर नमाज़ के विरोध को Kapil Mishra ने बताया जायज.  बेशक बताना भी चाहिए/bashak batana bhi chahiye.

The Gurugram protests were about public spaces like parks and roads being blocked for namaz. Public spaces are for public use, the residents started questioning as to why does the Muslim community block those spaces when they can offer namaz in the numerous mosques in that city.

It is said that civilizations get destroyed from within. India will not be destroyed by Pakistan or China. It will be destroyed by dhimmi Hindus.

That the Hindus are fighting an existential fight. Unity is our most potent weapon. Divided we will fall. This is why the call for a Hindu ecosystem by Kapil Mishra is of a paramount importance. We hope he continues his dharma yuddha. May Bholenath protect him and others fighting this battle.

On Common Muslims

I started studying the religion of Islam some 8 years back. Like many others, I was also disturbed that such a large population of India and other parts of the free world was seen to be a perennial problem. I was disturbed by history of Islam in India. When you study the history of partition, of Hindus who were left in Pakistan and then were cleansed out, of the brutal genocide of Kashmiri Pandits, you cannot be blamed for thinking that Muslims seem to believe it is their right to murder non - Muslims, and degrade us all in every conceivable way. During partition riots, not only was there widespread bloodshed, initiated and carried out by popular Muslim leadership, but Hindu women were paraded naked on streets multiple times! The relish Muslims seemed to experience in degrading Hindus!!

One argument I oft encountered when raising difficult questions about Islam was - but all Muslims are not bad. You find good and bad people in all communities. And every community has carried out atrocities against other communities. So what is exceptional about Muslims? Sounds fair, and yet Muslims always seem a little different from other communities. In those days, it was hard to pinpoint, but to me it always appeared that there was something wrong with the Muslim community itself, rather than it being a case of a few bad apples in an otherwise normal group of people.

And so, I set out to first answer this question - is it something wrong with the community, or all atrocious behavior of Muslims were exceptional? After a little thought, I found a way to answer this question. You can always understand the mainstream ethos of a community, any community in the world, simply by studying its heroes. After all, a community which has a fundamentally good sense of ethics won’t glorify someone who did terrible wrongs. Or even if such a figure came to acquire respect for some reason, there would be qualifications attached to such respect. Such a person would never be considered an ideal.

And as it happens, Muslims do have an ideal. Such is the status of that ideal, that Muslims recorded every word and action of that man so they could emulate him precisely. Slightest criticism of that ideal results in calls for beheading by Muslims. So, I could simply study this person and then I would know the mainstream values of Muslims.

I did that. I studied two biographies of Mohammed and a number of Hadis. I also read most of Koran for good measure. I was right in saying that a community’s heroes’ tell you what that community is like. After knowing Mohammed, everything fell in place. Muslims are different! They have dehumanized all non - Muslims of the world. In their minds if they don’t have power, and physically when they do, such as during partition of India or in geographies where they have a majority. What is done by evil minds in other communities, is heroic behavior for Muslims.

Subsequently, I engaged in many debates with believing Muslims as well as sympathizers who have little knowledge of Islam. What I heard cemented my belief. I now challenge any apologist of Islam to show me difference between conduct of Mohammed and that of, say, ISIS. Invariably, the apologists lose the argument and resort to name calling instead of answering questions. The ones who were a little more open minded studied the subject themselves and have largely come round to accepting that Islam is fundamentally flawed. I am also happy to note that in public discourse, people display more knowledge of what happened in Arabia between late 6th and early 7th century, and there is growing acceptance of the idea that Islam itself is a problem, an intractable one at that. And non - Muslims have no responsibility for the “distress” Muslims seem to be perennially afflicted with.

As debates progressed, I encountered another line from those desperate to throw a lifeline for Muslims. I cannot, by the way, understand why some non - Muslims have such desperation to defend Muslims. But it’s there in many otherwise normal persons. So those like me who want to change the world have to answer it.

This line is - but what about your Muslim neighbor, office colleague, batchmate etc. He or she is a “normal” person “just like you”. He does not show fanaticism. Nor found involved in terrorist activities. Why should that person suffer discrimination? Why shouldn’t the society ensure that person is not in discomfort on account of his identity?

