Let’s just ask it plainly: if the Muslim League got what it wanted—a Muslim-majority Pakistan—then what, exactly, is the problem with the RSS wanting a Hindu-majority India? This isn’t a provocation. It’s a genuine question.
The Muslim League, by the end, wasn’t fighting for shared rule. It wanted partition. It wanted sovereignty. It wanted to exit the Hindu-majority consensus that the Congress represented. And it succeeded—through law, politics, and eventually blood.
The RSS, for its part, never pretended to want pluralism. It’s been consistent for nearly a century: it wants India to have a Hindu character, spine, and center. If the League could ask for a state that reflects Muslim political interests, why is it unthinkable for the RSS to want the same, flipped?
This is where I struggle with a certain kind of liberal-istan logic—found across both India and Pakistan. You’ll hear:
“India must stay secular! Modi is destroying Nehru’s dream!”
But what was Q.E.A-Jinnah’s dream? Was Pakistan built as a pluralist utopia? Or was it built—openly, unapologetically—as a Muslim homeland?
If Pakistan’s existence is predicated on Muslim majoritarianism, then India’s tilt toward Hindu majoritarianism isn’t an anomaly. It’s symmetry. Maybe even inevitability.
So either we all agree that majoritarianism won in the subcontinent—and everyone adjusts accordingly. Or we all agree that the Congress secular ideal was the better one—and try, equally, to hold both India and Pakistan to it.
But it can’t be:
-
Muslim nationalism is liberation
-
Hindu nationalism is fascism
That math doesn’t work. And yes, the Muslim League had more polish. Jinnah smoked, drank, defended pork eaters in court. The RSS wore khaki and read Manu Smriti. But don’t be fooled by aesthetics. At the core, both movements rejected the idea of a shared national project. They just took different exits off the same imperial highway.
So pick one: Either Nehru and Gandhi were right—and so was Maulana Azad. Or everyone else was right—and we all now live in our chosen majorities. But don’t demand secularism from Delhi while praying for Muslim unity in Lahore. That’s not secularism. That’s selective memory.
i) rss and its role in freedom movement is largely exaggerated. rss should accept this and that stops questions about its participation in freedom struggle. ironically its founder hegdewar was a congress member.
ii) congress was a bigger tent with a very significant hindu minded group. rajendra prasad, patel, purushottam das tandon etc. were its representatives.
iii) nehru’s ways was accepted more out of respect for gandhi and later to keep nehru in good humour.
iv) freedom movement WAS A MOVEMENT LEAD BY HINDU ELITES. there were only a handful of muslims in it. the gang that wrote history post independence robbed hindus in the name of some secularism of a great victory.
v) the famous saeed naqvi has written that hindus felt cheated on the eve of independence when nehru declared the independent india as secular.
vi) in my opinion muslim league was far more powerful that rss at the time of independence. rss got their chance during emergency and they grabbed it in both hands!!!
I think my question remains that Islam is seen as fixed and unchanging but Muslims don’t seem want to interrogate it.
for instance concessions can easily ameliorate alot of the divide
at least Indian Muslims in their daily life were getting less rigid, but the Saudi wahabbi wave unleashed a ultra orthodox condition which has made life difficult for all.
Exactly and derailed their integration with the rest of us.
NN Taleb’s fabulous article comes to mind.
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15
I don’t know why Indian Muslim integration is such an issue; it feels like Kabir worrying about India. Why does the Hindu mainstream gets so triggered by an insular community, where there are such bigger nationwide issues?
The Jews and the Parsis are also insular; as are the orthodox Hindus. However, their primary identity is Indian. India is inherently pluralistic and multicultural. When pockets of monoculture emerge viewing themselves as distinct from the others, social backlash is almost guaranteed ( Riots, CAA, Article 370, UCC,Waqf Act). Anything perceived as a slight (unfavorable towards them) by the State results in mob violence and destruction. Repeated patterns of such violence result in resentment and anger towards said community. The perception that they want to cherry pick the benefits of a democracy, yet live as per 7th Century Arabia in their exclusive conclaves and further use the rights under the democracy to subvert the nation state is only strengthened.
