Why India must become the Hindu Israel!


Happy Boxing Day; just had a lovely walk around Chetpet EcoPark. I was shocked to find out that allegedly it cost 25 Crores (allegedly).

There is a trend in the West that the Parties of the Left can only unite their diverse coalitions of minorities (gays, blacks & feminists) with straight middle class male WASPs (Justin Trudeau, Jeremy Corbyn, Beto O’Rouke).

The same applies to Congress. Congress is an extraordinarily corrupt and dynastic party that constantly relies on the crevices of Indian democracy to survive (Muslim vote banks). Since the coalition is so diverse they need a Gandhi to provide that national unifying figure.

It was an act of immense stupidity on the part of Nehru not to make India Hindu when Pakistan declared itself Muslim. It would have radically changed the dynamics of the subcontinent by ensuring the treatment of Hindu minorities across the border.

I’ve written a long post (still in the drafts) as to why I think India should be a Hindu state in the same manner as Israel is a Jewish state.

When I made that comparison to V she was struck by it; ordinarily most people think of Pakistan and the Muslim state and are understandably repulsed by that.

The usual slur against the RSS is that they want a “Hindu Pakistan” but what about a “Hindu Israel?” A clean, civic, well-ordered, technically advanced, territorially cogent society with managed minorities and holding firm against adversaries.

Pakistan has entirely and absolutely failed its mandate showing that liberalism, (Sunni) Islam and democracy are not compatible. However what I have noticed with Indians is that their channel an atavistic (and understandable) apprehension/dislike of Islam into a irrational hatred of Pakistan.

As I explained to V; India must not only show magnanimity and tolerance to Pakistan but for every “misstep” Pakistan makes (as it will invariably do) is to strengthen its own Hinduness. As in the analogy of boiling the frog; there may come a time when every Muslim children in India will have a Hindu first name and be as familiar with Sanskrit & the Ramayan (if not more) as they are with the Quran.

Israel has shown liberalism, Judaism and democracy are extremely compatible. The challenge to India is that she must now demonstrate if liberalism, Hinduism and democracy are compatible or not.

The Nehruvian shackles of secularism and socialism must be cast off; for instance we all have internalised how grateful we must be to the Brits for abolishing sati.

Whatever the ethics in Judea & Samaria there is no doubt that Israel’s miraculous leap is a thing of wonder. India must have the right to assert her ancient Hindu identity and stop pandering to vote banks.

I have noticed that the historic Indian Christian minorities will happily carry Hindu first names it is only one minority that will never do that.

If Indian Muslims are unhappy with India as a Hindu state; then they are free to migrate to a state specifically created for them.

India as a Hindu state does not mean that it won’t be democratic or liberal. But we can have a healthy conversation about the Hindu majority dropping below 80%, the question of mosques on temples and the absurdity of celebrating every religious holiday nationally in a Hindu state.

There is much regional diversity in India; some regions do eat beef and Hindufication should not be a mask for centralisation.

PM Modi will never have a fair shot at changing India because of the overhang of Nehruvian Socialism & Secularism. Anupam Kher may be exaggerating but he is right in hinting that the Hindu majority are constantly forced to be concessionary and magnanimous.

I also feel that Israel’s extraordinarily civic spirit lies in the fact that it’s allowed to be a Jewish space. I do believe that a binational solution will be the eventual one in that region and it might be the same eventually in the Sub-continent.

For the sake of future unity we may simply have to accept that just as the wings of India are Muslim (Bangladesh dropped secularism entirely in 1988), India itself must remain securely and confidently Hindu with a +80% majority.

45 thoughts on “Why India must become the Hindu Israel!”

  1. “Israel has shown liberalism, Judaism, and democracy are compatible”.

    Non-Jews aren’t allowed to vote in the West Bank. 50% of Israelis, when polled, were in favor of expelling their Arab citizens. The fastest growing population in Israel (Orthodox-Jews) are on principle anti-democracy (responsible for attacks on homosexuals). Israel is crushing the Palestinians under occupation, and is a state built on European settler colonialism. It takes a special kind of historical illiteracy and political naivety to say Israel is any kind of model for India.

    “India has the right to assert her ancient Hindu identity”.

    There’s nothing wrong with this in theory, but in practice, it becomes an excuse for the Hindu-right to oppress minorities and will result in India sliding into repressive fascism. You seem to confirm this suspicion, making alludes to the destruction of mosques, restrictions on non-Hindu displays of worship, and ending with the , “if the Muslims don’t like it, they can leave” attitude. Also amusing to hear the classic “Hindus make concessions to minorities”, though as most on the right-wing, you are incapable of ever articulating what these concessions are.