I agree that we should not stop a “normal” Muslim on the road and unload our anger against him. I am not advocating gratuitous violence against anyone. Not even proactively telling him about our views on Islam. However, we really need to have a hard look at this question - should we really be obliged to bend over backwards for his “comfort”. For instance, should we hold back our thoughts on political issues because a handful of Muslims might feel hurt? At macro level, should our policies be adjusted to ensure this so called “normal” Muslim does not feel bad about anything?

I do not think so. I believe that once we have determined that Islam is fundamentally wrong, any believing Muslims should be assumed to be a follower of that wrong, unless proved otherwise. The Muslim neighbor may indeed seem as no different from any of us. But if he is a believing Muslim, it is impossible that he does not plan to destroy you, or reduce you to second class status as soon as he has adequate political power. Mainstream Muslims have always done that. Unless they change in fundamental ways, they will always do that.

Here is an illustration to understand this point.

I once engaged with just such a Muslim on a whatsapp group. The group has some 100 odd members. Barring a handful, all are Hindus, some notionally, some in belief. There are a few Christians. And there is just one Muslim. Being among those rather vocal on Islam and Muslims, I was advised by one of us to engage with him while others watched. Only request to me and the Muslim - let us call him Faisal, was that we should maintain civility.

And so the engagement happened. I learned enormously about the Muslim mind from that exchange. I am sharing what happened and what emerged out of it.

I started by challenging Faisal that most Muslims are not loyal to India and our Constitution. They want to re-institutionalize Shariah laws (I.e. Hindus have second class status). They cheer Pakistan not only in cricket matches but in wars too (1965 and 1971). Survey after survey has shown it. Along the way, I also told him that I had studied Islam and wanted to ask him how he could accept as his ideal a monstrous evil like Mohammed. Faisal said a few things and then abruptly left. I cannot produce all exchanges, but here is a gist of what Faisal, one of those “normal” mainstream Muslims, said:

I do not agree to surveys that most Muslims are not loyal to the Indian constitution (e.g. seeking Shariah laws). It is not healthy for our society to spread such (mis)information. I know more Muslims than others, and we are not like this.

Muslims / Islam have become a punching bag nowadays. It is easy to blame things on religion. Its all about interpretation. Taliban and ISIS also claim to follow Islam. Look at Muslims around you. Study their behavior.

No more from me. I got to go!

That was it. He refused to answer any questions about what Islam says, what Mohammed did in his lifetime and what Muslims have done all around us every time they had power!

I later thought - Faisal must know about all the violence Muslims have inflicted. He can’t be unaware of the genocide of Kashmiri Pandits, to name one horror committed by his co - religionists. Why doesn’t he acknowledge it? He may express his opinion of it later, but why doesn’t he first acknowledge that such incidents might have made us Hindus view Islam and him in a certain way? Why does he claim unalloyed victimhood? Moreover, he claims to have a version of Islam that is perfectly peaceful and totally different from that of Taliban and ISIS. Why doesn’t he explain how he came to acquire such a version? In all my studies of Islam lasting years, I never came across such a version. And before I could start asking questions about his version, he left!!

Faisal must have seen horrifying attitudes of his community members first hand. He comes from Bihar. In 1946 elections, nearly 90% Muslims voted for Muslim League that openly called for murder and rape of Hindus. The probability that at least one of his grandfathers supported that Muslim League is

nearly 100%. I find it very hard to believe that he had not heard from (or heard about) them. Then why did he feign ignorance of those attitudes in his community. A decent, civil behavior would be to acknowledge it, acknowledge that the Hindu view of Muslims is not without basis, and after that defend himself and his community if needed. He does not do that. He brushes aside our views as misplaced, harmful for the society, and moves on. As if we are supposed to just grin and bear it when we learn about Muslims committing atrocities on Hindus.

That is your “normal” Muslim neighbor / colleague / batchmate who you thought is no different from you. Make of it what you want. As far as I am concerned, Faisal’s behavior of expecting others to never feel angry about genocides shows the real face of Islam. That it is a genocidal ideology of world domination no different from Nazism. It kills basic decency and civility in its adherents. I have never seen an upper caste Hindu fail to acknowledge the horrors of untouchability. Nor a Briton refusing to admit the atrocities of the British Raj. Nor an American White not admitting that they killed Red Indians and committed slavery on blacks. How different a Muslim who studied with us in college! If such a person can dissimulate in front of us, what of the more fanatical types? No wonder you never hear any voices in Muslim community against fundamentalism.