Why would not be a big problem for national security or economic progress? Especially if it keeps getting derailed by vested interests, where the benefit only of the specific community is sought (at the cost to others) , not of all?
Btw, Europe and specifically Britain are also dealing with this exact same issue now. So it’s not limited to India alone.
but how do they really impact national security or even economic progress. I think the structure limitations of our current economic models (hyper-corporatism) speak for themselves and it’s easy to punch down
Both these articles are by progressive Indian Muslim voices. I value how they’ve articulated the why and the how.
https://theprint.in/opinion/indian-muslims-face-truth-muslim-countries-dont-care/2679116/
https://theprint.in/opinion/religious-autonomy-isnt-absolute-imarat-e-shariah-protest-in-patna-sidelined-pasmandas/2679232/
Till kinship based on religion trumps kinship based on nation — security issues will arise.
The Indian taxpayers cannot be expected to continually subsidize a hostile subgroup that does not contribute holistically to the nation — economic burden.
I think X.T.M you have to ask yourself that question too. The media concentrates on Hindu – Muslim matters because it drives engagement more than anything else.
Progress is being made on nationwide issues….
In the past decade in India
Literacy 74% (2015) – 81% (2025)
Infant mortality 36 (2015) – 24 (2025) per 1000
Life expectancy 69 (2015) – 72yrs (2025)
Open defecation – 70% (2000) – 45% (2015) – Under 15% (2025) (World bank says 11%)
These are all pretty incredible numbers for the size of the country and in a decade with 2 years lost to a pandemic. (Not really credit to the BJP, this was the trajectory earlier too, but they certainly are not guilty of misrule and have been democratically voted out in many states)
You can write all the articles you want about this, people will buy the paper covering riots and gau rakshak and militant killings.
Only Singapore is able to print a paper extolling the virtues of their government all day and get people to buy it.
Integration is important though, interestingly many of the cases demanding uniform civil code have been brought forward by muslims who hope that the courts will be able to use the secular clause in the constitution and bring about change through the back door.
This article (Taleb) is a favorite of mine. We see this happening everywhere, an intransigent minority insists on special status and gets to insidiously pervade the culture with it’s ideology because deep down most of us just want to get along without a fuss.
Cough trans cough cough.
Any objection to this results in labels of phobia and bigotry.
It needs a follow up article which shows how the backlash can end up eroding much more than the reasonable concessions granted in the first place.
“It needs a follow up article which shows how the backlash can end up eroding much more than the reasonable concessions granted in the first place.”
The average Indian is getting more assertive and asking uncomfortable questions that were swept under the carpet by the Congress ecosystem. Hence the flux.
As you rightly say, we just want to get along with minimal fuss. But it has come to a point where only one side was receiving concessions at the cost of the other. This is untenable anywhere.
The Congress secular ideal was the better one. I’m very clear on that. But Pakistan opted out from that in 1947 and now (many) Indians seem to also want to go in that direction. Ironically, Bangladesh (which we seem to forget exists in these discussions) initially declared itself a secular state in its Constitution. Later on at some point, Islam was named as the state religion.
Majoritarianism did win (unfortunately). But I don’t think that just because Pakistan went in one direction we have to resign ourselves to India also going in that same direction.
“Modi is destroying Nehru’s dream”– It’s not so much “Nehru’s dream” as the values of the Indian Constitution.
Countries have to be held to the standards articulated in their constitutions. Pakistan cannot be judged on the basis of secularism because it never claimed to be secular.
Bangladesh is a secular state according to its constitution but also has Islam as the state religion (this was added during Ershad’s dictatorship). This seems clearly contradictory. If a state is truly secular then there can be no such thing as a state religion.
I was not aware that the Muhammad Yunus led interim government had created a constitutional reform commission that called for the removal of secularism from the constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Bangladesh
As for Quaid-e-Azam’s dream: The August 11 speech (“You are free to go to your temples…”) is a pretty good indication of his vision for Pakistan. It’s tragic that he died before being able to set the country in the right direction. Also, it’s deeply ironic that we now live not in “Jinnah’s Pakistan” but in Zia’s.