    Quickly: Why would becoming a Hindu-Nationalist state make Pakistan/Bangladesh treat their Hindu minorities better, as you claim? It didn’t help Muslims in India visa-vis Pakistan becoming more Islamic. Also, if you thought Khalistan separatism was bad before, you’re in for a rude awakening.

    There’s also the fact that the best way to take the legs out from under Pakistan, and possibly move to a unified subcontinent, is to show them their state exists for no purpose. If India is an open, colorful, developed country where Muslims are prosperous, Pakistan collapses ideologically. Nehru understood this. Modi and his RSS goons are a God-send for Pakistani-Islamists. Giving them the evil Hindu-enemy Pakistan needs to sustain itself. Every Muslim lynching by Cow-patrols in India is paraded in Pakistan, saying, “see, this is why we separated”. The Hindu-right knows this, they just don’t care, as an increasingly hostile/Islamic Pakistan allows them to petition India to be even more chauvinistically Hindu in response.

    Its possible both Islamists and Hinduvata imagine a legendary clash between Islam and Hinduism one day for the fate of South-Asia. Only that’s living in the past. There will be no war, with nukes in the picture, meaning this hostile nationalism has nowhere to go but inward, directed against each countries minorities. Which you seem fine with.

    1. You are most certainly a Pakistani and going on the offence against India & Israel.

      Show me an instance of Hazrat Asia in either country. I love the way Paks invigilate other countries for violations but do not want to acknowledge and attack in our own country.

      I may be a Tory but I’m certainly not right-wing; just practical..

      1. The myriad of Muslims and Dalits attacked (and sometimes killed) on the mere suspicion of offending Hindu sensibilities (eating beef) are well documented, and quite analogous to Pakistan’s blasphemy issue. There have also been Hindu-secularists who have been attacked and killed by right-wing Hindus (Kalburgi, Pansare, Dabholkar).

        Israel’s case is a bit different, as the hundreds of Palestinians they killed this year were in the context of maintaining their illegal occupation (a crime much worse than anything Pakistan or India does).

        I have never once defended any crimes committed by Pakistan or its citizens. I have in fact, used the specter of Pakistan’s failed status as an Islamic-state, as a warning for India. I realize this doesn’t matter to you, because for those who hold far-right views on India, its simply reflexive to accuse their opponents of being two-faced Pakistanis when they’re losing an argument.

        1. I’m British Pakistani; it’s all well and good to issue shallow condemnations.

          Pakistani liberals are hypocrites they refuse to address the central shibboleth of Pakistani society; the obnoxious and pervasive influence of Islam throughout the society.

          Even our philanderer/womaniser Imran Khan has to appeal to some mythical Medina. No sane person would want to live in Mecca/Medina.

          Pakistanis need to eviscerate their own biases and conditioning before leaping on to other countries.

          What has been done to Hazrat Asia is shameful and in no way comparable what India/Israel have done. The fact that you make such a specious argument reflects the different between mob lynching (which is wrong) and state-sponsored attack.

          Israel maintains its hold over Judea & Samaria because it was attacked and won these territories. Let’s not forget that..

          1. Leaving aside your personal issues with Pakistanis, which are neither here nor there:

            Regarding India, its illegal to eat beef in many northern states (because it offends Hindu religious sensibilities). Many instances where Hindus attempted to lynch Muslims on such suspicion, were met with responses from the government of, “mob justice is wrong”, but the survivors of such attacks often were booked for illegally transporting cows (possibly for slaughter). This is THE SAME as what goes on in Pakistan. The condemnation of mob-justice, but still upholding that blasphemers should be punished in some fashion.

            Israel exists because European Jews mass colonized Palestine in the early 20th century, and during the inevitable violent resistance from the natives, ethnically cleansed 750,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs and founded the state of Israel. That is magnitudes worse than a blasphemy charge.

            And no, the 1967 war where Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza was not self-defense. Literally no country, court, or NGO recognizes this Israeli claim. Israel launched a surprise attack on Egypt and Syria, flattened their armies before anyone knew what was going on, and then annexed the territory. That’s not self-defense.

          2. I see Israel as a prosperous Jewish state; yes there are some moral issues but even so binationalism is a good solution. Why are Muslims the only people allowed to be nationalistic?

            As for the beef killings; I don’t advocate lynching obviously but again I can’t see the equivalence between beef and blasphemy. But send me links to read up on specific cases

            The Asia Bibi case is Sui generis; it damns Pakistan and all associates with it.