I am more convinced than ever that we all need to rise up to the political challenge of Islam and Muslims if we want to preserve the freedoms of free societies earned with so much blood. And that means not relenting on the political pressure we have just started creating on Muslims. On overt fundamentalists, as also on “regular” folks around us like Faisal. They are no different once one looks beneath the surface.

Pagans vs Abrahamics - why Hindus are a free society, and Muslims can’t be one

Abhishek Banerjee, a mathematician at IISc Bangalore, is probably the best “columnist” today in India. Recently, he made an interesting point on Turkey’s thuggish act of converting Hagia Sophia into a mosque. He said that believing Muslims hate India because we are the last standing Pagan culture. All other cultures in the world converted to one of the Abrahamic religions, or to communism which too is a kind of Abrahamic religion.

 This remark really got me thinking. To begin with, let me clarify that in my opinion Hindus are more than Pagans. We describe ourselves as a “Dharmic” people, and we believe that Dharma is a far more profound idea than paganism. However, we do share our personality with Pagans in many fundamental ways. So in this write up, I will refer to ourselves as “Pagans”.

 While I fully agree with Abhishek, I found myself asking this question - what are the traits of pagans - the important facets of their collective ethos, and how and are they different from “Abrahamic” personality. Let me make a crude attempt at listing the critical differences between the two. I think it might help us Hindus understand ourselves better, and maybe it will motivate us even more to defend the free, democratic Nation-State that India has become. So here are the most important differences (in my opinion) between a “Pagan” and an “Abrahamic” mindset:

 1. Pagans are polytheists, Abrahamics are belligerent monotheists: We take this for granted, but as I think more about it, this seems quite a significant fact - why aren’t there monotheistic Pagan cultures? Well, there might be an odd one (none that I know about), but all significant Pagan cultures have been polytheistic. At the very least, no pagan culture was antagonistic towards “others”. We all know about myriad Hindu Gods, but then Greco - Roman religions also had many deities. Pre-Islamic Egyptians were likewise polytheistic. So were pre-Islamic Persians / Zoroastrians.

 And think about it - why should it be so? On the face of it, it may seem unimportant. But it is not. It is a critical difference that determines their vastly different collective ethos. Not only are Abrahamics avowed monotheists, they seem offended by the idea that any society should have multiple Gods. Abrahamics seem to have acute anxiety about this and they seem to want to attack and humiliate Pagans only on this count. Why this anxiety? Why should heavens seem to fall (to them) if people worship multiple Gods? It seems irrational on the face of it, but for the moment, let us record this and move on.

 2. Pagans admit flaws in their Gods, Abrahamics insist their “One God” is perfect: All of Hindu Gods, every single one, is admitted as having flaws. Indra is egoistic and promiscuous, Shiva is very intense and prone to anger, Brahma is known to have lied and lost the privilege of being worshiped. The list goes on and on. A little research I did on Greek Gods revealed similar view of them by their worshipers. Zeus, for instance, is said to “mate everything in sight”. More research is sure to confirm this about other Pagan Gods.

 Abrahamic faiths not only insist on one almighty “God”, but this God is believed to be perfect and infallible. Of course, to non - believers, this almighty seems far from perfect. Allah of Muslims, for example, not only comes across as exceedingly egoistic (don’t you dare worship anyone other than me!) and cruel (eternal hell for worshiping anyone else besides me), but also doesn’t seem to know basic maths! He committed errors while guiding his followers about share of inheritance!

 The point is that Abrahamics do not admit any flaws in some being out there assumed to be omnipotent. Of course they tie themselves in knots when questioned about these imperfections, but they have an immense desire and insistence on a flawless, omnipotent being.

 This is another critical difference between Abrahamics and Pagans. I suspect it is rooted in the psychological make up of the respective followers. It results in profoundly different kinds of societies. One immediate implication is that Abrahamics are less tolerant of “imperfect” behaviors. Pagans accept that human beings will come with all kinds of flaws and the society must factor that in while building institutions and forming the social contract. Abrahamics too have imperfections like their supposedly “flawless” God does, but they are perpetually defensive and in denial about it. It turns them into a natural hypocrites.

