What do Hindu nationalists think of the Taliban? Do they envy them?

I saw theses on some Instagram political meme pages (don’t ask, Herald and Newsline aren’t around and this is how satire gets passed around once the world and the economy make magazines un-viable) and I was left with some questions.

My query was:

Are Hindu nationalists jealous of the Taliban’s success?

How do they really feel about the Taliban taking over Afghanistan?

135 thoughts on “What do Hindu nationalists think of the Taliban? Do they envy them?”

  1. More than Taliban takeover of Afg, the US handover of Afg to Taliban is more shocking in it’s abjectness and needlessness. Calls into question latter’s reliability, credibility and intelligence

  2. Wouldn;t Turkey or Saudi Arabia/Iran be a more worthy candidate to be envied by Hindu Nats, rather than Taliban?

  3. Extreme Hinduism is about as aggressive as moderate Islam. So they aren’t envious. Malaysia type model is actually what they envy.

    Radical islam on a while different level

      1. That’s not really helpful. Muslims are never going to condemn sharia because sharia is an intrinsic part of Islam. It is also not some law code that is printed and bound in volumes. Sharia is the IDEA of God’s law. Like other broad legal concepts like ‘American law’ or ‘international law,’ the Shariah is a unified whole that contains within it tremendous diversity. Just as American law manifests itself as drastically different traffic laws or zoning codes in different states or locales, so too has the Shariah’s application varied greatly across the centuries while still remaining a coherent legal tradition.

        Asking Muslims if they support the Sharia is like asking Americans if they support the constitutions. Any American, no matter their personal political beliefs, will wholeheartedly support the Constitution. Does this mean all Americans have the same opinion of the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms? No. Does it mean Americans all have the same opinion on the continuance of slavery in American Prison’s? No. The Constitution is a symbol of American law, values, and ethics just as the Sharia is a symbol of Islam’s laws, values, and ethics.

        For a more comprehensive discussion of Sharia as understood by Islam’s scriptures and the tradition of Muslim scholars, in all its diversity, please refer here: https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/stoning-and-hand-cutting-understanding-the-hudud-and-the-shariah-in-islam

        1. My impression is that Sharia is resistant to reform due to concepts like Bidah and heterodox early Muslim sects were driven to extinction.

          To the extent the Muslims can reform Sharia to make it more compatible with modern humanist values and religious freedom I support it.

          In the real world I don’t see much evidence of this a so rich Muslim Gulf Arab country like Saudi that is based on Sharia law is very regressive compared to a rich Muslim Gulf Arab country like UAE whose legal system is based on civil law.

          Personally I think Islam has very salvageable and decent core values. But their insistence on following all the dumb legalistic details kinda messes up the community.

          On the Hindu end I am quite confident that reform will follow industrialization and urbanization. No Hindu thinkers advocate for Dharmasastras or Manusmriti to be implemented as law.

          Hindutva is the modernist consolidation phase in Hinduism, I view it as a necessary step. But in time I expect it will give way to the post-Modernist spiritualist Hindu phase time with urbanization and economic development.

          There is no ideological memeplex preventing reform in Hinduism as there is within Islam.

          And historically many barbaric practices for eg. large scale animal scarifice which were core to the Vedic tradition have been reformed and are no longer practiced by mainline Hindus (coconuts are often used in the place of animals).

          1. I do not think your impression is correct because you are confusing two very different concepts. Bidah is innovation in theology. Jurisprudence on the other hand is much different is concerned with applying the teachings of revelation in changing times and circumstances, in new languages, over new food, in new climates, and among new faces. How the revelation is best implemented has historically differed in the places Muslims ruled or had presence in. This diversity is intrinsic to the Islamic legal tradition (like it is to all tradition) and has always been there since the time of the Early Muslim Community. I do not think comparing the Mansrumiti to sharia is fair because one is legal text and the other is legal tradition. It would be more fair to compare Mansrumiti to Ahkam Ahl Dhimma (which is a legal text).

            I am not sure about which heterodox sects (there historically were many). Some fell off due to defeat in intellectual debate.

            The problem is that Muslims in the past could freely criticize each other because they were in a position of clear political and military power over their neighboring non-Muslim states. Fast forward to the mid 18th and 19th century and Muslims globally were in a clear position of cultural, scientific, economic, political, and military weakness. Almost all Muslims lived under the direct control of non-Muslim powers. Therefore, any type of Jurisprudence was sucked into a toxic vortex of Authentic Islam v Westernization /Modernization. To some extent this is true and to another extent its problematic because a Muslim scholar concluding women can lead prayer (for example) basing his interpretation solely on revelation, would be ostracized by the Muslim community only because it seems to be westernizing and a form of cultural imperialism (although said Muslim scholar may simply be offering his best opinion). So it is no surprise that countries today where the hudud are actively enforced either define themselves by their resistance to the Western imperial order (Iran), by claims to embody Islamic authenticity (Saudi Arabia), or lie on sharp cultural, religious and political fault lines between Western cultural and military imposition on the one hand and strong traditions of indigenous identity on the other (Nigeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan).

            The problem with your idea is that you cannot have some Hindu spiritual awakening whilst using Western science and models of industrialization. Modern science is not philosophically neutral nor value neutral investigation into the modern world. It relies on its own set of assumptions about the nature of reality and causality developed during a particular phase of European history. The unification of causation under the parameters of modern science leaves no room for God, angels, spirit, soul, and indeed any sacred reality (Hindu or Abrahamic) at all. The various forces and invisible entities of science have meaning only as mathematical forms that provide intelligibility and co- herence sufficient to make experimentation and induction possible. I believe that quantum and astrophysics seems to reveal about the world of nature moves it farther away from the idea of a machine (as in modern science) and closer to the ghost from which the European scientific revolution initially fled. Closer to the a view of nature that traditional societies (such as in ancient India) had envisioned. But I do not think Hindutva has the knowledge to do anything more than accept breadcrumbs from Western advancements of technology and science. And even if India does then it will lose its heritage.

            In his preface to Heisenberg’s Physics and Philosophy, F. S. C. Northop made the following observation on the spread of modern science to non-Western societies:

            “…modern ways are going to alter and in part destroy traditional customs and values. It is frequently assumed by native leaders of non-Western societies, and also often by their Western advisers, that the problem of introducing modern scientific instruments and ways into Asia, the Middle East and Africa is merely that of giving the native people their political independence and then providing them with the funds and the practical instruments … one cannot bring in the instruments of modern physics without sooner or later introducing its philosophical mentality, and this mentality, as it captures the scientifically trained youth, upsets the old familial and tribal moral loyalties.”

      2. How incovenient it must be to follow a religion so purposefully incompatible with others. As least the civil law- common law traditions of westerndom, however foreign they must have initially appeared, were converyed by peoples with enviable accomplishments. Its inevitable that the world hardens towards the sort of muslims that take sharia seriously, not out of contempt but of boredom.

        1. //As least the civil law- common law traditions of westerndom, however foreign they must have initially appeared, were converyed by peoples with enviable accomplishments.//

          ”Macaulay khush hua”, says a voice coming from his grave.

          1. presumably, you think you’re commenting to an indian. regardless, a south asian muslim who’s culture is dollar store ersatz persiana calling out a hindu for being deracinated is quite amusing

  4. @theselongwars

    There are some glaring inconsistencies in the modality of your question. First of all, there is no Global Right in the manner that there is a Global Left – in the manner in which it organizes itself and indulges in on-behalfism. You will find leftists fighting for Free Palestine anywhere in the world but not for gun rights or RJB. Manu Joseph, the excellent Indian commentator penned an article about this. Nationalists and RW’ers tend to be hyperlocal (because that is how normally issues are framed – with local context).

    https://www.livemint.com/opinion/columns/opinion-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-the-global-right-wing-11570185857918.html

    Secondly – the win of the Taliban is cause for cheer among leftists. After all, Islam is Communism with Marx replaced by Mo. It shares the same dynamic with Groups and Othering.

    And most of all – your question overlooks the sociological aspect – the Taliban has no worldly success – it has power but no pelf. I mean, success has a certain image – that states that you have arrived. The street definition of RW is someone who is successful in his/her domain, has acclaimed authority and personifies it in style. LW has the image of the herd – some rural Kanhaiya who spouts motherhood statements in pidgin English.

    The Taliban are goat herders who drive in Toyota Hiluxes with ankle-length pyjamas. These are the green scum in a dysfunctional pond that has no aquatic life. Literally no Indian nationalist wants to be like them. These cartoons are probably the product of some LW student who thinks Indian RW is the “Hindu Taliban”. You have been grossly mis-directed.

  5. [to the original post] I don’t think so whatsoever. Conflating hindu-nationalism with piety, traditionalism, orthodoxy ect are misreadings in my opinion. Your typical urban upper middle class hindu family who’s daughter goes out for drinks and maybe has a boyfriend that they’ve met is centre-right wing. Journalists and “creatives” (inherently outliers) from similar families have amplified voices and give the impression that centre-left and proper-leftism is representative. Only difference in the past two election cycles is that more belligerent and less urban OBCs have joined, but the entire edifice and credibility of hindutva is based on the more genteel families that nurtured and lent it respectibility for multiple generations. These are the newspaper reading disaffected salaried classes with more money than power that bemoaned corruption and muslim appeasement. One of the precise things that disgusts them about hardcore islam is the cloistering of women.

  6. Hindu Nationalism is a response to make pacifist Hindus more moderate in their approach to the wild fire that is radical islam and its apologists, aka leftists and other appeasers.

  7. Envious of Taliban? It is no way an equal to India or Hindu nationalists for them to feel anything about them. They just see them as a bunch of terrorists. So, they won’t feel envious or anything. But envious of Pakistan is a possibility – given that Pakistan got its people to control Kabul now. Of course, India never had too much skin in the game to begin with to do anything there. So, I don’t see any big issue for India there. India can actually sit out of this, if it wants to and don’t care what goes on. But uninformed Hinduists who might have felt Modi’s 56 inch blessing was unleashing some Doval’s James Bond action movie to unfold in Kabul against Pakistan would be thoroughly disappointed by what has happened. However, I also think most Hinduists will be aware that thist can and will bite back at pakistan and are waiting to enjoy the proceedings – but still, they can be envious fo Pakistan for winning this round of the battle. At least the current optics is that the world super power has been sent back by Pakistani backed Taliban.

    1. “But uninformed Hinduists who might have felt Modi’s 56 inch blessing was unleashing some Doval’s James Bond action movie to unfold in Kabul against Pakistan would be thoroughly disappointed by what has happened.”

      What do u mean? Dont our spies look like Salman Khan, and he wont be killing the supreme leader of Taliban in Hamid Karzai Airport , with the help of a ISI agent who resembles Katrina?

      Man, there goes my script for Ek tha Tiger 3

    2. Of course, India never had too much skin in the game to begin with to do anything there.

      This is wrong. We’ve always had skin in this particular game and still do. What we didn’t (and still don’t) have was the capability to influence things to proceed the way we wanted. The only country that could feasibly put boots on the ground was the US because it has bases in the gulf region and supply lines from Pakistan. No other country could feasibly do that (the NATO allies had minimal troop presence and were basically under US command). Indian soldiers there would be the target of fierce attacks from both the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistan military; and without air cover and all of the tech that the Americans possess.

