I would question how one defines “Indian” culture vs “Hindu” culture (this is a real question, I’m not being snarky). Zohran speaks Urdu/Hindi, wears shalwar kameez and uses Bollywood references in his campaign. So clearly, he has no issues with Indian culture. He’s not a Hindu so he doesn’t go to temples etc. I’m not sure exactly what you expect him to do?
While Zohran Mamdani expresses outward familiarity with “Indian” culture — speaking Hindi/Urdu, referencing Bollywood, wearing traditional attire — these are surface markers. They do not, on their own, constitute rootedness in Indian civilizational identity. Indian culture, especially post-Partition, is not simply a composite of languages and aesthetics. It is anchored in Dharma — a diffuse but pervasive civilisational ethos shaped over millennia by Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and Jain worldviews.
Despite being born to a Hindu mother, Zohran’s public identity is strongly framed within a Muslim, Middle Eastern, and postcolonial activist context. His political and cultural instincts appear more aligned with pan-Islamic and Western progressive causes than with any articulation of Indian philosophical or spiritual heritage. His Syrian Muslim spouse, activist framing, and lack of visible engagement with Indic traditions contribute to this perception.
This is not a religious critique but a civilizational one. Just as Israel defines its national identity through a broadly Jewish character — irrespective of belief — India’s cultural self-understanding is inseparable from its Hindu roots. To be Indian, in this view, is not to perform cultural familiarity but to resonate with the metaphysical and historical rhythms of the civilization.
By that measure, Zohran — despite South Asian ancestry — does not code as civilizationally Indian, but rather as an American progressive of South Asian Muslim extraction. The distinction is subtle but important.
Well articulated. There are 2nd generation Indian heritage American Muslims who feel very Indian. Hasan Minhaj for example, whatever the reasons may be. I imagine describing a vibe is like a fish explaining the texture of an ocean current, unless you are in the environment you can never get it.
So this paragraph is really the crux of my disagreement with X.T.M and others on this site. This doesn’t only apply to the Zohran issue but to many other issues discussed here.
Using Israel as your example is quite problematic. 20% of Israel’s population is made of Palestinian Citizens of Israel (“Israeli Arabs”). This population doesn’t identity with a national identity which has a “broadly Jewish character”. In fact they find it quite offensive, especially given that they were living there first before the Jews showed up.
“India’s cultural self-understanding is inseparable from its Hindu roots”– I would wager a lot of Indian minorities would find this sentence really offensive. They are Indian citizens but they are not Hindu. Nor do they want to be Hindu. I have relatives who remained in Agra at Partition. I don’t think they would want to be called “culturally Hindu”.
If India’s culture is inseparable from Hinduism, on what basis do you argue against the Two Nation Theory? In that case, all Indian Muslims should have moved to Pakistan so that they didn’t have to live in a country where the culture is based on Hinduism. So you can see why this is a slippery slope.
Returning to Zohran: Suppose instead of Mira Nair he had been born to an Indian Muslim mother. Would you then question his Indianness because he has no interest in Hinduism?
His Hinduness has been erased entirely. His mother is a Hindu, whether practising or not is irrelevant. This is also why the Mughals are not considered Indian, because despite intermarriage with Hindus over generations, they identified only with the Islamic parent even when the blood flowing in their veins was more than 80% Hindu. As phyecho1 put so well, Islam seeks the complete erasure of the other…
“His mother is Hindu whether practicing or not is irrelevant”– It’s actually not irrelevant. Presumably, if she were practicing, she would have fought harder against her child being raised as a Shia. It’s impossible to believe that Mira Nair did not consent to Zohran being raised to practice Shia Islam. If she has no problem with it, why are so many other people getting offended?
You have no idea of what Mira Nair’s religious beliefs are (neither do I). For all we know, she may be an atheist and have zero interest in Hinduism herself. Which is entirely her prerogative.
The only people who don’t consider the Mughals Indian are Hindu Nationalists. There are so many paintings of Mughal emperors celebrating Diwali and Holi. Whatever form of Islam they were practicing, it certainly didn’t stop most of them from being inclusive.
What I meant was that the Mughals thought of themselves as non-Hindu for whatever reasons. Since they actively distanced themselves from any Hindu heritage. If they themselves didn’t identify as Indians, how would anyone else identify them as such? Aurangzeb was the worst of the lot.
Akbar and Dara Shikoh are the outliers. Akbar in fact started with extremist views but gradually got to the point of Din-e-Ilahi, which in my opinion displays incredible individual growth at the intellectual and philosophical level. Dara Shikoh used to sit with pandits and imbued with an open mind the teachings from the Vedas and the Upanishads. Hence his Majma-ul-Bahrain.