 3. Pagans celebrate sexuality and romance, Abrahamics have anxiety around sex and women: I invite people to look at the way Hindu women dressed historically (i.e. before the first Abrahamic - the Muslim, set foot on the subcontinent). There are enough depictions on temples and cave carvings, in the paintings of Ajanta, and in Hindu literature. Contrast it with the way traditional Muslims and Christians insist their women should dress up. A clarification here - the present day nominally “Judeo - Christian” western civilization is different. It sort of de-abrahamized itself during the Renaissance, when it adopted modernity and secularism, retaining only vestiges of orthodox Christianity. People like Brazilians too - while devoted Christians on paper, actually are more native American and African Pagans than devout Christians. I am open to being questioned on this, but I seriously doubt a believing Christian would look at the Rio carnival as anything but depraved debauchery.

 The matter goes beyond women’s dress. If you study Hindu Gods’ “lives” - the reference points for Hindus to get their sense of right and wrong, you find Hindus celebrating romantic love between Goddesses and their partners. Sometimes, as in the case of Radha, her consort is not even married to her. We still enjoy Raas Leela every year. All devatas and Eeswaras deeply love their women. The love isn’t asexual. There is enough to tell you that their love is of a typical loving, sexual couple. There is no embarrassment about sexual desires.

 On the other hand, in both Orthodox Christianity and Islam, sex is shame. In Christianity, we are all “born in sin” from which we need to be “saved”. Abrahamics endeavor to keep their women in some manner of confinement - Muslims more strictly than Christians, and then create spaces for sexual fulfillment that are thoroughly demeaning to women. All “sultans” had harems which were little more than private brothels, women therein being little more than playthings, to be handed down to the next lower ranking “amir” after the more powerful one was done with her.

 This separation of women’s roles between sexual beings on the one had, and respectable wives on the other, is a feature of Abrahamic faiths. Hindu civilization, modern day western civilization and I am sure other Pagan cultures, don’t separate these roles for women. We all respect women even while we take cognizance of their “sexual” roles.

 At this point, it is pertinent to point out that one limited exception to this is Communism which we clubbed with Abrahamics. In Communism, there isn’t an endeavor to box women into confined spaces. However, even in communism, there is no celebration of romance and sex. Just that the shackles are reduced as compared to other Abrahamics.

 4. Pagans handle “authority” lightly, Abrahamics are obsessed with matters of authority and power: To understand this, we need to look at the interaction between someone powerful like a king and a powerless subject, in the imagination of respective people. Sure enough, there is protocol in the Pagan cultures too - the subject has to bow to the king. Maybe signal subordination in other ways. But there is an ease and comfort between a powerful and a powerless in Pagan cultures.

 I can recount scene after scene in Sanskrit literature which show how easygoing the Hindu kings were with their subjects. One, just for illustration, is when Ram is about to leave Ayodhya for his vanvaas, and gifting cows to Brahmins before he leaves. A destitute Brahmin named Trijat comes to him and requests for a gift so he may live better. Ram asks him, half jokingly, to throw a stick and then Trijat could get all the cows standing till the landing point of the stick. Trijat does it and gets the gift of a thousand cows. The point here is that a powerful prince being so lighthearted with a common man is a norm within Hindu culture. Extreme sternness and abject humbleness in “lesser” mortals is the norm in Abrahamic cultures. Its as if the slightest gesture of “equality” between the powerful and the powerless poses extreme threat to our Abrahamic sultan.

 These were the most noticeable differences I could narrate from my observations and studies of different cultures. Some points to be made here before I close - one, like I said earlier - the West today is definitely not an Abrahamic culture. It is not a “Christian” civilization. It is an inheritor of the Greco - Roman culture. It abandoned orthodox Christianity long back and is only nominally Christian. Two - I do not claim this write up to be a rigorous study, though I am certain this can be a starting point for one on this subject. Moreover, most of my observations are based on Hindu culture, though whatever little I have learned of other Pagan cultures like Greeks or Egyptians matches the traits listed above. Three - it should be obvious, but bears stating - there are many individuals, even powerful kings / leaders sometimes, in either culture who nevertheless show traits of the “other” i.e. A powerful Hindu might behave like an Abrahamic, or a prominent Muslim might be “soft” like Pagans. I have described the mainstream ethos of different cultures. There being billions of individuals in either culture, the number of deviants could run into crores even if a small percentage overall. This small segment could even be large enough to create a deviant subculture within an overarching mainstream culture.

 To conclude, I think Abrahamic mindset is driven by:

1. Extreme anxiety in matters of sex (my woman may not desire me, may tempt others with her sexuality, may enjoy herself with other men), leading to a certain way of treating women.

2. Extreme anxiety in matters of power (My status may be challenged by / lost to “lesser” mortals who are not accepting of my authority and status).