      Why do we have skin in the game? I commented on this a few days ago: this takes us back to the terrible 90s when we were perpetually under attack from these two countries: not officially, but by forces under their protection. If something similar resumes now, we’ll have to go to war with Pakistan (public pressure will be immense), and then concerns about nuclear exchanges emerge (yes, I believe this situation is quite likely.)

      We may be able to sit this out, but only for a short while. Things can stabilize only in one of two ways: either Pakistan is able to get the Taliban under control and make it toe its line, in which case the ISI will definitely have the confidence to resume its jihad eastward, or the Pakistani state collapses, with the crazies (like TTP) gaining power in Islamabad, who will also resume the jihad in our borders but now they’ll have control of nuclear weapons.

      Does this sound like a fun scenario to you?

        1. saurav ba:

          I would not be too concerned with numi bhai’s strategic analysis. After all he thought 26/11 was not that big a deal. He alto thought Covid was not that big a deal (at least in the first wave).

  8. Pak Indus memes continue on twitter lmfao. Funny at baseline but they ignore Gujarat, Haryana, and Western UP in Indus Valley. Just a funny crowd. Ancient Pakistan just lol.

    Birdari supremacism runs quite deep. They also ignore dalits form a solid third of Punjab and that they lack the steppe component which differentiates other modern day locals from Indus peoples. The whole argument is intellectually dishonest. Very confused crowd.

    I think India envies Pak elite have a unified interest in revisionist history, whereas Indian elite is divided between normal people and uber divisive radical leftists.

  9. Hindu Nationalism is just a political rhetoric. Middle Class/Urban Indians are westernized liberals and the poor Hindus are at the bottom of maslow’s hierarchy, only concerned with basic needs. Manusmriti&Sharia aren’t comparable because Hindus do not give a shit about Manusmriti, Ambedkar burnt it publicly and no one cared.

    Hindutva can be summed up as “Muslim Bad”, it isn’t about spreading the philosophy&values of Hinduism or making it a State Religion.

    1. No one I know has knowingly every complied with or read Manusmriti. Not one person.

      I think (somewhat tactfully not in your face insulting) Hindu, or Buddhist can get away with burning any Hindu/Buddhist book even in Hindi-heartland without any consequence. If someone really puts on a show then maybe FIR and public safety jail time but no Charlie Hebdo. Some leftie activist Muslim or Christian can pull it off too with maybe a week in police custody.

      ###

      “Every year, in North India, Ram Leela is celebrated by burning effigies of Raavan,” said Tinker Kumaron, the Chennai district secretary of Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam. “This is being done to insult South Indians. We consider Raavan to be a Dravidian.”

      https://scroll.in/article/818922/why-a-dravidian-fringe-group-burnt-effigies-of-ram-and-sita-in-chennai-this-year

      btw, there was this South Indian CRPF camp in Awadh that I have mentioned in the past. All the local people called the 6-ft tall, moustached, dark skinned Andhra police jawaans as ‘Raavan Sena’.

      1. Raavan was a Brahmin lol Periyarists are braindead but i give them an A for effort! Also, its not that different from BJP MPs saying dumb shit like this:-

        “If we were racist, why would we have all the entire south…Tamil, Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra…why do we live with them? We have black people around us”

        https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bjp-s-tarun-vijay-stokes-racism-row-we-have-south-india-we-live-with-black-people/story-rmaP8qguUK7zr1mWem2e4O.html

        The Funniest Part? He said that when he was defending India on International Media, because African foreign exchange students were beaten up in Noida. He pulled the “I… have a black friend!” card by categorizing South Indians as “Black” LMAO The Cowbelt Boomer poured kerosene into Fire thinking it was Ice cold Water, its hilarious.

          1. Tarun Vijay is a good person who values Dravidian contribution to Indian culture. The fact that people want to jump onto an ignorant statement he made tells more about his smug critics than him.

          2. I on the other hand am thankfull that this incident happened. The less Dravidian-philic the N-Indians are, the better…

  10. A more insightful question would be – Do H-Nationalists envy MA Jinnah and the prime movers of Pakistan movement ?
    And my answer to that question would be – Yes but only to a certain degree.

    Others have naturally pointed out – H Nationalists (that matter in power politics) – are more driven by Anti Islamist sentiments (and anti muslim) than Hindu Revival. Malaysia/Sri Lanka/ Erdogan Turkey might be an accurate enviable nation for H Nationalists though – unlike Pakistan /Bangladesh.
    Attack on Brahminism in the memes is a strawman, Brahmanism matters less and less in Hindutva project in power/politics (Twitter might lead ppl to people Trads have substantial sway – No they dont)

    This comment by warlock is bang on the money
    “Hindu Nationalism is a response to make pacifist Hindus more moderate in their approach to the wild fire that is radical islam and its apologists, aka leftists and other appeasers.”

    Also check my post – https://www.brownpundits.com/2021/08/11/hindutva-asabiya-and-apostacy/

  11. The words Hindu Pakistan or Hindu Taliban, the irony to brand Hindus as extremists they are forced to borrow terms from Islamists because Hinduism has no synonymous terms. Hinduism has never created a Pakistan or a Taliban or a Caliphate.

    Hindu nationalists want an all inclusive society, unlike Islamic tribes.

  12. IMO the US withdrawal does not ONLY mean the Afghan campaign failed. It means the entire “War on Terror” has failed.

    The Americans had to withdraw sooner or later, but where they failed miserably was the way they hastily retreated. The Jihadist mind revels in fantasies of monumental battles. Numerically disadvantaged momins routing massive armies through divine help, enemies beating a hasty retreat leaving behind their riches. For even a moderately Islamist mind, this was all the stuff of wet-dreams. The glorious victory in Ghazwa-e-Afghanistan will inspire Jihadists for generations to come.

    Taliban was and still is a jihadist project. Lest we forget, before the Americans came in, their Saudi/Emirati friends had repeatedly tried and failed to convince them to expel international Jihadists. For all the supposed influence Pakistan had on them, they still provided safe haven to Sipah Sahaba terrorists who massacred many a Shia in Pakistan. International Jihadists were not there cuz they were protected under some Pashtun caveman code of hospitality. They were there because they were momins who pursued the same divine goals.

    They have murdered tens of thousands of innocent Afghan civilians and people are talking of Taliban 2.0? This shows the west still doesn’t understand militant Islam even after decades of war. Now jihadists will come flooding in and the world will burn. They will gorge on Pakistan and they will gorge on India.

  13. There are a couple of differences between Wahabis and Hindutva
    1) Wahabism makes certain demands on Muslims and their behavior. Hindutva does not and its only purpose is to harass minorities.

    2) Wahabism is majoritarian. Hindutva is basically Neo-Brahminism, ie elitism/Brahmin supremacy masquerading as majoritianism. Hindu apologists will claim that most Hindus have never read the Manusmiriti and hence it is unimportant. This is a ridiculous point because most westerners haven’t read Plato and Aristotle, but that doesn’t mean the latter didn’t influence western civilization.

    While Hindutva isn’t as rigid on caste boundaries as their brahmin forefathers, they have preserved the spirit of the caste system (ie Hinduism) intact – ie Brahmin supremacy. The RSS leadership is almost entirely Brahmin while lower caste ‘sevaks’ do the dirty work. The obsession with religious conversions and inter-faith marriages are typically upper caste concerns that barely affect lower caste Hindus. No other democracy harasses its citizens in the name of religion as India does. This is good old fashioned Brahmin paranoia.

    Hindu nationalists want an all inclusive society, unlike Islamic tribes.

    True. Like horses united under a common whip.

    1. Radical Muslims make demands that all Muslims behave in a genocidal manner. Yup pretty much it. Hindutuva makes no such demands. There is no ISIS or Taliban Hindu equivalent.

      Modi and Shah, the two major leaders of modern Hindutuva, are shudra and vaishya respectively. It is not some Brahmin cabal. Hindutuva has risen because of subaltern support.

      It is a strawman by the left that it is some Brahmin only operation with non Brahmin dregs. If anything, the leftists, besides their often token dalits, are just as upper caste origin with their Ashraf and Brahmin Italian leaders.

    2. ” The obsession with religious conversions and inter-faith marriages are typically upper caste concerns that barely affect lower caste Hindus.”
      Check out what Neo-Buddhists, Dalits and OBCs feel about interfaith marriages (with Muslims). You are making typical myopic points about H-Nationalism and Brahmanism – Which are made because the opponents of Hindutva cant digest the fact that its not what they hope it would be.
      Believe me if what you say is true – We would not be where we are today.

    3. Xavier, are you an evangelical?
      If yes, are you a convert?

      Curious to understand how you came to this position on ‘Brahminism’.

    4. I’m assuming you are not an Indian citizen hence my reply will be directed accordingly.
      YOU don’t get to define what hindutva Brahmanism manusmriti blah blah is. So much crap is been spread on this blogspot and islamic whitewashing in the name of “hindutva” interfaith marriage etc that need to be addressed.
      1) Define Brahminism undereducated! :- Rig Vedic religion divides Indian society into two groups- Rajas and ganas. Later Vedic religion divides society into 4 Varnas. A typical ricebag argument that Hindu society suffers from caste is the reason for conversion and manusmriti is the basis of such origin makes no sense talk point to point. This kind of stupidity makes people wonder why social sciences are crap. Iron age religions across the world are discriminating and the so egalitarian religions like Christianity and Islam as of today are more discriminatory than Hindu religion asshole. Read the Christian Personal Law of India specially divorce and inheritance then talk! Hindu personal laws have been reformed to a significant extent while the inheritance law has been completely reformed in 2020 by the verdict of SC. And let me make another striking example undereducated fuck, Non Hindu( parsi, Christian, muslim) can also lay a claim on ancestral property on a hindu spouse thanks to our “honorable SC” while it’s not vice versa.
      2) Hindutva hindutva hindutva…… can’t define the term but keeps repeating it’s an ideology defined by brahmin masters. Undereducated fuck- Warkari movement is the origin of Hindutva started in Maharashtra in 14-16th century by lower caste Hindus. Warkari movement gave Sivaji the fodder for his struggle against Mughals which in late 19th century again gave fodder to National movement. Have some basic knowledge before commenting crap about any movement. Hindutva hindutva hindutva sloganeering is showing your intellect is what you r showcasing. Just having higher purchasing power than other people doesn’t make you smarter.
      3)All this nonsense comparing wahabi and Hindutva. Undereducated fuck-90% Indian Muslims are Hanafis. It’s a fucking Turkic social structure not Arab structure. The kind of laws in India under the name of Personal laws are not even found in Salafi Interpretation.
      4) you don’t get to say shit about secularism dumbfuck- Our “Honorable” SC stops a Hindu festival but allows eid during 2nd Covid wave shows why Hindu society generally is as such. State control of Hindu temples, sale of Indian heritage assets are other kinds of issues which pains the society. We don’t care what happens to other faiths at all. Don’t force homogenisation on us. You give me solution, don’t write the OPEDs of newspapers on this blog. Do you have any? No I don’t think you do and you never will because you r not interested in solutions.
      @Razib :- Sorry for the foul language used. Inconvenience is regretted. Won’t apologize

      1. //Indian Muslims are Hanafis. It’s a fucking Turkic social structure not Arab structure. The kind of laws in India under the name of Personal laws are not even found in Salafi Interpretation.//

        Not sure what the point over here is .. but just FYI, the Taliban (object of this post) are also Hanafis, LeT are also Hanafis, Deobandis, Barelvis .. hell even the Qaidiyanis are Hanafis. How is all that relevant?