          3. “Judea and Samaria”– Why are you using right-wing Zionist names for what the international community calls the West Bank?

            Israel’s claim over the West Bank and East Jerusalem is not legal under any applicable International Laws. You cannot settle your own people on Occupied Territory.

          4. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/06/india-hate-crimes-against-muslims-and-rising-islamophobia-must-be-condemned/


            “Two Muslim meat traders were attacked by a cow vigilante squad in Malegaon, Maharashtra on suspicion of possessing beef. Video footage of the incident appeared to show the men being slapped and abused, and told to say “Jai Sri Ram” (“Hail Lord Ram”). Nine men have been arrested. However, the two meat traders also face criminal charges for “outraging religious feelings”.

            “55-year-old farmer Pehlu Khan, a dairy farmer, and four other Muslim men were assaulted by a mob near a highway in Alwar, Rajasthan. Khan died two days later. The mob falsely accused the men of being cow smugglers. Following the killing, the Home Minister of Rajasthan, in a statement that appeared to justify the killing, said that Khan belonged to a family of cow smugglers”

            Beef consumption/slaughter is illegal in parts of India because it offends religious sensibilities of Hindus. Insulting Islam is illegal in Pakistan because it offends the religious sensibilities of Muslims. I’m not sure how you don’t see the two as analogous.

          5. Yes that’s wrong; I’m sure if India is a Hindu state these things would actually go away..

            The difference is that liberal Indians will condemn Hinduism and cow worship for this; liberal Pakistanis wouldn’t dare condemn Islam..

            The equivalence breaks down; the Pakistani Barkha Dutt would be eliminated unfortunately.

          6. “some moral issues”– that’s one way of underplaying an Occupation. You do realize that even within Israel proper, 20% of the population is not Jewish?

            Beef killings are India’s equivalent of blasphemy in the sense that eating beef is a Hindu religious taboo which is being enforced on non-Hindus just as blasphemy is an Islamic religious taboo which is being enforced on non-Muslims (though in practice there are more blasphemy cases against Muslims than against non-Muslims).

          7. Why does Islam have to be condemned? It’s enough to condemn man-made regressive laws.

            Condemning Islam shouldn’t be the test of liberalism.

          8. “Liberal Hindus condemn cow-worship and Hinduism for this, Liberal Pakistanis don’t condemn Islam and blasphemy-laws”.

            There have been a myriad of articles printed in Pakistani press by liberals, both before and during the Asia Bibbi case, decrying the blasphemy laws in Pakistan (the newspaper “Nation” poll found 64% are opposed). Many also said the conservative interpretations of Islam these laws are derived from, are wrong.

            Yes liberal and secular Pakistanis face backlash (and sometimes even death) for their views, but a similar situations is found in India (I gave you names of three liberal Hindus killed for their views, I could provide more).

            I’m also amused you think making the entirety of India the same as the backward RSS shithole in Northern-India, would somehow lessen these Hinduvata attacks.

          9. “Conservative interpretation” is sophistry; Pak liberals cannot attack Islam itself. It’s a place we don’t dare go.

            Hinduism has been shamed, condemned, abused and humiliated (so has Christianity, Judaism and every other major religion) it is only Islam that is spared the same.

            Islam is Sui generis (my word of the thread) in that it has NOT been tamed like other faiths.

            Enlightenment broke the back of Christianity, the Haskalah (sic) for Judaism and the 19th century reformation movements for Hinduism.

            Hindus regularly condemn the caste system, which is arguably a central tenet of the religion, no Muslim will question the literalness of the Quran.

            I can’t accept India and Israel as being less free than any other Muslim country because there is that ability to question and humiliate the national religion which doesn’t exist anywhere.

            Hazrat Asia is a watershed moment in Muslim history; she demonstrates what Islam will do to liberalism when given half a chance..

          10. You are applying two different standards here, frequently moving the goal-posts whenever you are pinned down.

            India is excused because it has liberals who condemn incidents of beef-lynching and the oppressive aspects of Hinduism (caste-system). Pakistan has liberals who do the same (condemn blasphemy killings and repressive aspects of Sharia).

            But you ask Pakistani liberals to go further and attack Islam itself. Hardly any Hindus do this in India (attacking the very idea of Hinduism as a faith and civilizational concept). This is a relatively new occurrence even in parts of the West (that religion is on balance evil, and must be extricated from society by the roots).