These instincts lead Abrahamics to act in certain ways, and we can see the result all around.

Pagans, on the contrary, are naturally “free” people and create societies in which an individual does not have to be a “fighter” to flourish. In these societies individuals of many diverse temperaments can prosper. At their best, the Pagan societies have been the most productive in matters of economy, arts, science and technology. Abrahamics can’t be similarly productive by themselves. Historically, they have done well only when they could access some Pagan society to “feed” on. In the absence of subjugated Pagans available to “carnivorous” Abrahamics, these societies tended to flounder.

Pagans being natural prey for predatory Abrahamics, they need to develop defence mechanisms to ensure their survival. I leave that topic for another day!

Sanjay

Is Yogi Adityanath the Heir Apparent to Narendra Modi?

Even when the five time, immensely popular MP from Gorakhpur was selected by Amit Shah to lead UP, a number of people were skeptical. Us included. An unapologetic Hindu, the Yogi always challenged the BJP for their soft approach to Hindutva and the problems of their core group of supporters. This would be a problem for a career politician but Yogiji is anything but that. But for like Modi and Shah who are performers and result oriented men, Yogiji was a kindred spirit. They trusted him with politically the most important state.
Yogiji started his tenure like a sledgehammer. He identified law and order as the main problem and went after criminals with a vengeance. People responded positively to that. His initiatives with rioters was also met with an overwhelming approval. His hard work and dedication earned him #YogiRoxx trend on Twitter. But none of that earned him any approval, leave alone praise from the PM. Before the 2019 general elections, Yogiji started talking about Ayodhya and Ram Mandir as he felt very strongly on the issues. This made him very popular amongst the voters but his statements were met with a strong rebuke from the PM (we all remember PM’s body language on a trip to UP where he treated Yogiji like an errant person). At that time I thought that all that felt like a father disciplining his son.
Then came Covid-19, the biggest problem the world had collectively face since WWII. Even believers like us were very worried about UP. We thought it was only a matter of time before UP surpasses Italy and Spain. Then came some more bad news. Migrant workers were being disowned by the employers and send back home. The worst was Kejriwal’s sleazy tricks at the Anand Vihar bus depot where an immense panic was caused. In face of seemingly insurmountable odds, Yogiji and his team rose to the challenge and dealt with the problem with ruthless efficiency. Thanks to his effort, the erstwhile BIMARU state was one of the best managed. If you consider the enormity of the task, Yogiji’s performance amongst all the CMs is the best. We are not going to quote numbers and stats. But population of UP is similar to Pakistan and Brazil. Number of cases, recovered and deaths for UP is 21,549 14,215, 649. The same for Pakistan is 203000, 92624, 4118 and for Brazil is 1.32 million, 716000, 57103. Such great is Yogiji’s performance that it earned him praises from the most unlikely of quarters, Pakistan.
Pakistan-newspaper-praises-yogi-governments-strict-lockdown-enforcement-in-up. 
 
Having obtained a chokehold on the Covid problem, Yogiji set out to solve the problem of the returning citizens of UP. He has taken the PM’s Gareeb Kalyan Rojgar Abhiyan and made it more muscular and innovative and launched Atma Nirbhar UP Rojgar Abhiyan under which 1.25 crore jobs will be created in 31 districts in 125 days.
1-25-crore-jobs-31-districts-125-days-pm-modi-to-launch-atma-nirbhar-up-rojgar-abhiyan-today.

Suddenly Yogiji went from a populist leader to a problem solver, a high achiever, a man who found opportunity in a crisis, a visionary a consummate leader. He now reminded us of an ex CM of Gujarat. Yogiji, the leader has arrived as was recently acknowledged by that ex CM.
In the following video, the PM acknowledges the enormity of the task and praises Yogiji sky high for the way he dealt with the problem. He says that this kind of success would not have been possible in the past. All UP received in the past was excuses. But no more. Now UP has a leader who did not go to his father’s funeral because he was needed in Lucknow. A very rare praise from the PM of Yogiji’s success and sacrifice.
https://twitter.com/BJP4India/status/1276449392178782208

In the following video the PM praises Yogiji’s wisdom and strength in this time of crisis.
https://twitter.com/bjp4india/status/1276447418955882496?s=11