        Hanafism is not a ”turkic” social structure, lol it is the oldest school of Sunni Islamic law, and the second oldest in Islam (the first being the Shia Jafari school). Turks simply adopted it because it was the dominant school of fiqh in areas they conquered.

        Also, thank the gods Turks were Hanafis (who accepted pagan Zimmis), because if they were Ibn Tamiyya loving Salafis, Hindu civilization would have met the same fate as that of the Sassanids..

        1. What were the Arabs who converted the Sindhis ? Hanafi or Salafi?

          Also how can we explain what happened in Western Punjab, NWFP and Afghanistan?

          Another question: Why did Muslim Punjabis never pull off empire building?

          1. //What were the Arabs who converted the Sindhis ? Hanafi or Salafi?//

            They early Muslims (who conquered Sindh) did not have any codified fiqh, they followed whatever Islamic sources were available in tradition, and this type of fluidity made them very pragmatic and less dogmatic. Codified Islamic jurisprudence developed way later than that (including Salafism). Salafism is entirely based on Ibn Tamiyyah a 13-14th century jurist who lived in their tumultous era Mongol invasions in the Near East, which influenced his world view. He made arguments against all the well established schools of Islamic law as their failure to protect Islam, and put forth the case to only follow the primary sources and the lifestyles of primary Muslims. This Salafism started to become much popular during 19th century after Muslim empires were crumbling everywhere.

            Most Sindhis were converted by Sufis, like pretty much most non-Arab Muslims. Sufi masters were usually patronized by central Muslim rulers even if these Sufi masters did not like the policy of the ruler regarding their non-Muslim subjects, they still had their protection and sometimes funding.

            Ibn Tamiyyah loving Salafis on the other hand are less about conversion, they are more about establishing dominance. They would rather massacre the pagan zimmis than collect tax from them.

        2. The only reason Islamic Empires survived so long in India is BECAUSE they made Dhimmi Concessions lol

          1. Perhaps in the South due to the geography, but not in the North. The Indian plains are easy to hold and consolidate rule over, only thing a king has to watch out for is rogue brothers, cousins, nephews or son in laws.

        3. First i would like to tell ya muslims, u have far too many ‘schools’ for others to comprehend…

          Can u folks narrow it down a bit

          1. haha, spoken like a Salafi!

            The differences are quite minor and imperceptible in daily life.. and only play out politically or at a higher level. It doesn’t affect the normies that much. Shia vs Sunni difference is the only difference you see on the ground But even here, I would say the theology/laws etc are quite similar when compared to sectarian division in other religions. The conflict between the two is more historical or tribal.

        4. Iran was a Zoroastrian majority country till 9th century when the Samanids took over. Only in 9th century, the large scale conversions began. When the Turks took over Iran, it became fully islamic country. Hanafi school is accepted by the Turks simply because it was the only school that allowed Turks to have power over the Arabs and the fight since 9th century has always been the Salafis vs Hanafis. Arabs are clear on their stand- you people are beggars and servants of the Arabs in the Salafi world view, Hanafi allows for assimilation of different non arab tribes into Muslim polity along with the Arabs. Hanafi school in a sense was an effort what in constitutional parlance is called ” Separation of Power” where the non Arabs formally undertake the khutba in the name of Arab caliph and rule on the territory on his behalf. Once the khutba and robe ceremony ends, the role of Sufis- read hanafis, began who became the “guide” of the non arab rulers. Every Turkic ruler of India had official recognition of the ” Sufi Pir” to sanction his rule except Alauddin who declared himself even superior to caliph. If you see this arrangement from the point of Separation of Power- it’s separation of leadership and spiritual aspects of a caliph but Hanafis very cunningly incorporated Ali into the picture. Later Naqsbandi school of “Sufism” entered with Babur in India where the Pirs started tracing their ancestry to Abu Bakr. Curiously, Ignorance was so high in the Arab and Persian world in the 17th century due to wars between Ottomans and Safavids that the theologians accepted incorporation of Naqsbandis in the Hanafi polity. This was the time when the caliphate moved from Arabia to Turkey and it helped the Naqsbandis to develop a theology to justify the incorporation of non Ali Sufis into Hanafi variant in India. As Turks started claiming to be the Caliphs, Arabs revolted even traditional Hanafis revolted which resulted into the development of Wahabi ideology in 17-18th century in Hambali school. Ironically no one in Indian subcontinent questioned the Caliphate being moved to Turkey from Baghdad as there is a so called hadith that a caliph can only be Qureish and so called Hanafis in 20th century India demanded restoration of caliphate in Turkey.

    5. \Wahabism makes certain demands on Muslims and their behavior\
      Wahhabism aka Radical islam also makes demands on non Muslims to approximate to Dhimmi status even when they are living in Muslim minority countries enjoying it’s full protection and social services like unemployment and housing benefit. Dhimmitude is a foregone conclusion for non Muslims in Muslim majority countries.
      Hindutva has no outside India ambitions

    6. “Hindutva is basically Neo-Brahminism”
      Hindutva is a conduit for North Indian Nationalism. Modi-Shah are OBCs. It is reductive to view any expression of Hindu Majoritarianism in the subcontinent as “Brahmin Supremacy”, that’s the retarded conspiracy theory Left has been peddling since forever, i think you’re just bitter because Hindutva isn’t Pro-Jihad like Nehru-Gandhi’s Neo-Secular Nationalism. I’m not a fan of Hindutva but get the basic facts right, Hindutva isn’t some brahmin conspiracy.

      “This is a ridiculous point because most westerners haven’t read Plato and Aristotle, but that doesn’t mean the latter didn’t influence western civilization”
      False Analogy, you can’t compare Philosophy with a Law Book.

  14. Radical Muslims make demands that all Muslims behave in a genocidal manner.
    They still run more or less functioning societies, with the exceptions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. I don’t see people starving and shitting on the streets in Indonesia, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, Iran, the Gulf states, heck, even Bangladesh. These countries aren’t great, but they work. They can at least keep their streets clean.

    Modi and Shah, the two major leaders of modern Hindutuva, are shudra and vaishya respectively.

    Serving a Brahminist ideology formulated by Marathi Brahmins.

    1. “Serving a Brahminist ideology formulated by Marathi Brahmins.”

      and so what?

      the ideology may have been laid down by marathi brahmins, but there is nothing like brahmin-glorification or brahmin-privileging in the ideology. in fact hindutva self-consciously plays down the caste system.

      i do sense bit of a heartburn here.

      1. the ideology may have been laid down by marathi brahmins, but there is nothing like brahmin-glorification or brahmin-privileging in the ideology.

        Indeed. That’s why the charge to reclaim sanskriti is led by Brahmins. That’s why nearly every RSS chief has been a Brahmin. The resistance to affirmative action in India is keeping with the spirit of Hinduism in denying lower castes and dalits the opportunity to rise. The rhetoric about ‘merit’ is nonsense. Modi’s farm law is also keeping with the spirit of Hinduism by extracting wealth from the shudras and giving it to the Banias and Brahmins, as was historically the case. The push for vegetarianism has little to do with ethics and more to do with enforcing the social segregation against Christians, Muslims, and Dalits. Ambedkar was right when he noted that segregation is the heart and soul of Hinduism. You cannot be a Brahmin all by yourself, there’s got to be others beneath you in order for it to mean anything.

        It’s true that this new caste system doesn’t resemble the old one in body, but it certainly keeps with its spirit; and it is ugly.

        in fact hindutva self-consciously plays down the caste system.

        You are right, they sweep it under the rug like the hypocrites that they are. This is by far the most intelligent thing you’ve said so far.

    2. “I don’t see people starving and shitting on the streets…”

      may be because you can’t starve and shit at the same time. 😉

  15. “ No other democracy harasses its citizens in the name of religion as India does“

    I mean they have a better way of dealing with them. Extermination.

    1. I’m not sure what you’re smoking, but which democracies are currently undertaking an extermination campaign right now? The only one I can think of is India’s bosom buddy Israel, but even there it’s expulsion, not extermination.

      1. Well u are right, those democracies dont need to expel/exterminate anyone anymore, since it has already happened.

        Whats the need to exterminate 1 percent of ur pops. They are as good as not being there, anyway.

        1. He is not here to discuss. He is here to put forth a certain PoV which we often see in our OPED columns. Forget getting a sane reply from the person

        2. Whats the need to exterminate 1 percent of ur pops. They are as good as not being there, anyway.
          So it’s cool if the Hindu majority harasses it’s minorities because it beats genocide. I guess we should look the other way when cowardly Hindu thugs beat up a street hawker here or kick a few beggars there. Hey, it beats what North Americans did a few hundred years ago.

          @ Enigma
          False Analogy, you can’t compare Philosophy with a Law Book.
          You seem to be a moron so I’ll try and explain things in a simpler way. Most westerners have never heard of William Blackstone yet most westerners believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Most Chinese have never read the Analects of Confucius nor the Dao de jing, but one can’t deny that Confucianism has shaped Chinese values while Lao Tzu influenced Chinese art. Most Japanese haven’t read Go Rin No Sho, but that doesn’t change the fact that Bushido has profoundly impacted Japanese culture.

          You see where I’m going with this? Ideas flow from the elites at the top and trickle down. It’s irrelevant if the majority have never studied the source of their beliefs and laws personally. That hardly negates their influence. Just because the vast majority of Hindus have never heard of the Manusmiriti doesn’t mean that those ideas weren’t profoundly influential. And besides, the Hindus have always been the most illiterate people throughout history because knowledge was exclusively the domain of the Brahmin. They relied on the Brahmin parasites for knowledge and something tells me that those lessons precluded liberty, equality, and fraternity.

          1. “Hey, it beats what North Americans did a few hundred years ago.”

            It does not beat just the N-Americans, but it also beats roughly what majority of the countries around the world do to their citizens.

          2. you speak as if Manusmriti is the only ideology coming out of india and influencing its people. Buddha, mahavira and a host of bhakti saints in the 2nd millennium have espoused egalitarianism. But that does not gel with your biases so you can continue…

  16. may be it is just me, but i do notice that the initial euphoria of a taliban victory is fast ebbing among their afghan supporters, and the reality facing them is sobering them up.

    i believe it is only now afghans are truly realizing what they have lost. it is with a tinge of regret they are mourning the collapse of their previous regime. sure the previous regime was somewhat corrupt and inept, as most 3rd world regimes are, but it was still a modern regime. at least they had the basic liberties of life, like getting a shave, or watching cinema and TV, or driving to the nearest ice cream parlor. 20 years of modern life had lulled them into complacency. they had started to take that world for granted. an entire generation had come up who had no memory of living in a medieval state.

    in fact the afghan economy seem to have done quite well for the past 20 years. streets of kabul and kandahar appear swanky and lively. there are a fairly large numbers of high rises. (there are plenty of youtube videos). what remains to be seen is how long will it take before the curtains come down on this act, and afghan cities turn back into drab, oppressive and fear filled places.