They thought of themselves as non-Hindu because they were. They were self-consciously Sunni Muslim kings. We are talking about 500 years ago. This was a time when the emperor’s Hindu wives had to convert to Islam upon marriage. Even far more recently, Sharmila Tagore had to convert to Islam upon marriage. Otherwise, there could have been no “nikaah” (religious Muslim marriage). Yet–as I pointed out above– the Mughal court actively celebrated Hindu festivals such as Holi and Diwali.
“If they themselves didn’t identity as Indians…”– There was no nation-state of India (I know you and others on this site believe in the “civilizational state”. I don’t share this belief). Yet the Mughals referred to themselves as emperors of “Hindustan”.
Supporters of the Congress Party don’t believe that the proposition that the Mughals weren’t Indian is a defensible argument. So clearly a substantial section of Indians don’t share this belief.
Professor Harbans Mukhia wrote an entire book titled “The Mughals of India”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470758304
*Yet the Mughals referred to themselves as emperors of “Hindustan”.*
Exactly, they thought themselves to be victors, conquerors, above the common Hindustani infidel. Such a stark us vs them mentality.
If you cannot identify with your subjects and look down upon them, then in which universe will you get accepted as Hindustani yourself?
My bigger point is that they did not associate with the people they ruled due to a religious purity angle. They believed they were better because of the religion they followed. Holi-Diwali blah blah I don’t think counts if there is active discrimination and condescension at every other level.
I don’t think these festivals were actively celebrated by the Mughals btw. Just like the Islamic rulers of Persia couldn’t stamp out Nouruz, they ultimately had to tolerate the practice. Two very different things, reciprocal mutual respect and grudging tolerance.
OK, we’ll have to agree to disagree. There are enough paintings depicting the Mughal courts celebrating Holi and Diwali. Those paintings were created at the time not retconned later. Those paintings were part of their branding if you will. If they really were so condescending and discriminatory towards their subjects, why would they depict themselves celebrating their festivals?
As you yourself mentioned, some Mughal emperors were having the Hindu epics translated into Persian. That again is not a sign of condescension and discrimination.
Btw “Hindustan” is a geographical expression. It meant the area around Delhi and UP.
Some Mughals definitely are considered Indian/Culturally Hindu. Akbar, Dara Shikoh etc.
True, those are the outliers 😀 who I wish had become mainstream! History would’ve looked very different then.
Islam seeks erasure, In countries, societies, civilizations, it takes decades, centuries, In individual families, it happens in one generation. XTM. I dont know whether you say this out of shock or to generate views. But i am autistic enough that i can only code this as being unintelligent thought. I have a problem where questions / comments are made without any clarity as to which is which.
Perfectly expressed!
Such a well etched and nuanced post, great follow-up to Xperia’s article.
Just to give a counterexample: When I was growing up in DC, we had family friends where the wife was a Hindu and the husband was an Indian Muslim (from Bihar). I guess they had met at university. There was nothing Muslim about their kids. Conversely, their daughter danced Kuchipudi. Both kids learned Hindustani classical music. I doubt they ever participated in Ramadan or Eid. We subsequently lost touch, but I know that the daughter married a White guy. Basically, they were your generic American kids with a bit of an Indian touch. But the point of the story is that in this case it was the Islam that completely disappeared.
It all depends on what the couple chooses to pass on to their kids. I can only extrapolate from this that Mira Nair was not personally bothered by Hinduism that much and that Mahmood Mamdani was passionate about Shiaism.
Fair point. I think we hear more of Islam dominating in most inter-religious marriages, which can be attributed to the nature of the respective ideologies.
Hindus are not considered “people of the book”. A Muslim man can only have a nikaah with a Christian or Jewish woman without her having to convert. Any other woman has to convert to Islam in order for there to be a religiously valid marriage.
Muslim women cannot have a nikaah with a non-Muslim man. The guy has to convert.
Of course these rules don’t apply to people who marry in court etc. But these are the rules for a religiously valid marriage.
I would guess that these rules were instituted because the idea is that any children born of this union should be raised Muslim. That’s why women being “lost” to the community is a much bigger deal than women being brought into the community.
Do you not, at the basic human level see how morally repugnant the concept of us vs them is? People of the book vs the infidels / pagans / idolators?
Monotheism is a fundamental part of Islam. Some argue that Islam evolved out of Christianity and Judaism. Obviously, the official Muslim view is that Allah divinely revealed the Quran to the Prophet.
In our modern individualist secular era, these rules about marriage sound antiquated. But are they really so different from rules that say that Hindus should marry within their own caste?
Exactly! I find the practice of caste discrimination utterly repugnant because some people get to look down upon some others just because of an accident of birth. The system was not supposed to ossify to give a few castes primacy over others. It was also meant to be flexible and not defined by birth. It’s unfortunate that it ossified the way it did.
I know what Islam has to say about believer / non-believer. What do you personally think about it?
Personally, I’m not very bothered by the believer/non-believer distinction. Two people can always get married at city hall etc.