In the following video the PM acknowledges Yogiji’s ability to not only adapt the central government policies but improve upon them in both qualitative and quantitative manners. Yogiji found opportunity in crisis and improved and increased the scope of Atmanirbhar India. You can almost feel that the PM is hinting at his potential replacement.
https://twitter.com/BJP4India/status/1276444638803419138

In many ways, the PM sounds like a proud father who is parsimonious with his praises but one who finally decides to give credit where it is due. Words like these from a man like Narendra Modi must mean a lot to an upcoming leader like Yogi Adityanath.
From the point of view of Modi-Shah, their ability to recognize the potential in Yogiji speaks volumes of the future of the BJP and their ability to groom future leaders. BJP is truly in safe hands. But as a voter we cannot help but draw parallels between Modi and Yogi. Honest to a fault, both men have almost identical family backgrounds. Despite of their powerful stature, their families are not favored in the public arena. Both of them are extreme hard workers and over achievers. Both of them are monks – one declared while the other waits for his retirement. That said, Yogiji has a long way to go before he becomes a Modi. He is still a diamond in the rough who needs to work on his diplomatic skills. In one aspect, he out does Modi and that is his unapologetic approach to Hindutva and nationalism.
Leading in peace and prosperity is easy. True leaders shine in times of trouble. Yogi has proven his mettle in the worst of times and for that citizens of UP must feel relieved and proud that finally they have a leader who is going to put the state on the road out of the BIMARU statues. The nation has to be relieved because in Yogi we have a person who is more than capable of leading the nation.

Sri Aurobindo on how to deal with the Muslim problem.

Sri Aurobindo on how Hindus should deal with the Muslim problem. Present excerpts from his words from 1906 to 1940 (Courtesy Gautam Dey)

In an earlier part we had shared Maharshi Aurobindo’s views on Gandhi. We now present Aurobindo’s views on how the Hindu community must deal with Muslims. These are excerpts from book ‘India’s Rebirth’ that contains his thoughts at various points of time. 

Excerpts are verbatim from the book, format is when spoken and matter.
September 4, 1906 - Partition Bengal
“The idea that by encouraging Muslim rowdyism, the present agitation may be put down, is preposterous and those who cherish this notion forget that the bully is neither the strongest nor the bravest of men, and that because the self-restraint of Hindus, miscalled cowardice, has been a prominent feature of his national character, he is absolutely incapable of striking straight and striking hard when any sacred situation demands this.
Not has it been proved recently, that the mild Hindu is so absolutely helpless and incapable of defending his rights and liberties as he is painted by his foreign enemies.”
June 19, 1909 - Hindu Muslim
“Of one thing we may be certain, that Hindu-Mahomedan unity cannot be affected by political adjustments or Congress flatteries. It must be sought deeper down, in the heart and in the mind, for where the causes of disunion are; there the remedies must be sought.”
September 4, 1909 - Muslim problem
“Every action for instance which may be objectionable to a number of Mahomedans is now liable to be forbidden because it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and one is dimly beginning to wonder whether the day may not come when worship in Hindu temples may be forbidden on that valid ground.”
April 18, 1923 - Hindu-Muslim unity
“(Sri Aurobindo :) I am sorry they are making a fetish of this Hindu-Muslim unity. It is no use ignoring facts; some day the Hindus may have fight the Muslims and they must prepare for it Hindu-Muslim unity should not mean the subjection of the Hindus. Every time the mildness of the Hindu has given way.
The best solution would be to allow the Hindus to organize themselves and the Hindu-Muslim unity would take care of itself, it would automatically solve the problem. Otherwise we are lulled into a false sense of satisfaction that we have solved a difficult problem when in fact we have only shelved it.”
May 18, 1926 - Khilafat
“Take the Hindu-Muslim problem: I don’t know why our politicians accepted Gandhi’s Khilafat agitation. With the mentality of the ordinary Mahomedan it was bound to produce the reaction it has produced: you fed the force, it gathered power and began to make demands which the Hindu mentality had to rise up and reject. That does not require Supermind to find out, it requires common sense. Then, the Mahomedan reality and the Hindu reality began to break heads at Calcutta. (Refers to the riots in Calcutta the previous month).”
June 29, 1926
“If it is India’s destiny to assimilate all the conflicting elements, is it possible to assimilate the Mahomedan element also?
Why not? India has assimilated elements from the Greeks, the Persians and other nations. But she assimilates only when her central truth is recognized by the other party, and even while assimilating she does it in such a way that the elements absorbed are no longer recognizable as foreign but become part of herself. For instance. We took from the Greek architecture, from the Persian painting, etc.
The assimilation of the Mahomedan culture also was done in the mind to a great extent and it would have perhaps gone further. But in order that the process may be complete it is necessary that a change in the Mahomedan mentality should come. The conflict is in the outer life and unless the Mahomedans learn tolerance I do not think the assimilation is possible.
The Hindu is ready to tolerate. He is open to new ideas and his culture has got a wonderful capacity for assimilation, but always provided that India’s central truth is recognized.”
August 1, 1926 - Muslim problem
“The attempt to placate the Mahomedans was a false diplomacy. Instead of trying to achieve Hindu-Muslim unity directly, if the Hindus had devoted themselves to national work, the Mahomedans would have gradually come of themselves….
This attempt to patch up a unity has given too much importance to the Muslims and it has been the root of all these troubles.”
May 28, 1940 - Gandhi’s attitude to Muslims
“Have you read what Gandhi has said in answer to a correspondent? He says that if eight crores of Muslims demand a separate State, what else are the twenty-five crores of Hindus to do but surrender? Otherwise there will be civil war.
(A disciple:) I hope that is not the type of conciliation he is thinking of.
Not thinking of it, you say? He has actually said that and almost yielded. If you yield to the opposite party beforehand, naturally they will stick strongly to their claims. It means that the minority will rule and the majority must submit. The minority is allowed its say, “We shall be the ruler and you our servants. Our hard [word] will be law; you will have to obey.” This shows a peculiar mind I think this kind of people are a little cracked.” June 21, 1940 – Kashmir
“In Kashmir, the Hindus had all the monopoly. Now if the Muslim demands are acceded to, the Hindus will be wiped out.”
November 28, 1940 - Gandhi’s Ahimsa
“Something in him takes delight in suffering for its own sake. Even the prospect of suffering seems to please him… It is the Christian idea that has taken hold of him.
The English are not quite wrong when they say that the Indian must settle their own differences. The Lucknow Pact has become a big political blunder. The Mahomedans, they want to rule India.”