    1. Afghanistan as on 1 September 2021 is same as it was on 1 September 2001. Economically, politically, socially there is no change. The media is creating an unrealistic narrative. 1% of Afghan population hardly became modern and literate while the 99% are still the semi sedentary lifestyle of mediaeval period. Don’t fall for media narrative!

  17. It does not beat just the N-Americans, but it also beats roughly what majority of the countries around the world do to their citizens.

    Absolutely. Atleast yall aren’t building concentration camps. I think Indian minorities need to graciously accept a little abuse here and there. After all, Hindus need to vent.

  18. Xavier et al. – Isn’t there some form of supremacy everywhere? We create new myths to replace old ones….
    -Nearly all religions are patriarchal- so, gender supremacy?
    -Islam and Christianity profess religious supremacy of their god over polytheist and pantheist religions: hindutva is simply a defensive response to religious supremacy?
    – North Indians had regional supremacy until South Indians started doing better, but it lingers….
    We are now creating new supremacy concepts through new myths based on college degrees vs less literates vs illiterates, and also through inter generation transfer of wealth.
    It never ends…. so why single out any one supremacy and persecution?

    1. so why single out any one supremacy and persecution?
      Because he has an Abrahamic axe to grind. Compared to Sharia&Hadith, ManuSmriti is a liberal document lol

  19. you speak as if Manusmriti is the only ideology coming out of india and influencing its people. Buddha, mahavira and a host of bhakti saints in the 2nd millennium have espoused egalitarianism.

    Buddhism was great, an improvement of vast proportions over the junk religion of Hinduism. Chinese Confucianism, with it’s universally binding ethic of benevolence (ren/仁) is ethically superior to Hinduism as well. I have no problem whatsoever with non Abrahamic belief systems, in fact, I have a deep abiding respect for many of them, especially Daoism (Lao Tzu was a special kind of genius although I disagree with his rejection of the discursive intellect)

    Sadly, Hinduism made a comeback. Buddhist polemics against Hinduism were delightfully scathing and make for excellent reading, like this – https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/_files/of63/Freiberger_Negative_Campaigning.pdf

    The bhakti movement was an utter joke and its egalitarian aims were subverted by Brahmins who retold the stories through a cast based perspective. See this – Bhakti: An Ambivalent Rhetoric / Jayjayanti Banerjee (https://www.academia.edu/9104926/Bhakti_An_Ambivalent_Rhetoric)

    It never ends…. so why single out any one supremacy and persecution?

    Because Hinduism grades the worth of a human being based on birth which is morally repugnant.

    1. The Bhakti and Yoga movements are fundamentally egalitarian.

      It is true they didn’t succeed in ending Caste but neither did Islam or Christianity or Sikhi. As within the Indic sphere all these groups still have caste. Outside the Indic sphere they don’t have caste.

      In non-Indian Hindu converts in Iskon for eg. there is no caste.

      Also Hindutva / Hindu Nationalism a is caste egalitarian movement. But it is exclusionary against non-Hindus.

      But even there they tend to be very accommodating relative to the Abrahamic religions.

      1. It is true they didn’t succeed in ending Caste but neither did Islam or Christianity or Sikhi.

        Caste seems to be minor issue among Sinhalese even in “Rural*” Sri Lanka. Less Buddhism, more so less extended families and the ability have income independently.

        However, if you read the marriage ads, it would appear common. However, in SL marriage ads are considered for the desperate and very small.
        The two hill country Buddhist sect leader are still from the majority Govigama farmer caste. Dont know if they now ordain other castes as priests.

        Anyways below ref from the cousin marriage image from principia. I doubt there are studies on marriage and caste. Caste is sensitive, and other than old fogeys of my age or older not discussed or known. “Love” marriage would imply caste was not a factor.

        Of the total 5255 marriages, 5066 (96.4%) had data on whether they were ‘love’ or ‘arranged’ marriages. The majority (71.7%) were ‘love’ marriages, and 28.3% ‘arranged’.

        The marriage type showed regional variation, with less-urbanized Batticaloa (92.5%) and Trincomalee (83.5%) having the higher rates of ‘arranged’ marriages, and the more urbanized Galle (90.2%) having the highest rate of ‘love’ marriages (Table 2).

        When analysed by ethnicity, the Sinhalese had the highest percentage of ‘love’ marriages (79.2%), whereas Moors had the highest percentage of ‘arranged’ marriages (84.1%) (Table 3).

        Inter-ethnic marriages were mainly ‘love’ marriages [139/152 (92.1%)]. Buddhists (79.0%) and Christians (72.1%) had the highest percentages of love marriages, whilst followers of Islam (84.9%) had the highest percentage of arranged marriages.

        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31648661/

    2. “ Because Hinduism grades the worth of a human being based on birth which is morally repugnant.”

      So this is your moral fount:

      Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect(A) and fear, and with sincerity of heart,(B) just as you would obey Christ.

      Ephesians 6:5

      Chattel slavery is a pathetic institution why doesn’t the all knowing all powerful God of the Abrahamic books explicitly ban it?

      Why did the morally bankrupt Hindus not practice this?

    3. The name “Xavier” was popularized throughout the Catholic World by Franciscus who was born in Javier, a town in Navarre, Spain.

      Among other things, Francis Xavier started the Goan Inquisition. He also took part in witch burning in Montmarte during his theological studies. He eventually reached the notice of Ignatius of Loyola who picked him for the evangelization of Asia.

      1. Somehow we are forced to believe this stupid narrative of “Xavier” that caste was only in Indian subcontinent while the mediaeval Europe was hail Mary of liberalism. He is bringing out the books authored in 20th century and 21st century by the Indians to prove “X” is because of caste in “Hinduism”. He doesn’t have the guts to reply when questioned on Christianity and asserts inequality is “not the central pillar” of the Christian theology and worldview.

  20. I think folks are missing the point, we have already enacted a new caste system with our new myths:
    Having a PhD vs college deg vs high school vs illiterate is the new Brahminism
    Inter generational transfer of wealth creates the new Vaisyas
    Major Amin and so many others in the inter generational sports, military and political class are the new Kshatriyas.
    And so on…. while there indeed is mobility, our desire for supremacy lives on especially amongst the rich urban liberals.

    The day Xavier rejects inter generation transfer of wealth and removes his college degree from his resume, he truly is one step from Buddha

  21. Manusmriti is one amongst tens (or 100) of Dharmashastras. There also seem to be multiple versions of it. Is there any evidence that it was historically universally influential in India or that people even knew about it prior to the 1800s?

    A lot of the criticism of Hinduism by way of Manusmriti seems to be revisionist and in bad faith. There is a political constituency for it, though. And it also serves a polemical purpose for people trying to recruit new converts.

  22. @ Sumit

    Ephesians 6:5

    Chattel slavery is a pathetic institution why doesn’t the all knowing all powerful God of the Abrahamic books explicitly ban it?

    Why did the morally bankrupt Hindus not practice this?

    3 Points –

    1) I am well aware of Saint Paul’s position on slavery, but slavery is not integral to Christianity (or even Islam for that matter). Slavery is nowhere to be found in the Apostle’s Creed nor in Islam’s 5 pillars. Caste, on the other hand, is the very heart of Hinduism. Caste determines your dharm which in turn determines your Karma which then determines whether you rise or fall in your next life (or attain liberation altogether). Without caste, there is no Hinduism and that is how it has been for the last 2000 years.

    2) As horrific as slavery was, it is still the lesser of 2 evils. A slave can be freed and integrated into mainstream society (at-least in theory). A dalit bhangi who cleans toilets cannot be liberated save by death. He, his children, and his descendants will forever clean toilets with no opportunity to rise, their aspirations forever crushed.

    Hinduism enslaves not only people, but even their descendants forever – with no release except through death. The bhangi’s only motivation is to obediently serve the upper castes hoping to accumulate enough karma so that he may himself join their ranks in a later life; and thus become the oppressor himself. I cannot think of a viler, crueler, and more deceitful religion than Hinduism. Heck, Hinduism isn’t even a religion, it’s a cosmic pyramid scheme.

    3) The Christian nations of the west ended the institution of slavery for all time. They did this by making the biblical argument about the equality of all under God. Untouchability, however, still thrives in India, and Hindutva (Neo-Brahminism) has extended it to Muslims and Christians as well. So go sit on a trishul and twirl.

    1. Answer to 3 points:
      1. Caste is also not integral part of Hinduism. It was not so in Rig Veda. Karma is not determined by caste but by action. You literally cannot earn karma by doing bad deeds, no matter your caste. In christianity, murderers, rapists, paedophiles can become Pope or have their sins erased. But the truth is that you have to live with your sins, and that is what Hinduism asserts.
      2. There are darshans that are casteless in Hinduism. No matter how you divide the society, somebody will be at the top and somebody at the bottom. Furthermore, caste is not present in Rig Veda. People freely rose in caste hierarchy until 5th century. Thereafter, the system become more rigid. And became ossified by the British, who provided more benefits to upper castes using the census data they collected.
      3. Hinduism has also ended the practice of caste. A dalit can now become a temple priest. However, the institution of slavery has changed to modern slavery, i.e., the severe exploitation of other people for personal or commercial gain. But for you all this immaterial. Even in older times, a sanyasi had no caste. And multiple times, the people following them started their own practice. Quite frequently, dalits were part of the sanyasi group and lost their untouchable status – if that is what you are concerned about. There are multiple panths like that all over India

      Just as you now disavow slavery by citing equality in scriptures, Hinduism treats the world as Vasudev Kutumkam, i.e., the world is a family, so how can there be caste?
      But carry on with your nonsense by playing with the definition of Hinduism. The followers and not you, decide what the religion is all about. After all, Christianity and Islam is a system for slavers and slaves isn’t it?

    2. 3) The Christian nations of the west ended the institution of slavery for all time. They did this by making the biblical argument about the equality of all under God. Untouchability, however, still thrives in India, and Hindutva (Neo-Brahminism) has extended it to Muslims and Christians as well

      Slavery was ended in the West only after it no longer served its economic purpose for the majority of the population. i.e. on the cusp of Industrialization.

      Once it ended it became the basis for racial segregation, Christianity played a role in this as well via “Curse of Ham”. Post emancipation proclamation America was like caste segregated India in terms of ritual purity (different drinking fountains, pools etc) up until the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

      Race based degradation and segregation continues in all the Western countries. The dependents of slaves fare much worse on every metric compared to the decedents of the Salve owners who have made out like bandits. And even now the racial stuff extends to people who aren’t even dependents of slaves.

      I don’t even want to get into the Church’s complicit behavior during the Holocaust in Germany.

      “What happened in North America was unfortunate and disastrous, but it was unprecedented. ”

      Unfortunate yes, exceptional not at all see South America, Australia, New Zealand.

      My point that Japan under the Meji restoration is that it took scientific and industrial from the west, but avoided the dark plague of Christianity by kicking out all the Catholic missionaries.

      And hence today it is one of the most successful countries in the world.

      Bernard Lewis rightly pointed out that far from destroying the heritage of others, the Europeans actually gifted non-whites with knowledge of their own histories.

      European contribution to science, knowledge stems from the enlightenment era values which include a rejection of Xtian stupidity.

      Here is what the christians did to native culture and history…
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_codices

      Even within Europe the Church stood in opposition to knowledge for a long time, poor Galileo famously imprisoned for heresey.