But if one wants a nikaah done by a priest than one has to follow religious law.
I will bet he’s never going to answer that and will keep dodging the question.
Enjoy the contortions.
What’s the word for someone who claims to be liberal and secular, but refuses to decry the supremacist ideologies (against women/pagans) in his own religion.
Hypocrite doesn’t quite cut it. Islamofacism doesn’t really capture the duplicity.
It’ll come to me.
I answered the question.
I’m not personally very religious so the believer/nonbeliever distinction is not important to me.
If you (xperia) will only be satisfied if I denounce Islam, then yes that is never going to happen. If the only “good” Muslim for you is someone who denounces Islam, then you have serious issues.
You dodged it skillfully Kabir. Does the thinly veiled hatred for non-believers bother you or does it not? Not restricted specifically to any marriage between believer / non-believer.
Almost every major religion in the world has a distinction between believers and non-believers. Christians believe that those who don’t accept Christ as their personal savior are doomed to hell. That’s just one example. Why this special emphasis on Islam?
Like I said, I’m not personally very religious. This distinction is not that salient in my own life. But if you’re trying to get me to openly denounce Islam on this forum, it’s not going to happen.
Having an independent opinion on a specific point in religious dogma does not have to mean you’re denouncing it in entirety. Just because I personally find caste discrimination abhorrent; it does not translate to finding all aspects of Hinduism abhorrent, no?
Only the Abrahamics have that distinction as a purity test, to cast the other aside. No other religion has that concept.
Of course Christianity had it too. But they had reformers who ended up challenging these notions, and changing it for the better. If you are liberal in your thinking, this is exactly the kind of reformist zeal that is required to move forward not backwards in time.
My point is that scripture can say something but it’s about how it is interpreted in real life. Christian dogma to this day states that unless you accept Christ as your personal savior you are going to hell. But your regular everyday Christian doesn’t go on about this in real life. I would go further and argue that your regular everyday Muslim doesn’t go on about “kafirs” in real life either.
“Only the Abrahamics have that distinction”– need I remind you of the Sanskrit term “mleccha”? I would venture that non-Hindus don’t find this a particular flattering term of address.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mleccha
Of course. You proved my point. Christianity has come a long way from burning “witches ” and “pagans” because internal reform lead it to leave the dogma on paper. Can you say the same of Islamic dogma? I don’t think so. You are hesitant to even say that out loud for whatever reason. I’m guessing you cannot as well. The finer the sieve, the fewer the true believers. At some point you will find yourself on the outside too.
Is the word mleccha in any of our scriptures? It’s another word for a foreigner, it’s not a term for discrimination based on religious beliefs. No epic of ours, much less the Gita talks about believers and non-believers.
You know the Hindu scriptures better than I do so I’m not going to argue that point. The Wiki article says “mleeccha” was used to describe those who were considered outside the framework of Vedic society. In that sense, it’s not conceptually different from “heathen” as used by Christians or “Kaafir” as used by Muslims.
The point is that every single society on earth has some kind of “friend vs. enemy” distinction. Whether you like it or not, that is simply part of human nature.
I’m not a fan of cherry picking any scripture; religion, any religion, has SO much context
Time to settle this hate-spewage once and for all!
Literally, the Indian elites are thinking as though the historical Mongol Empire will come back from the grave, turn into a socialist state with a government-controlled economy, and adopt a 1950s-America-style culture that mandates conformity.
Just for everyone on this forum, there are several things happening right now both within and outside India that will prevent such a thing from happening
1) Democratic-style governance: according to at least some political theories, democracies tend not to go to war with each other.
2) Capitalism: a good way to stop a country from being invaded is to export a commodity that people would like to consume.
3) Modern conceptions of an individual: a LOT of these types would probably not thinking about what happens in a dictatorship.
I wonder if the EU would fall into the category of socialist American Mongols.
In what sense?
I gave up.
If you don’t like what Kabir says don’t engage with him so furiously. The brusqueness of tone and the insults hurled at him come across poorly in an anonymous online setting. His obsession with India, blind spot for Islamic atrocity and pretentions at being the voice of minorities in India are obvious and transparent for everyone to see.
No matter how well intentioned your message might be I feel it gets lost in the angry abusive articulation. Confront him all you like, just do it politely, reciprocity is your watch word after all, make sure you practice it.
Here is a guy who is a genocide denier. Do you know what that is?.You are a morally confused moron. When one sees evil, one calls it out And no, it is not obvious and transparent to everyone, this need to normalize what is pathological under guise of politeness is the reason these kinds of horrible things continue to keep happening.
“No matter how well intentioned your message might be I feel it gets lost in the angry abusive articulation. Confront him all you like, just do it politely, reciprocity is your watch word after all, make sure you practice it.”