General Elections and Whatsapp Wars

In the run up to the general elections in India, for at least about a year, a phenomenon

everyone has noticed, and many have been involved in (including me!) is what I am calling “whatsapp wars”. In the many whatsapp groups of which almost all middle class Indians are part, the more political minded ones have engaged in fairly heated arguments, and in many cases, separation and end of friendships. I too left my engineering group permanently, and my relationships with a few of my neighbors / batchmates / acquaintances have pretty much ended. I have known many others in similar situations. In fact, the phenomenon was even reported in the mainstream media sometimes.

What really happens that makes people, otherwise friendly, to start hating each other with such intensity? And what should people do to moderate things? Are relationships more important, or are political biases masquerading as principles and values more important? Having been a part of it a few times, I have some thoughts around these questions, and I thought of putting them down and sharing with some folks I know and perhaps care about.

First lets see what happens – a “Right Wing” (called RW, but not really right winger in the classical sense) Hindu Nationalist pro – Modi person posts something that a secular / liberal person, or rather, one who believes he is one, finds highly objectionable. The number of occasion when the reverse happens are relatively few. Now once objection is raised, a complaint is lodged with the admin of the whatsapp, usually with a threat to quit the group. The admin, who is usually anxious to maintain the group integrity, goes to the offender and requests him to moderate. At times, this leads to behavior change if only temporarily. Other times, the damage is permanent and someone or the other leaves the group.

This is usually the cycle. I found some of the batchmates of one of my colleges too foul mouthed. Not because of their views, but because of the language they used – one of them, in reply to something I posted just said “you are scum”, I quit the group. I was willing to put up with political views, howsoever extreme, but not this kind of outright personal abuse. I, by the way, am a right winger myself, a strong supporter of Modi. On other occasions, I have caused people to quit one of my groups, though thankfully never permanently. I derive some solace from the fact that even those who went to the extent of quitting the group because of my views later acknowledged that I was never uncivil.