      I think you are just a one track Hindu hater arguing in bad faith. So I will stop engaging.

    1. What exactly should India have protected?

      India was not making any money from the dam, it was not even buying electricity from the dam, it was not collecting toll from the road, Afghans were not paying India for use of the parliament, no mining activity has ever happened. So what were these economic ‘interests’ or investments from which we were going to materially benefit that we will now be denied?

      What India has lost are Ghani and co. who were India-leaning. But they were not strong to begin with, what is the real difference in them being there or not being there if they were so weak?

  23. @ fulto

    Ah yes, the good old fashioned shape shifting apologetics of Hinduism. Hindus are quick to take credit for the cultural achievements of other civilizations (Vivekanand – “Hinduism is the mother of all religions!”) but conveniently start hair splitting to distance themselves from criticism of their religion (“but that’s not real Hinduism! You can’t define Hinduism!”). The definition of Hinduism, it would seem, is whatever is expedient to the apologist at any given point in time. This allows Hindus to take undue credit while evading accountability for the grotesqueries rooted in their faith.

    To address your points –

    1) Caste is an integral part of Hinduism and it sanctioned by the Gita, which was written long after the Rig Veda. Krishna compels Arjun to fight because he is a Kshatriya (among other equally amoral reasons). The Rig Veda doesn’t talk of caste because these were the hymns of Aryan nomads who weren’t completely settled. Karma is determined by dharma, ie duty, which is rooted in caste. Because different castes have different duties, Hinduism never succeeded in forming a universal ethic like moral universalism in the west or Ren (benevolence) in Confucianism.

    So either you are correct, and the Hindus who lived and practiced this ugly caste ridden religion over 1000 years were wrong, or chances are you don’t know what you are talking about. I’m betting on the latter.

    2) People freely rose in caste hierarchy until 5th century. Thereafter, the system become more rigid.

    This is true. I’ve addressed this here – https://www.brownpundits.com/2021/08/11/hindutva-asabiya-and-apostacy/#comment-90678

    But it doesn’t help your case because it demonstrates how amoral and opportunistic the Brahmins were and they were ultimately the architects of Hinduism and their religion reflects their amoral ethos.

    3) Hinduism has also ended the practice of caste.

    Tell it to the family of Rohit Vemula. Maybe Ambedkar didn’t get the memo either.

    Hinduism treats the world as Vasudev Kutumkam, i.e., the world is a family,

    A family where people can’t even sit at the same table and break bread together. If you want to understand cultural assimilation and the formation of a unified identity across a diverse society, study Confucianism. The Chinese got it right. But then, they had well intentioned philosophers like Confucius and Mencious whereas you Hindus ended up with parasites like Shankarcharya, and Chankya. How did that work out for you?

    1. Tell it to the family of Rohit Vemula.
      Tell it to the family of George Floyd.

      Christians killed the modern slave George Floyd. How much will you oppress the slaves that you won’t even let them breathe? Modern slavery practiced by your kind is even worse than slavery. There is no escape except death. How many souls of children will you gorge to be satisfied? When will you see the light and fight the army of Lucifer and his minions aka evil Pope and his rapist, murderous, paedophile, and bloodthirsty army of priests? Thank God, Europeans have woken up to the evil of Christianity. May you too one day save your soul from eternal damnation.
      However, all this does not mean that caste discrimination did not happen. But even the worst discrimination of Dalits can never compare to what Christians and Islamists have wrought on this world.

      Tell it to the family of Rohit Vemula.
      Tell it to the family of George Floyd.

      1. The role of Arjun was to battle. According to you, asking him to do his duty was evil incarnate. Just as asking a doctor, an engineer to be proficient in their work is wrong, Krishna committed the greatest sin to ask Arjun to do his duty. You know, in that battle lower caste people also fought. No matter their caste, on the battlefield, they were warriors aka Kshatriyas. They all performed admirably too in the way they could, no matter they were right or wrong. Of all, only Arjun faltered and failed as a warrior at the start. Even a Dalit knew that he was Kshatriya on the battlefield. The same Krishna washed the plates of guests, i.e., worked as an untouchable during the crowning ceremony of Yudhishtra. The same Krishna who acted as a Guru, a Kshatriya, a Vaishya, depending on the occasion. And you say he supported the caste system? Are you kidding me?
      2. Brahmins lived on alms. Let this fact not inconvenience you. But yes, Kshatriyas and Brahmins reduced social mobility a lot. Elites reducing social mobility have happened all over the world, so there is nothing special. FYI, Vedas are the supreme authoritative texts. Only an ignorant fool can argue that Bhagwad Gita is supreme when it too declares Vedas to be supreme. Just to burst your rubbish argument, all Indians are also descendants of Steppe nomads. It was our ancestors who wrote the Vedas. By your moronic logic, Jesus Christ was a Jew in Jerusalem. Bible was written in the Middle East. Quran was written by a pedophile and sex slaver Mohammad. Then, both of these religions should be followed by middle easterners only, isn’t it?
      3.Tell it to the family of Rohit Vemula.
      Tell it to the family of George Floyd.

      You know various Brahmins and upper caste people burnt themselves alive to protest discrimination against themselves due to reservations. Their deaths don’t matter to you, isn’t it? The truth is both upper caste and lower caste are suffering in India. The culprit is the economy and that is casteless.

      Maybe Ambedkar didn’t get the memo either.
      Yes, he didn’t get the memo. He died approx. 65 years ago. Again, caste discrimination ended a long time ago. You can go on believing what you want though.

      Hindus ended up with parasites like Shankaracharya,
      The most venerated of all Shankaracharya, Adi Shankaracharya’s guru was a Dalit. Isn’t it shocking for a follower of Lucifer like you?

      and Chanakya.
      Are you a moron? What has Chanakya got to do with caste discrimination? Next, you will say that Ramanujan was evil too for being a math genius.

      How did that work out for you?
      It worked great for Indians. Oppenheimer, the creator of Quantum mechanics, was inspired by Indian philosophy and innumerable scientists admired the creative, philosophical works of Indians. You even use our numeral system to this day. Even the most bitter Christian fundamentalists praised the depth and beauty of Indian philosophy.

      Tell it to the family of Rohit Vemula.
      Tell it to the family of George Floyd.

      You know recently I met an American. He told me how the church’s preachings like equality were lies; and the church was a den of evil. He narrated the incidents of local sexual abuses done by pastors. To heal his soul, I then guided him to ISKCON and Ramakrishna mission’s philosophy. I am happy that he found comfort, and I could save his soul from eternal damnation by following Christianity and church. As your scriptures say, you must resist evil. You can only do so by leaving Christianity, you know.

    2. Well, would you look at that! We’re already on to Slavery is “NoT ThAt BaD”. Countless pagan men,women&children were butchered by Crusaders/Jihadis but there’s no eulogies for them, all we get is “Abrahamics are not That Bad” from you. Most Feudalistic Societies had rigid social structures with little to no social mobility for the Peasant Class, why are you singling out Hindus for having that system?

      How did that work out for you?
      China is a Communist Regime and India is a Democracy. Looks like, Dharma > Confucianism. There’s a difference between Hinduism(the generic umbrella for all the indigenous Traditions&Cultures of India) and Brahmin Supremacy. Holy Texts&Brahmins have very little to do with customs&beliefs of the Non-Brahmins. You’re imagining Hinduism as a single, universalistic, totalizing principle/system of thought of Brahmins because you lack the mental faculties to make sense of Hinduism ANY other way.

      Hinduism is Indian Subcontinent’s Indigenous ethos. This 8000+ yr old Civilization’s values are imbued into this “problematic” religion’s culture and that’s why i defend it, you can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Casteism can only be stopped by educating rural Hindus and slowing bringing them into the 21st century not by attacking 1 billion Hindus and their culture like a rabid Abrahamic Zealot, you Retard!

  24. @ fulto

    Regarding Floyd, the country tore itself apart trying to atone for that misdeed. I don’t see too many Brahmins losing any sleep over the mistreatment of minorities in India.

    Quick point about the Gita – It was written in Sanskrit which made it inaccessible to everybody but brahmins. I doubt the brahmins were discussing equality and egalitarianism amongst themselves. Given how caste was practiced and based on birth over the past 1.5k years, and given how the brahmins never attempted to challenge this status quo indicates to me that the Gita does wholeheartedly support caste based on birth. Your tedious apologetics and hair-splitting cannot argue against the historical record. Nice try though.

    Brahmins lived on alms. Let this fact not inconvenience you.

    It doesn’t because it’s not a fact. The brahmins received generous land grants and assets from the Kshatriya kings. The sham religion of Hinduism ensures that the Brahmins’ needs receive top priority, hence it is the king’s “dharm” to provide for this class of parasites.

    source: From ‘Brahmanism’ to ‘Hinduism’: Negotiating the Myth of the Great Tradition
    Vijay Nath, Social Scientist
    Vol. 29, No. 3/4 (Mar. – Apr., 2001), pp. 19-50 (32 pages)

    Maybe you should try reading academic sources instead of Hindutva trash.

    By your moronic logic, Jesus Christ was a Jew in Jerusalem.

    He was. Nobody denies this.

    Quran was written by a pedophile and sex slaver Mohammad

    It probably was, and I suspect the Quran had more than one author.
    But so what? Religions change. The Abrahamic faiths became global just as Hinduism became caste ridden.

    Adi Shankaracharya’s guru was a Dalit.

    Sure. Next you’ll be telling me that because Hindus also worship goddesses, women are treated well in India. Indians are amazing at making shallow gestures that ultimately amount to nothing except bragging rights.

    What has Chanakya got to do with caste discrimination?

    Nothing as far as I know. But his Machiavellian philosophy was far from well intentioned, unlike the Chinese philosophers whose focus was on the well being of the people and society (和)

    Even the most bitter Christian fundamentalists praised the depth and beauty of Indian philosophy.

    Awesome. When yall are done ‘inspiring’ others maybe you can get busy toilet training half your population. You’d think the ‘mother of religions’ would atleast instruct people to not shit where they eat.

  25. @ Enigmatard

    My dear Hindu friend, I think your CBSE education has stunted your ability to read. I never said “slavery was not that bad”, I said it was horrific. My point was that it was the lesser of 2 evils when compared to caste. I thank God Almighty that it is gone and I cannot in good conscience justify its existence under any circumstances. Is that clear? Or do you want me to type it out in Hindi for you?

    India is a Democracy.

    India is a partly free electoral autocracy.

    Looks like, Dharma > Confucianism.

    Dharma can’t even manage traffic and keep shit off the streets.

    1. If India was an autocracy, the Govt would’ve bulldoze all protesters but they didn’t. China can run a tank over its unarmed protesters cus its an actual oppressive regime.

      “My point was that it was the lesser of 2 evils”
      There’s NOTHING worse than Slavery. ​Peasants had very little upwards mobility in feudal societies. I fail to see how being a poor Shudra potter in Medieval India is WORSE than being a Sex Slave of some Middle Eastern Abrahamic goat fucker!

      Or do you want me to type it out in Hindi for you?
      No, but i want you to address the other half of my argument, Coward! Why in Abraham’s Festering STD ridden Foreskin do you keep equating Brahmin Supremacy with Hinduism? You hate ALL indigenous Hindu cultures&traditions of Non-Brahmins in India. You cannot justify this venom, so you mask it by going on long tirades about Brahmins, hoping no one would catch on to you.