            Also, I agree that Pakistan (and many Muslim countries) aren’t free because of the taboo against criticizing Islam. However, India has that same taboo (forcing non-Hindus to adhere to Hindu religious restrictions (beef) for the sake of Hindu-sentiments). Israel’s very existence is contingent on holding the non-Jewish population in the West-Bank in perpetual occupation without basic human rights. Both India and Israel have laws restricting free-speech that offends nationalistic sensibilities.

            So you can keep screaming about Muslims being illiberal, and you’ll be right. But until you recognize the equally (and in some cases greater) illiberal tendencies found among Hindus, Jews, and many other communities, you’re pronouncements will carry little weight, as they aren’t based on an actual concern or analysis of the issue, but out of a desire to quench your ideological thirst (bashing Muslims).

          11. Yes I do agree Islam needs to be thoroughly bashed; I can’t intellectually reason it out but my instincts tell me that if Islam isn’t tamed now, it will be hugely problematic.

            This is simply sophistry re India and Israel; they aren’t perfect but it’s simply not equivalent. Judea & Samaria is not Apartheid, it’s an ongoing negotiation.

            There are thousands and thousands of Hindu atheists in India; my wife being one of them. In fact the boundaries between Hinduism and Atheism are fairly blurry..

          12. What is happening in Occupied Palestine is apartheid. It has been described as such by President Jimmy Carter and archbishop Desmond Tutu, two people who surely know what they are talking about.

      2. “Show me an instance of Hazrat Asia in either country.”
        There is far more state-sanctioned violence against minorities in Israel than Pakistan, especially if we adjust for the difference in size between the two countries. For all Pakistan’s problems, there is nothing comparable to the Gazan ghetto or the colonization of the West Bank.
        I suggest reading Goliath by Max Blumenthal. It’s definitely written for a left-leaning audience, and it definitely does not try to present both sides of the story… but in the Anglo world outside of the Left (and especially on the Right), the Israeli side of the story tends to take precedence, and I think the book serves well as a balancing voice presenting the critical Left perspective on Israel (without any anti-Semitism – Max is Jewish himself).

        1. I’m not absolving Israel but I think for what it’s achieved it’s remarkable even miraculous.

          Even if American aid helped it along; it has created an oasis in the dessert. If India did what Israel or even China did well 1.3bn people would be immeasurably better off..

        2. Gaza is not part of Israel, Gaza is in PA , so Gazans are not Israel’s minorities. West Bank is in a legal and jurisdictional limbo , so Israel has been able to put Jewish settlements there ; so the root cause is the continuation of ‘Palestine problem’.

          1. Gaza is technically considered Occupied Territory since Israel controls the borders, airspace, etc. The West Bank (and East Jerusalem) is considered Occupied Territory by the entire international community. It is against the Geneva Conventions to settle your own people on territory that you are Occupying.

  2. Israel is Occupying the Palestinian people and violating international law. It is not the model for any decent country. You think Kashmir is bad now just wait till India becomes a Hindu state.

    “If Indian Muslims don’t like it, they can leave”– Why should they leave? They are Indian citizens, not proto-Pakistanis, and India belongs to them just as much as it does to their Hindu neighbors.

    Why should Muslim children in India have Hindu first names? They can if their parents wish but why is this necessary? People should have the right to practice their own culture as they see fit.

    1. India should be blackmailed over the Kashmir question; it’s an internal matter for India to handle.

      Again Pakistan was created to serve as a Muslim home land; Quaid-e-Azam specifically said that. Indian Muslims who are unhappy can exercise that option; Pakistani Hindus are certainly doing that

      1. Actually, Kashmir is not an “internal matter” for India. It is a Disputed Territory in which Pakistan is very much a stakeholder. If India becomes a Hindu State than the Muslim-majority region of Kashmir must be allowed to opt out of being part of India.

        Pakistan and India signed a treaty in the 1950s which is the basis for the two country’s citizenship laws. Indian Muslims are Indian citizens, and not Pakistanis. You cannot say to someone “If you’re unhappy in your home, you can always leave”.

        Instead of trying to make Pakistan better for its minorities, you seem to want to make India more majoritarian, which is just bizarre.

        1. Pakistan won’t become better for minorities because no Pakistan wants to talk about Islam honestly. Simple as – India instead should adapt accordingly.

          Kashmiri Muslims are welcome to migrate..

          1. Imran Khan spoke recently about giving minorities more stakes in “Naya Pakistan”. It is the job of Pakistanis to make the country a better place for non-Muslim minorities.

            So Kashmiri Muslims can migrate but their land stays with India? That is the right-wing’s preferred solution but you know it is a non-starter for Kashmiris. Since India is a secular state, the logic is that there is no reason that it cannot have a Muslim-majority state within it. But if it becomes a Hindu Rashtra, there is no basis for holding on to such a heavily Muslim region.