It is neither sane nor rational nor moral to call for politeness over a moral issue and talk about genocide when an author here at brownpundits is a literal genocide denier. Where no verbal abuse has been made , how is it impolite?.
Reciprocity means moral reciprocity. To outrage over immoral people is moral. And If people cannot even do that anonymously, what courage will there even be otherwise. You need to learn the difference between being moral vs being polite. It is not same.It is morally necessary to make clear that here is a genocide denier who has been given author privileges at brownpundits. While people are commenting about genocide and other moral issues. The whole thing here is lunacy and you dont even see how lunatic you are to look away. If you cant morally act when the issue is small , the idea that you will grow moral courage when the issues are bigger is complete nonsense.
” His obsession with India, blind spot for Islamic atrocity and pretentions at being the voice of minorities in India are obvious and transparent for everyone to see.No matter how well intentioned your message might be I feel it gets lost in the angry abusive articulation. Confront him all you like, just do it politely” . Read this a million times and ask yourself as to whether this is moral behavior, to see such people and let it be and normalize it by being polite. If people dont act against such people being given author privileges, are any of you being moral?. Should you also not confront and ask why this person has been given author privilege here?
Always passionate. There are many immoral people in the world and not everyone subscribes to the same value system as yours.
I’m certainly not asking you to halt your mission of calling out moral outrage when you see it. Happy to cheer you on. Just do it without sounding unhinged so your ideas get across without the spittle.
What makes one stand and fight is not caution, it is passion.This particular passion is not natural to me, it is cultivated after poring over it for long. Caution errs on the side of reacting to something after it happens, passion is proactive. It is the only thing that leads one forward and stay 2 steps ahead. You dont get to choose a perfect mix of something. There is no perfect strategy, no perfect method. The wills of millions can never be lead that way. Only a choice of which side to err on.
I have no interest in getting my ideas across which i believed for long. I now see it is more important in getting people to stand up and fight!. Most Ideas of value have already been spread across centuries ago. And has already proven to be worthless among people who refuse to admit that their intellectualism, insistence of politeness , calls for caution and more talk and discussions are really camouflage for cowardice, they themselves never considered it. They themselves do not see and know the difference between what it takes to know is different from what it takes to act. They are all practicing cowardice. . cowardice is an act of deception, of ones own self and others It manifests itself by actively masquerading as all such things as tolerance, politeness, need for more discussion etc, even after everyone already knows that a crocodile has just eaten a child.. And the test for that is will they call evil by its name. Will they call Islamofascist as one to their face and in front of those who normalize such people. By comparison, you have no test to check as to who will stand and who will not, do you?.You have never even thought about that and would have spent decades without considering that but for me saying it here. That one needs to have a test to check the character of the people beforehand.
Universities fail because they choose for intelligence, not bravery, it is not brains the world is short of, it bravery which is the rarest commodity. And if you cannot risk being seen as unhinged while being anonymous. What can you expect of them without anonymity?. Am I myself brave enough to do things necessary?. That too needs to be cultivated and this is an attempt to get there. You dont get brave by reading or by switching it on as and when it is required. You have to act it out, first in words atleast.,
fair point, but it often becomes difficult to resist being baited with his constant prejudiced takes flooding the discourse.
He actually contributes to the discourse; BP threads would be pretty sparse without Kabir?
I take great offense to accusations of “taqiyya”. Ironically, this is a word used more by the Hindu Right than by anyone else. Likewise with the word “Islamofascist”–again an American right wing word.
XTM please moderate.
Kabir you can void comments that are personally offensive / directed at you
I understand your anger, especially the point on absolute morality. It makes it very difficult to have a meaningful conversation when the position is of relative morality.
Agree fully with your point on mutual reciprocity. To be able to achieve that kind of objectivity is what we all should aspire to.
I voided this comment – don’t get personal
There is a difference between those who will help against the wolves and those who will leave you to the wolves. You have no wisdom to tell them apart.
Shehkar Gupta (by no means a leftist) calls Zohran “A Muslim of Indian origin” which in my view is a fair descriptor. If he takes issue with Zohran for anything, it’s because of his socialism–which is a completely fair reason to take issue with him
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwaqG2dCmBw
“Why Indian right is having a meltdown over Mamdani’s win”
https://trt.global/world/article/25200b9eb0bb
It’s really interesting how some Indians are literally taking a leaf out of the American right wing’s book by referring to Zohran as a “jehadi mayor” etc.
I understand why some people would disagree with his political views (which is fine you are allowed to do that). Calling Modi a “war criminal” and comparing him to Netanyahu is obviously not going to play well with many Indians. But you have to keep in mind that Zohran’s father is of Gujarati Muslim descent. It’s only natural that Zohran would have strong views about Gujarat 2002.
Mira Nair seems to share many of Zohran’s views on Palestine:
I would guess Mira Nair doesn’t have particularly complementary things to say about Modi either.