      The poor low caste Hindus are happy worshiping their Gods, their have their own traditions&customs, Why is their culture “Evil”? You can’t answer that because you have no answer, you’re just an Abrahamic lapdog driven by the hatred of the Polytheists.

  26. @xavier

    Not sure if you are serious or trolling at this point. But you are conflating India’s current socioeconomic predicament with Hinduism.

    1. This a standard colonial Christian trope. Not just with India’s / Hindu but with every place with Native Religion. Then they would go on to impose their own Racial “caste” (the real caste system is racial) system, slavery etc. They would burn all the Native codecs / destroy the culture /and genocide the local population in the name of civilization.

    2. Japan managed to shed its regressive caste system and develop only after kicking out Portugese Christian missionaries. Every place that welcomed them went through great upheaval and lost their native culture without much to show for it.

    3. Luckily in 1947 Indus was split into a non-Hindu and majority Hindu parts and we can see how Pakistan is faring today in terms of gender, sectarian violence etc.

    I don’t see why if the white colonial people had succeeded in converting all Hindus to Christian India would not be a shit hole, and more culturally regressive to boot.

    Can you name a pre-industrial agrarian economy that is more democratic than India? There may be some but I can’t think of many.

      1. I am personally quite uninformed and disinterested in the afghan conflict.

        But I wanted to give you props for being one of the few commentators here or elsewhere to correctly predict how things were going to play out.

        It would truly be poetic justice if Indo-Aryan speaking Pakistanis extend their influence into Turko-Persian Central Asia and functionally turn those countries into Pakistan’s vassal states.

        Pakistan has the geography, the religious compatibility, the army etc. It’s surprising this hasn’t happened yet.

        1. Aurangzeb had always wanted to conquer back Khorasan. It’s only fitting that the Mughal successor state fulfils his dream.

        2. I have done nothing except report and predict based on verified videos coming out of twitter.. Mainstream media is complete trash, and this view was just reaffirmed once again in my opinion. They are usually late in reporting the news and even when they do, it’s heavily and completely biased, infact one is more likely to be misinformed and misguided following mainstream news channels.

          As for Pakistan projecting influence into Central Asia, this will happen more and more in the coming decades and this Central Asian policy has been actually a state goal of the military establishment. There was only a decade between the fall of Soviet Union and 9/11 to do anything then, but now that Afghanistan will be more or less stabilized under the TB, Pakistan’s influence will grow.

          I do think this is really bad news for India in Kashmir. Not because TB will be sending fighters there, but because of the ideological impact it has on the region, this TB victory is right up there with 1979 Iranian revolution. TB have done to US in Afghanistan what Pakistan wanted to do to India in Kashmir: ”a death by thousand cuts”. Took 2 decades but it happened. The fact that TB has been successful will only embolden the insurgency and separatists in Kashmir more. Liberal voices in Pakistan that are fine with status quo in Kashmir have now fallen silent.

          1. Twitter has plenty of different echo chambers. Looks like you were in the right one this time.

          2. Hardly think there will be any impact on Kashmiri insurgency. They will have few success here and there, which is what India has to live with. But its not the 90s anymore. Neither the international arena (where the West was ok with terrorism/insurgency to obtain foregin policy objectives) or is India unprepared (unfenced border with Pakistan etc).

            A good example at the ease with which the aftermath of article 370 has been handled. Even i was surprised with so low blowback.

    1. Politically yes, commercially no.

      There were zero opportunities even when Ghani was in power. Our iron ore mine was already screwed when Nawaz went out of power. We were making money via goods trade.

      Any Chinese money going into Afghanistan is a good thing. Chinese don’t give aid. If it is a fair competition, we will be welcome to outbid them, if it is a fixed-match excluding us, even then we will benefit from stabilization brought by the Chinese money in 10-15 years as Talibans become soft and fat. The basics are still the same, Taliban are welcome to bankrupt themselves by paying more to ignore us. India didn’t do good trade because we were unfairly favored, we did it because we were better at it than the competition.

      With poverty will come extremism, for that we have buffer Pakistan. Hopefully Afghans get rich, with money comes an argumentative tongue, then we will get to flood Afghanistan with our motorcycles, our cars, our medicine, our steel.

      1. It’s good that we are optimistic abt future of Afghanistan. Though I am myself pessimistic. Regardless it’s not our concern.

        As Collin Powell said “ you break it, u own it.”

        1. I don’t think Afghan economy would do better on any Chinese investment than it did on American aid. The country is going to crawl.

          I am saying that there is nothing India has lost materially, other than maybe people like Hamdullah Mohib and Amrullah Saleh who used to rightly call Pakistanis state sponsors of terrorism. But being in their good books costed a lot of money in road-building, parliament building, and dam building etc.

          Whatever profitable venture we could do earlier, we can do even now.

        2. LOL , we are talking abt Afghanistan business and trade as if its Dubai or something. Like folks missing out billions of dollars of trade.

  27. @ Sumit

    1) Funny, the British (James Prinsep) actually decoded the pillars of Ashoka, which the genius Brahmins ignored for 2000 years, and thus gifted India it’s history. This then allowed Vivekanand to lecture Americans on India’s greatness. The British also translated and popularized the Gita and the Upanishads among Hindus themselves. If you can access the Gita and the Upanishads today, you have the British to thank for it.

    Bernard Lewis rightly pointed out that far from destroying the heritage of others, the Europeans actually gifted non-whites with knowledge of their own histories. Egyptology and Indology were founded as fields of study by Europeans. What happened in North America was unfortunate and disastrous, but it was unprecedented. The link between Sanskrit and European languages, and thus a significant part of India’s history, would also have been lost without Max Mueller and others like him. You Hindus owe the west a great deal but your arrogance prevents you from acknowledging this debt. As for what the British ‘stole’ from you – consider it a consulting fee for gifting you people with modernity, democracy, and toilets.

    2) Japan managed to shed its regressive caste system and develop only after kicking out Portugese Christian missionaries. Every place that welcomed them went through great upheaval and lost their native culture without much to show for it.
    Are you implying that the Europeans had a hand in Japan’s caste system? Japan’s feudal system preceded the arrival of the Europeans by centuries. They closed their borders but that was to maintain sovereignty, which is fair. That’s not to say that Europeans didn’t profoundly impact Japanese culture. Unlike the Hindus, the Japanese freely acknowledged that the Europeans were advanced and undertook a serious interest in European culture, science, and even music (VERONICA GASPAR, History of a Cultural Conquest: The Piano in Japan)
    Without Europe’s influence, Japan would have remained a stagnant feudal order, much like India. The Japanese smartly kept the Europeans out of their domain but had the grace and humility to accept their knowledge. The Brahmins, on the other hand, fought tooth and nail against British reforms such as educating women and dalits. And yes, I’m aware of the few reformers you had who tried to go against the grain, so please don’t go there.

    3) Luckily in 1947 Indus was split into a non-Hindu and majority Hindu parts and we can see how Pakistan is faring today in terms of gender, sectarian violence etc.

    Bangladesh, however, is kicking your ass in all of those metrics. Did you forget about ‘East Pakistan’? Most Hindus do.

    But you are conflating India’s current socioeconomic predicament with Hinduism.

    There are plenty of developing countries in the world that keep their cities clean and shit off their streets. India’s social problems are unique to itself which indicates that the problem isn’t economics, but culture.

    I don’t see why if the white colonial people had succeeded in converting all Hindus to Christian India would not be a shit hole, and more culturally regressive to boot.

    You are actually quite correct here. Neither Christianity nor Islam would ultimately make any difference because culture shapes religion in its own image. Hindus make lousy Christians and they make equally lousy Muslims (Bangladesh is succeeding not because of Islam, but because they are ethnically homogeneous). The egalitarianism (social and economic) and ethics based approach of the Abrahamic religions are inaccessible to Hindus. For the record, I have never, and will never, advocate converting Hindus to either Christianity or Islam. I believe in quality over quantity.

    1. Bangladesh is kicking no one’s ass in any metrics. All of S Asia is a disaster on any major economic and HDI type metrics.

      Scoring a 45 vs. a 43 on an exam is not the difference between kicking ass and not. Both are failing.

      “quality over quantity” just LOL. Are you implying Hindus are inferior people? Great. Your transparency is welcome. We all know what you are now.

      Btw, India has improved quite a bit over the last 70 years. Things are getting better slowly. And Hindus aren’t going anywhere. There are over billion.

      Save your hate for another day.

    2. 1. ” The egalitarianism (social and economic) and ethics based approach of the Abrahamic religions are inaccessible to Hindus. For the record, I have never, and will never, advocate converting Hindus to either Christianity or Islam. I believe in quality over quantity.”

      Just to spell it out further, your words imply inherent inferiority of “Hindus.” I can respect someone saying that a group of people are wrong for their ideas, and therefore, if they adopted new better ideas, they would be fine. You are not doing that.

      To classify people as irredeemable, as you have, implies that you have a hierarchy already present in your head. There seems little point of further discussion. You think Hindus are inferior and destined to remain that way. If there is little recourse in your mind, why bother belittling them. By your own paradigm, you aren’t helping by doing so. All you are doing at that point is criticizing a group of people, who you don’t even think have the ability to improve. Frankly, that’s just bullying. It accomplishes nothing.

      Furthermore, just taking your argument at face, if the so called “Ethics based approach” were so inaccessible, then Hindus in the West wouldn’t be the on average high functioning, low crime, citizens they are.

      Anyway, given that you acknowledge that Islam and Christianity would not have been and have not been a panacea, it seems you view not just Hinduism but the entire Indic character of the subcontinent as inferior. Your biggest grievance seems to be the feudalism that persists in the form through society, something present regardless of the religion of the S Asian people.

      You aggressively imply that this character is such a negative that even changing the entire subcontinent’s majority religious persuasion would not make a difference. So what exactly is your solution? Or again, did you type this all up to talk about how shitty subcontinental culture is and how it will keep the subcontinent in a terrible situation. Is that your entire pessimistic point?

      2. And ok, so what if Indology, in its modern form, was largely studied initially by the West. Great. If there is good knowledge in old Hindu texts, then it is good knowledge. So what if the West “rediscovered” it.

      Anyway, let me just give a personal example. I grew up Jain. My family is pretty heavily into Jain philosophy. Enough of it was distilled through my family through plenty of non English sources. The British weren’t necessary to understand even the most complicated elements of Jain dharam. And once again, even if they were hypothetically, who cares? That doesn’t degrade their inherent value.

      3. “You Hindus owe the west a great deal but your arrogance prevents you from acknowledging this debt. As for what the British ‘stole’ from you – consider it a consulting fee for gifting you people with modernity, democracy, and toilets.”

      Do African Americans owe a great deal to their slave traders then? Should they have not fought for Civil Rights and just been thankful for technically having higher living standards than their West African kin? Was relative gross mistreatment by the State their consulting fee? Where does it end?

      Here is the thing. Even if the British did some good. Who cares. That doesn’t excuse gross rights violations. Acknowledging atrocity in the modern age is part of what a egalitarian ethos is all about.