To me, it is always a source of distress when this kind of a “separation” happens. Sure enough, some of our views will be considered extreme by someone or the other and vice versa. But personal abuse, threats, demands to silence, that is something I never am able to come to terms with. However, like with everything else, I did endeavor to understand why this happens, and here is what I think goes on:

With me, things on whatsapp group have always gone out of control only on one issue – the nature of Islam. There is something about this matter that some people, instead of responding to a comment with a counter – logic, as they usually do in other matters, simply go ballistic and try to silence me and some others with similar views. On every other matter, I can write the most provocative message, and it will at most elicit a frown and someone pointing out why I might be wrong. On Islam, the outrage of secular / liberals is palpable instantly. Of course, they claim they are upset by the tone of religious discrimination. But that does not explain extreme emotion. Why, for instance, won't they answer me with some logic? Why won't they first show me how exactly I advocated discrimination (I don't think I ever do), rather than demand belligerently that I be silenced.

There is an answer to this. I will lay that out before you. But to start with, I will tell you a very small episode from my life that is analogous to the overreaction of political partisans on whats-app, and illustrate the phenomenon more clearly.

I had a very good friend some 35 years back. In fact we are still connected and he is still a good friend though we have not met for decades. We were the sort of friends who pulled each others' legs with impunity, fully assured that we will remain friends even after taking liberties with each other. I am going to call this friend Markos. He is a Keralite Christian and a really good human being.

As it happens, Markos had a tendency which in my mind was a minor flaw. I did not at all care that he had it. But something interesting happened when I used it to pull his leg once.

Markos liked to pretend that he liked art movies. I thought he really did not enjoy the boring insipid fare that passed for high art. I thought he was just putting on an appearance of liking them, just to come across as a sophisticated guy who liked high art. So what happened when he saw one of these flop movies and came back and told me “I really liked the movie”. I was the wise guy and shot back, full of mischief: “You only think you liked the movie”. I would not do that with anyone but a close friend like Markos. And how do you think Markos reacted? He ceased to be a dear friend instantly! He absolutely went ballistic! He raved and ranted against me and started pointing out every flaw he noticed in me since we first met a few years previously.

I was taken aback of course. I protested that I was only having some fun at his expense. But he was not soothed. He continued his tirade for quite a while more. I did not react after this. After a few days, as it happens with youngsters, our friendship was back to nearly normal.

Moral of the story: If someone fools himself about something, and you point it out, he will go berserk on you.

Now back to Islam and whatsapp groups.

Those secularists who read these thoughts of mine will again burn with rage, but I am certain that they go ballistic because some RW guy reminded them that they are fooling themselves about the nature of Islam. Let us look at some beliefs they hold, or rather, fool themselves that they hold about Islam:

1. Islam is a religion of peace

2. Islam is just like any other religion

3. Muslims are just like other people, they should be seen as such

4. A demographic change has no implication for peace in society

5. Most Indian Muslims feel no loyalty for Pakistan

6. Most Indian Muslims feel loyalty to India

I can list several more.

It is immaterial here how true these assumptions are. Of course, I believe much in these assumptions is false. But that point is not central here. The central point is – deep down the secularists also believe these assumptions are mostly false. It is just that they won't admit it to themselves. In fact, they go to great lengths to continue to lie to themselves. They never examine the whole matter with any rigor. Because they are afraid of what might come out if they did.

Like Markos fooled himself that he liked the movie, they too fool themselves.

And then, when someone brings home to them about the self – deception, they go ballistic!

What is the way out of it then? And when I discuss this final part, I will even admit the possibility that my analysis might be faulty. But first let me proceed on the assumption that it isn't.

If indeed they admit the possibility that they might be engaging in self – deception, they owe it to everyone, including themselves, that they thoroughly study the subject. Islam is the number one political issue in the world. It literally takes thousands of lives every year. In extreme cases, such as when ISIS ruled parts of the world (supported, I might add, by a “mainstream” nation) women were raped and sold like cattle! If mankind is faced with something so horrifying, then every thinking person must have full knowledge of the roots of the problem. No one has to believe people like me, though I do think we spent a lot of time and energy studying it. But they must do it for their own sake if nothing else. It is not an innocuous matter like a boring art movie that can be left alone.

Assuming I am wrong (very unlikely IMO). Then they must answer why they react with such fury when the subject comes up. After all, no one ever sees this kind of fury when similar statements are made about Hindus for instance. In fact, they themselves engage in fairly offensive commentary about other religions, particularly Hinduism, and at most get a rebuttal from some RW guy. No one ever demands to silence them. Moreover, I would like to see at least one common assumption held by “anti – Muslim bigots” (which is how they describe anyone who puts question marks on Muslim behavior) proven false by them clinically and rigorously. Not responded with outrage, rhetoric and non – sequitur.