Q.E.A didn’t have a clear vision it seems in general?
He was a lawyer fighting a case and he said different things to different audiences.
But it seems pretty clear (and a fair historical assessment will show this) that he considered Muslims to be more of an ethnic group than a religious group. He first tried to get assurances from Congress (separate electorates etc). When that failed he started arguing for a separate homeland. But–in his mind– Pakistan was never meant to be run on Islamic lines. It was supposed to be a Muslim state not an Islamic one. Otherwise, the August 11 speech makes no sense. If you are creating an Islamic state than how can you say “Religion will cease to be the business of the state”?
yes but why is it your war out of curiosity?
I think anyone who wants a better future for South Asia should be concerned about India abandoning the secular values of its constitution. Majoritarianism is a feedback loop, Hindu majoritarianism in India increases Muslim majoritarianism in Pakistan.
If it’s not clear by now, I very much admire Pandit Nehru’s vision. People like my family looked to India as an example of what a South Asian country could be. India had rejected the Two Nation Theory. So it’s deeply troubling to see it becoming yet another religious majoritarian state.
That said, of course India can amend its Constitution. If they want to be a Hindu Rashtra, that’s their right. But I would hope that (if you are intellectually consistent) you would judge a Hindu Rashtra as negatively as you judge an Islamic Republic.
Lastly, my views are basically the same as those of the Indian National Congress. The only place where I would disagree with them is on their belief that Kashmir is an “integral part” of India– which for them is a compulsion if they want to operate within the Indian political system.
The INC at the time of Independence is long dead. The current version is a dynastic, extreme left leaning version of itself. Unfortunate, because there needs to be a good, sensible opposition.
Not sure why you keep saying Hindu Rashtra. Without the forced additions IG made to the Preamble, we were as good as a Hindu Rashtra anyway.
Your understanding of a religious autocratic state does not apply to India.
“we were as good as a Hindu Rashtra anyway”– Pandit Nehru (and the others who wrote your constitution) clearly believed in a state for all citizens not just for the majority.
Again, if you want to go in a different direction, it’s your right. But I have the right to judge you for it just as you all judge the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
By Hindu Rashtra, I certainly don’t mean primary status only for the Hindus and secondary status for the rest. I mean we are foundationally a Hindu State or more generally a Dharmic State.
Hindus have literally one country they call their own. There too they’ve been left to bear the burden of one-sided secularism just because one intolerant minority (or maybe to an extent the other Abrahamic one) feels insecure; none of the others mind you.
The intolerance of this minority has created problems the world over. Perhaps it is time to introspect why is it that only Islam is continually at loggerheads where ever it finds itself having to adjust and live with others.
Ok now you’re just being straight up Islamophobic. No point my trying to convince Hindutvadis of anything.
Thankfully India’s founders had better sense than you and created a secular state for all its citizens not a mirror version of Pakistan.
Also thankfully only about 30% of Indian voters vote for the BJP. The other 70% don’t want a Hindu Rashtra.
i) muslim league which was essentially a party of the elite ( both educated and landed gentry) wanted a separate homeland where they would be rulers.
ii) the more traditional jamat e islami wanted to have all of india under muslim rule.
iii) rss wanted all of india under hindu rule.
iv) nehru,patel etc finally opted for partition as their elite muslim counterparts were not allowing any policy decisions. if there would not have been a partition, india would have become a big lebanon.
v) all of jinnah’s “secularism” was proved hollow by the treatment hindus got in pakistan, especially eastern part. sad tale of mondal is great example.
Jinnah died within a year of Pakistan’s creation. How much can you really blame him for?
Thank you all – the threads do provide fodder for the posts.
[…] Nicholas Nassim Taleb once said the more pagan a mind, the more brilliant it might be (excellent article) because it can hold many contradictions without demanding resolution. That capaciousness allows […]
In hindsight, me now thinks – thank god that cancer is away from this body (me living in bengal seeing the horrors of it again coming to fore).
But RSS wud’ve a different view on this one.