      4. All major societies have been feudal and tribal for large parts of history. Cultures change. They exchange information. Things are not static. You acknowledge this with Christianity and even Islam. But your inability to confront the fact that subcontinental culture has this ability is a bit baffling.

      I think that’s where the impasse is. You think Hindu culture is so cultishly powerful that things can never change.

      Societal progress, albeit it has been slow, is proving you wrong. S Asian diaspora success, is as well.

    3. “What happened in North America was unfortunate and disastrous, but it was unprecedented.”

      Very good. You just write off about 50% of European colonialism. Excellent work. Y You just want to focus on what you view as the benevolent Egyptology and Indology. Very nice.

      You forget that Communism and Facism are also European culture. The two philosophies responsible for the most deaths in the modern era. ou have a great selective read of history.

      You want to portray Western Civilization as this near perfect entity. Good for you. But you have to look at and defend all of its major facets.

      The British were so great right? You want to defend the Bengal famine as also a “consulting fee?”

    4. If you can access the Gita and the Upanishads today, you have the British to thank for it.
      That’s funny, China was never fucked over and looted by Brits for over a Century and they can still translate and mass produce their ancient texts.

      As for what the British ‘stole’ from you – consider it a consulting fee for gifting you people with modernity, democracy, and toilets
      Last time I checked, Europeans almost went extinct due to black plague because they couldn’t keep sewage away from home and NOW you fuckers are the bastions of modernity&cleanliness? You Abrahamics sure have a short civilization memory, you only remember the last 100-200 years of your “Great Civilization”, everything before that doesn’t exist.

      The Brahmins, on the other hand, fought tooth and nail against British reforms such as educating women and dalits
      The British “education” existed to create conformist paper pushers and sycophantic bureaucrats. It did not exist to educate Indians about their own history or to open avenues for jobs that isn’t British bootlicking. India’s economy was dogshit under Brits.

      Hindus make lousy Christians and they make equally lousy Muslims
      As if being a desert savage is that hard. “hey, look at me! I’m Abraham, I rape, loot and kill, join my cult now!”

      The egalitarianism (social and economic) and ethics based approach of the Abrahamic religions are inaccessible to Hindus
      Yeah, Brits did a great job of ensuring that economic prosperity is inaccessible to Hindus by imposing mercantilism and by destroying native industries and also by looting things. They even stole the word “loot” from India.

      BTW democratic values are a product of Europeans going back to Greek&Roman thinkers for inspiration . The fact that you’re attributing renaissance to Abrahamic dogma is moronic, it is a product of Europeans reconnecting with their ancient(non Abrahamic) civilization.

      If secularism&egalitarianism is a product of Abrahamic Ethics, why is the Islamic world not secular&egalitarian? In fact, they resist those values the most on earth!

    5. “The resistance to affirmative action in India is keeping with the spirit of Hinduism in denying lower castes and dalits the opportunity to rise.” —

      @Xavier
      And yet Modi government has extended reservation to new domains , the recent case of implementing 27% OBC reservation in AIQ(All India Quota) seats of medical colleges filled via NEET exam is one such example. Not only that but his government has actually increased the funding allotted to Scheduled caste welfare ( I remember very clearly that back before 2014, SCs and STs had to pay some tuition fees, though subsidized in comparison to others, in IITs and NITs however, post 2014, their tuition fees have been completely waived off while General and OBC students have to pay lakhs of tuition fees annually !) .
      It’s so funny that Xavier here is calling the current indian government as being anti-subaltern and whereas most brahmins and other UCs online accuse him of being VP Singh reincarnate (the guy who implemented Mandal commission in 90s) and bhakt of Baba Saheb Ambedkar.
      With that being said, if I am not wrong, then minority run institutions are exempted from mandatory affirmative section . I hope this changes and Modi government enforces affirmative action on minority run institutions too.

  28. Pakistan has made a lot of mistakes. However, Afghanistan is their greatest success. Nothing India could have done really changed any of this. This is frankly a misstep of the US that India will in part pay for.

    China will be the ultimate victor and extract mineral resources. It has the time to invest and wait it out.

    The US was going to leave soon, given the current states of politics in the country. This was frankly inevitable, unless the US defied public opinion and stayed longer. Leadership has been too weak to do it.

    As far as Pak going into Central Asia…It will really be China that is doing that. Pak is becoming an extension of China. Pak should thank Deng Xiaoping. That’s whose vision has facilitated any of this. The rise of China is the key to this entire equation.

    Anyway, Pak will move some terror camps around and try to come off grey list. Kashmir isn’t moving. Terror attacks will go on. Demographic change is the only answer. BJP has to have the balls to do it. The valley is far too radicalized.

    The US’s biggest mistake was trusting Pakistan. Pakistan hid Bin Laden. They housed all of the terror groups. They as a nation are a terrorist factory. The Taliban just moved in and evaded all the US bombing and campaigns in Afghanistan. The Americans just kept on foolishly trusting. Absolutely moronic.

    The ISI chief was praying with the Taliban. He is drinking tea with the Taliban and telling them how to organize their army. I mean this is so blatant. It is ridiculous. Pak has taken over Afghanistan. They have subdued the population with one of the most barbaric forms of radical Islam in existence. But they have done it.

    1. Demographic change is the only answer. BJP has to have the balls to do it

      a Xinjiang styled Hindu takeover of the valley? Considering what happened to the Kashmiri Pandits that plan will surely work…

      The US’s biggest mistake was trusting Pakistan…

      US is not stupid. They knew after the Bush-era bluster that they were only going to get limited cooperation from Pakistan. No country in the world is going to provide absolute subservience for aid packages. Considering the state of US politics and their record as allies, Pakistan did what they had to do for their own interests.

      While its a fact that Pakistan keeps India-focused terrorist snakes in their pockets but to think that it is some sort of a terrorist puppet master is absurd. The war has cost Pakistan 80k+ lives. Heck Pakistanis have lost more than double the number of servicemen that US lost in Afghanistan.

      The OBL situation is pretty blurry. I do tend to sway towards the opinion that a rogue faction in the army was keeping him safe, without the wider knowledge of the institution. The whole Shakil Afridi story doesn’t add up otherwise.

      It could also be that they didn’t know out of pure incompetence. The ISI isn’t the all-knowing eagle-eyed villain they are often portrayed as. Like any sarkari department, they are also full of parchi idiots. During the heyday of the insurgency, terrorists were able to easily target the most secure areas of Rawalpindi.

      The biggest mistake Afghan establishment made was to snuggle up to India. Their goose was cooked the day they decided to not only spread their legs for India but to also flip off Pakistan. There was no way Pakistan was going to accept a hostile regime in Afghanistan. They underestimated the strength and determination of Pakistan to keep Afghanistan as a satellite state. Americans saw that, bypassed the useless Afghan govt to negotiate with Taliban and got the hell out.

      Pakistan would have had no issues with a friendly Afghan govt that knew its place. In the end there was no option but to pursue a regime change. Radical Islam hasn’t stopped US from sleeping with the Saudis or India from cozying up to Iran. Why should it stop Pakistan from supporting the Taliban?

  29. Saurav,

    Thank you for linking that piece; very interesting, and illuminating.

    And to think, just a few weeks ago some people here were arguing that the Americans “weren’t brutal enough”.

    The truth is the exact opposite: one of the primary reasons for American defeat was an excess of force used against the rural Pashtun population, not a lack of it.

    ^ It would be no exaggeration to say that with every innocent civilian killed, the Taliban gained 5 dedicated and vengeful recruits.

    Many people also seem to ignore the fact that the Taliban began making their most considerable gains during the American “surge”. (Which suggests that an increase in foreign troops (and everything which that entails) led to an increase in local support for Talibs, and greater determination on the part of their fighters)

    ^^ All of this helped transform the Taliban from merely being a failed/overthrown government, and right into becoming a “freedom fighting” movement against foreign aggressors.

    Unfortunately, this is not a welcome perspective in the American media. Apparently, right now everyone is a “hawk” (left, right, center, etc).

    1. I did find this perspective fresh, but i am wary of going the other way, and overdoing the whole “freedom fighting” thing done in the article. Anyway, the whole thing is a mess, and regardless of who governs or mis-governs Afghanistan, I dont see light at the end of tunnel.

      1. Saurav,

        I think that a “freedom fighting” narrative is far closer to the reality of what happened, vs the narrative being peddled right now in most American media outlets.

        As Gopal notes in his piece, at the start of the war the local Pashtun people were happy with American presence; they hated the Taliban.

        ^ And they didn’t hate the Taliban for any ideological reasons; Taliban social policy is scarcely different from the status quo that has existed for centuries among the Durrani and Ghilzai Pashtun.

        ^^ Rather, they hated the Taliban because the Taliban forcibly conscripted young men, for the purposes of going up north to fight Tajik and Uzbek warlords. And as if that wasn’t enough of a burden on these impoverished communities, then the Taliban banned poppy cultivation! The people were starving.

        So, the American coalition had a pleased, amicable local population; a Taliban leadership ready and willing to surrender; and innumerable Taliban fighters twiddling their thumbs at home, with no real interest in fighting (and wondering what they were going to do with the rest of their lives).

        ^ An excellent situation for American forces. And what do they do with that excellent situation?

        They ally themselves with local rapists and brigands; they bring in an army of Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazara to control a population of Pashtuns; they kill and maim innocent locals left and right by “accident”; they “mistakenly” torture an obscenely large number of innocent locals; and they take sides in Pashtun tribal disputes, allowing “their side” in the tribal disputes to brutalize other tribes.

        ^^ This recipe for winning success rapidly pushes the local population from a state of happiness at the fall of the Taliban, right into a state of hatred for foreign aggressors; gives the Taliban a proper and renewed casus belli; allows the Taliban to recruit young, vengeful fighters in droves; creates a feedback loop where the revitalized Taliban insurgency forces the American coalition to lay utter waste to the life and property of impoverished local Pashtuns, thus giving the young and fit among them better reason to be pissed, and join the Taliban (thus strengthening the Taliban insurgency, which they were trying to break).

        Long story short: the American coalition has only it’s arrogance and early heavy-handedness to blame for its defeat.

        I said this days ago, and I’ll say it again: war, violence, bloodshed, strong shows of force, etc… none of that scares Pashtuns. You can’t scare these people into submission.

        Pashtuns have considered war their national pastime for centuries. When not fighting foreigners, they fight among themselves; when not fighting other Pashtun tribesmen, familial fratricide is considered the natural state of things.

        ^ There’s a saying, which has much truth to it:

        “Through brute force, you can’t coerce a Pashtun into entering heaven. But through love and affection, you can convince a Pashtun to enter hell” ?

        ^^ If the coalition didn’t treat the countryside like a battlefield (long before the Taliban became revitalized); if they didn’t indiscriminately hurt the local people (long before the Taliban became revitalized); and if they tried to understand the local culture (long before they had no other choice, because a revitalized Taliban forced them to try to understand the situation on its own terms)…. if all of that was the case, then perhaps the Taliban wouldn’t have ended up being the rulers of Afghanistan (again. and this time, in the whole entire country).

        1. You have a habit of continuing the tradition of romanticizing Pashtun violence and elevating their culture to some sort of mythic proportions.

          Everytime there is a lot of luck involving a chess board of super powers and regional powers along with geographic defensive advantages and a sufficiently hyper conservative population to draw upon brainwashed youths.