            You seem to be doubling down on the TNT while many other Pakistanis would like to come out of that kind of thinking entirely.

          2. I prefer a United SAARC economic region built on trade, money and labour.

            However the psychic shattering of South Asianess (thank you English Coloniser) can only be repaired when Hindu culture is allowed to assert itself as Islam has done.

            It’s a tragedy that Modi will be out of power in the next election cycle thanks to the Muslim-minority vote bank. He’s probably the least corrupt leader India has had since independence..

          3. So just because one country is hell for minorities, the other one should become the same? Great solution.

          4. India is more than 80% Hindu. I’m not quite sure what the problem is.

            In any case, countries should belong to all of their citizens. India can call itself “Hindu” or whatever else it wants, but not at the expense of its minorities.

          5. I don’t know why Pakistan is your moral standard for how countries need to behave. The “Islamic Republic” needs to treat its minority citizens better. Instead, you want India to treat its minority citizens worse.

            Countries should be states of all their citizens, not belong to specific religious groups.

  3. Yes I agree I’m evolving the lexicon. Even if they aren’t WASPs they have become sufficiently WASPified.

    Re Corbyn his Momentum supporters are astonishingly diverse and the fact that his gender, orientation & ethnicity is so Mainstream (and unremarked upon) is astonishing.

    Note at the next PMQs Corbyn will always make sure BAME female MPS are next to him.

    Labour’s demographics (traditional white working class + liberal cosmopolitans) doesn’t entirely overlaps with Momentum’s woke young millennial and diverse coalition..

    If anything Tories want more diverse candidates; I would prefer to see Ruth Davidson succeed Theresa May when the time comes..

  4. “act of immense stupidity on the part of Nehru ??????”

    Given Nehru’s political convictions , you could not have expected anything other than what he did.

    OTOH, Parivar has been crying hoarse about Hindu Rashtra for many decades and when they have been put in power with a solid majority, they have done nothing, zilch, nada, shunya, null , zero even one step towards Hindu Rashtra ; leave alone HR, they have not even brought forward Uniform Civil Code ; leave alone UNC they have done nothing to r remove Special status for J&K.

  5. Hindu Rashtra does not look feasible given the democratic, electoral setup India has chosen. Among Hindus , Hindu Rashtra is not a major talking point.

  6. It is amazing how Pakistani “liberals” want India to implement *their* version of liberalism – more like competitive soft-fascism – while excusing their own country based on some form of we’re-like-this-only-sirjee argument. And want to be able to travel to India to see the Taj and attend mushairas…. The paDosi-ki-bhaiNs-ka-chaudhary syndrome.

    (Anyway, I am a cynical arsehole when it comes to Indo-Pak peace and shit. So don’t mind me and carry on…)

    PS: Israel is successful because it is a Western state that focusses on problem-solving – its shared Jewishness and the Holocaust experience acting as a social contract lubricant. Its morality is suspect somewhat in that some of the problems it prioritizes may not be the right order it needs to follow in tackling them. But its method is first-rate nonetheless.

    India (Hindu or not) needs to develop that *Western* culture of prioritizing and solving problems. To some it may even appear merciless sometimes, but a system designed to protect truth and order usually is – as anyone who has had his scientific paper peer-reviewed will testify! My suspicion is that if/when India becomes sufficiently Westernized, its need for projecting “Hindu” identity will be that much less pressing. That’s a really long way off if at all possible, though I am hopeful. Umid pey duniya qayam hai.

  7. Wasnt South Africa a democracy under apartheid.
    South Africa had a great economy (for some) under apartheid.

    Ditto of above for Israel.
    So maybe there are positives to apartheid.

    So I guess Zack you are a advocating a “democratic” Hindu apartheid.
    So in Hindu India who will be the equivalent to Israeli Arabs/Blacks (Muslims or the Dalits)
    The equivalent to Ethiopian Jews/Coloreds.

    All justified in the Holy Text, the Children of Ham, Gods Chosen and the Twice born.

    Zack you are onto something.

    1. sbarrkum, I know you are tongue in cheek.

      This said, South Africa was not a democracy pre 1991. Blacks and coloreds had limited electoral power. Only caucasians and to a lesser degree Indians had electoral power.

      Today over 80% of South Africans are non colored blacks. Indians are about 2%. Yet there are approximately 1 1/2 times as many Indian millionaires as black millionaires. Why do you think this is? Is this because Indians are practicing racism, “hate” and apartheid.

Comments are closed.

Brown Pundits