          These people aren’t that special. They aren’t some super human warriors. Pak played a massive role in all of this.

          This is more ISI brilliance and Americaj stupidity than it is Pashtun affinity for bellicosity.

          1. thewarlock,

            This isn’t romanticism; it’s common sense!

            Tell me, what do you think? Chew over this scenario:

            So you have a local populace that’s happy with you being there; your enemies are on the run, and have consistently told you that they are ready to surrender, as long as you promise not to torture and/or kill them; and you have the momentum/confidence that comes with quick/easy victory.

            ^ In that situation, do you imagine that it’s reasonable for you think, “ok, so the people like us, they dislike our enemies, and our enemies don’t want to fight: what should we do?
            ……..

            ……..

            ……..

            Oh, I know! Let’s humiliate the innocent civilians who actually like us by raiding their homes at night; let’s support local murderers and rapists; and let’s fuck up their homes and fields!”

            Tell me, is that a winning strategy, if the situation described above is correct?

        2. While I agree with some points Herr Commentator/Seinundzeit makes here, this habit of Pashtuns pleasuring themselves to the primitive brutality of their culture is self-defeating. This celebration of patriarchy and violence is exactly what prevents a ethnicity of more than 60 million to of have nothing more than nuisance value in the modern world. So what has the Pashtuns got to show for his “independent spirit” other than his mudhuts and poppy/bhang fields? Educated Pashtuns need to question their culture and traditions before blaming outside forces for their afflictions.

          Before we start celebrating the Pashtuns “defeating another superpower”, we should be aware that US has the firepower to ethnically cleanse the whole problem. If Putin had invaded, we wouldn’t even remember Taliban today.

          While coalition airstrikes were certainly a factor, they were not the only variable that revitalized Taliban. Taliban had been gaining ground before the troop surge. The surge simply failed to make any dent in their progress. The corrupt central government failed to provide the two basic services required to control rural tribal populations, security and dispute resolution. Taliban provided both and the population simply chose what they saw was the better option. And of course the simple spirit of Jihad against the infidel and his puppet cannot be understated.

          More money was pumped into Afghanistan than the Marshall plan. Unfortunately, Afghanistan was just not willing to break up with its “traditions”.

          1. BaasiDabalRoti,

            “Before we start celebrating the Pashtuns ‘defeating another superpower’, we should be aware that US has the firepower to ethnically cleanse the whole problem. If Putin had invaded, we wouldn’t even remember Taliban today.”

            Oh, I see.

            That must be why the Soviets enjoyed such success, after carpet-bombing the whole entire countryside.

            ^ People who talk like you are just engaged in what the kids these days call “cope”.

            For the American coalition, a barrage of drone strikes mistakenly honed on weddings, jirgas, and funerals failed to open a path to victory.

            Anyway, the facts are simple:

            The British were unable to colonize Afghanistan; they ended up providing generous subsidies, in exchange for control of Afghanistan’s foreign policy.

            ^ And even that ended, after the third Anglo-Afghan war (and frankly, they were absolutely murdered in the First Anglo-Afghan war; reading the accounts of that conflict, you start to feel sorry for the Brits who died)

            The Soviets were expelled; tired and defeated.

            And now, the United States has joined that venerable club.

            Saurav,

            The vast, overwhelming majority of Pashtuns want to live a life of peace, security, and prosperity. We’re talking about humans here!

            And no one looks back fondly on the days of pure Pashtunwali; my great grandfathers were paranoid, anxious men. They spent their whole lives constantly worried about being ridden with the bullets of their cousins, and always afraid of being hacked to death by tribal enemies

            ^^ No one misses that lifestyle.

            But it is strange for many to expect that a tribal people who for centuries have seen themselves as warriors, a people known throughout history as fighting men… just very strange for people to think that a culture with that sort of self-conception should just turn off that aspect of their habits and mores (like a switch), right when foreigners are blowing up their houses, killing and maiming their children, violating the privacy of their women, and imposing their vision of society through the barrel of the gun.

            ^ Like, what exactly are these people supposed to do?

          2. That must be why the Soviets enjoyed such success, after carpet-bombing the whole entire countryside.

            Are you comparing the crumbling Red army with Americans of today? lol

            True they have sometimes managed to fend off invaders but they also have been thoroughly cooked and subjugated many a times in their history. The most popular Pashtun surname is Khan lol!

            This cycle of invasion and resistance has been repeated in many other regions of the world which lie on the periphery of expanding empires. This doesn’t make them some sort of elite warriors.

            Soviets were expelled because of CIA/Pakistani assistance. If Pakistan wasn’t there, there would be no Taliban to take over today. Afghans owe their existence to the dirty Punjabis they love to hate.

            And why are Pashtuns solely taking credit for fighting invaders? Every ethnic group in Afghanistan has fought invaders and made sacrifices. This time the alliances were different.

            Of course they are absolutely within their rights to resist foreign invaders who violate their lives. But you talk of Pashtuns as if only they are endowed with a special fighting spirit. They fight back like anyone else would fight back. Its got nothing to with having a special warrior culture.

        3. Commentator

          U would forgive me of taking all this ‘freedom fighting of Afghans’ thing with dollops of salt. Espically considering i take ‘freedom fighting’ of my own people , against the Brits, with dollops of salt…

          “Pashtuns have considered war their national pastime for centuries. When not fighting foreigners, they fight among themselves; when not fighting other Pashtun tribesmen, familial fratricide is considered the natural state of things.”

          But is it really a good way to live? I know Bacha Khan was 100 years ago, and he hardly had influence west of Peshwar perhaps, but has there been no one within Pashtun Land who has even tried to reason for a better way.

          I ask this in all sincerity.

  30. @Commentator/Seinundzeit, are you active on any other discussion sites? If so, what username do you go by? Thanks.

  31. I think we are forgetting that TB is an Islamist movement first and Pasthun nationalist movement second. Some thoughts:

    1) Pasthuns are definitely more marital than other ethnic groups around them. However let us not forget that the Americans did not just co-opt Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras but also Pasthuns. Amir Dado in the article was a Pasthun.. so were other US minions and many of the Mujahideen that went all cartel on the local population after the Soviets withdrew. This is not battle between some good anti imperial Pasthuns vs evil pro US Tajiks. Fact is.. all ethnicities were complicit in supporting and enabling the foreign occupation. Karzai and Ghani were not Tajiks.

    2) TB is first and foremost an Islamist movement that ideologically originates from Pakistani Deobandi maddrassahs, that was alien to the local Pasthun lands even in Southern Afghanistan. This was true back in 1996 and it is still true today. Nothing has changed. It barely even tolerates local Pasthun traditions.

    3) TB would not have existed without Pakistani support and would have been wiped out. This is because as noted in the article.. the Taliban were not exactly that popular in Afghanistan before their overthrow and without Pakistani safe havens they would have never made a comeback. They would have been easily replaced, their leadership would have been killed. Just like Pakistan made short work of TTP when it committed to, the Americans would have too. Even if people in Pasthun heartland were not happy with pro US Kabul regime, they would have no organized alternative. The only thing saving the TB was Pakistan’s covert support.

    4) We can all guess to the extent of this Pakistani support but fact is that Durand line provided “strategic depth” to the Taliban and allowed them to rest, recuperate, plan, organize attacks in Afghanistan.. all under the direct, or indirect protection of Pakistan Army.

    5) While TB is not really a Pasthun nationalist movement, it is being portrayed as such by its opponents. General Mohammadi has recently tweeted out that partition is the last resort against the “Pasthun Taliban”. I have seen this type of sentiment growing amongst the Tajiks and I’m sure Hazaras and Uzbeks will be on board. This only bodes signs of more future unrest and war. Frankly I won’t be surprised if the country crumbles into two or three pieces.. the Pasthun belt supported by Pakistan while the others supported by Iran/ Russia.

    1. Do you think that in the event of such a partition, Pakistan will take over the Pashtun parts of Afghanistan?
      Or will it be better to let it stay as a vassal state?

      1. I think Pakistan would be wary to take in that many Pashtuns even in the avent of partition lest it destablises the demograpahic/poltical balance further. Already the pashtuns are somewhat ancedent in Pak politics, and unless Pak leaders would want the whole country to be awashed with Karachi like street violence, they would much rather the Pashtuns on Afghan side stay there.

      2. Who knows? This is not something happening anytime soon, maybe decades from now and it would depend on that day and age’s geopolitical situation. Just hypothetically speaking, an ethnic Pasthun state on Pakistan’s border is not going to be friendly, especially when they don’t accept the Durand line. At that point, just absorbing that territory as an autonomous region, mad as this would seem to be, would actually make some geopolitical sense. It resolves the Durand line problem, and using current stats, 15-18 million Pasthuns in an ethno Pasthun state would not post any significant threat to 225 Million Pakistanis of which 50 million are Pasthuns themselves. The formula for this type of arrangement also has precedence, for eg: initially Jinnah promised FATA complete autonomy in exchange for voting Paksitan, and FATA remained completely autonomous until few years ago when it was slowly incorporated in KP province. It’s people are still fiercely independent today but compared to 1947, they have a lot of vested interest in being with the Pakistani state today.

        1. You go Quereshi. Conquer the unruly Afghans. Bring back the ‘Mlleccha’ under Indic dominance again!!

          Get them speaking Urdu, a Gangetic, Indo Aryan language and practice Deobandi (again from Deoband, Uttar Pradesh) Islam, playing ‘Kirkit’ and watching Bollywood Masala movies.

          So that one day you lot might be ready for assimilating back into India again. If you are already speaking Hindi (with some Farsi words thrown in), playing Cricket, watching Bollywood and practicing the ‘Indian’ version of a religion why not go whole hog and do full Ghar Wapasi, eh, eh?

          Iranian-turanian chhaddo, desi bano

    2. Uzbeks are the most feared warriors in Afghanistan. Only this time, proper homework was done, Uzbek/Turkmen Islamists were bought into the fold and the hammer of god brought down on Dostum.

      Not sure if during the early days of TB comeback, there was much overt support from Pakistan. They found safe havens in areas which were not really under control of the Army. Things changed later on though.

      Non-acceptance of the Durand line is not a massive headache. Sure Afghans like to squeal about it but there isn’t anything they can really do. Pashtun nationalism in Pakistan has been greatly weakened and they are now cozy with the border.

      Assimilating millions of illiterate peasants farming poor quality land brings nothing but problems for Pakistan. Unless there is some Islamist nut at the top, Pakistan would be happy to just pull strings in Afg. Shaking down the West in exchange for keeping Afg based terrorists and millions of refugees at bay is much more profitable.

      Only that time and time again, we have seen Pakistan lose control of their assets and get burned. It will happen again.

  32. “I think, u didnt get the memo…”

    You misunderstand me mate.

    I think India should stay the fuck away from Afghanistan which is nothing but unnecessary trouble.

    Let our enemies like Pakistan and China get involved and spend blood and treasure in trying to control Afghanistan. They anyway think they have won a great victory. Let them enjoy the ‘spoils’.

    There is absolutely nothing of value in Afghanistan apart from the nuisance value Afghans can potentially create for the rest of the world. And the amount of nuisance Afghans can create for a country directly corresponds to how much that country is ‘involved’ with Afghanistan.

Comments are closed.