1) Vijay’s secularism :
TVK ‘s Vijay and his secularism: A commentator had argued that whilst, other Hindu secularists need to criticize and some need to bad mouth (udayanidhi)Hinduism to be called progressive and secular, Vijay with his ‘Joseph ‘ name can be a secular just by being himself. If he goes the Dravidian way critizing hinduism, all hell will break loose.
Ironically non Hindu leaders, go all the way out by going to temples, wearing kumkum, vibhiti. So does Vijay , and yet claim to be secular.
So he does whatever he knows best, going to places of worship, do token good things in jayalalitha fashion.
2) Tata’s events: A naukar should be one and too much power to him in a closely held family enterprise appears to be the main essence of the tata problem. I feel that the family should regroup and take voting rights of non family members.
Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay
His father is a lapsed Catholic and his mother is an adherent of Hinduism.
Vijay did his schooling at Fathima school, Kodambakkam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Joseph_Vijay
The folklore is that Chandrasekharan not only converted his wife and kids, but also his in-laws and Vijay’s wife”s family.
The Indian political space is now questioned, is carrying the burden of secularism is solely Hindu’s responsibility?
This same question is asked of everyone is carrying the burden of secularism on muslims l( given their support to most secular parties) and even other religiois minorities as well
In reality everyone has to and everyone does, most of the rhetoric that puts the burden exclusively on one community or the other have a particular grouse that has nothing to do with secularism but something else entirely. In your case it is the open criticism to casteism that some Dravidian politicians make.
I also dont think his mother is larping
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/when-thalapathy-vijay-built-shirdi-sai-baba-temple-for-his-mother-shoba-chandrasekhar-mothers-day-2026-special/articleshow/130974778.cms
But for very nosey people ,98% did not know he was Christian. It might not matter much if indeed keeps a neutral stance on religion.
But if he takes a dmk lite position things will be different, for he was not voted for that.
I sometime think you underestimate the average GK of the Indian public.
Do you really think people in Tamil.Nadu dont know his first name and consequently religion
to Christianity?
Yes.
Tata events? Could you elaborate please?
The older family members including Mehli Mistry were just behaving like feudal landlords within the Tata Trust ecosystem. It is a good thing he was shown the door.
Tata sons has no public participation. It is a privately held trust.
So the owners have a right and duty to run the show between themselves.
Clever clerks and butlers should not have decision making powers.
Tata Sons is a holding company. Tata Trusts holds around 66% of shares in Tata Sons.
They may have no option but to go public.
Yes with Indian legal rules right?
Yup, no getting around those loopholes anymore imo. From what I’ve seen, the law has been gradually getting more stringent across domains.
even for the Ambanis?
For example Anil ambani has got loads of cases against him and his funds are seized.
Specifically on corporate structure, I would assume the same laws apply.
However, RIL is listed unlike Tata Sons.
See, there is an underlying aspect in indian politics that applies to Vijay (and even Narendra Modi to an extent) which relates to two main concepts: Legitimacy and Loyalty. To explain this concept, I am just going to do a side tangent and discuss a fascinating book I read recently: “Bridging Two Worlds: Comparing Classical Political Thought and Statecraft in India and China”. In one chapter, they compared Kautilya (the author of the Arthashastra) with the Chinese legalist Han Fei, both of whom are considered to be moral realists. In the study, the author identifies three major points of divergence between Han Fei and Kautilya.
The first main difference stemmed from the fact that Han Fei saw the concept of loyalty as a two-way street; the lord shows loyalty to his vassal, and his vassal shows loyalty to the lord. Kautilya, on the other hand, say loyal as a one-way street, where the lord had to ensure his vassals’ loyalty, but there was no incentive for the lord to be loyal to his vassal. A second difference was the modes of interaction between different political entities. Han Fei sees interactions in two ways: either as equals, where both groups are on an equal footing, or in a hierarchical manner, where one person is a hegemon, and the other is a vassal. Kautilya did not make this distinction; for him, it doesn’t matter if the matter is large or small since they are treated the same either way. Thirdly, Kautilya seemed to have emphasized an ” ends justify the means manner quite extensively since he saw the use of any amoral method as necessary in the path to achieve Dharma order.
All of the above kinda represent an underlying theme (from my perspective) in Indian politics: every leader is always in a position where they lack legitimacy and have to earn it in the eyes of the people, unless they want to lose the people’s loyalty, since that was never something easy to maintain. Vijay, alongside every other political suffers from this conundrum. They do all these grand displays to show their legitimacy in the eyes of the ordinary people and gain their support. Even if they win the most amount of seats and function like a hegemon, their position is never truly secure, and it can be lost at any movement since people’s loyalty could shift at any movement. Above all else, the leader doesn’t share the same identity (religion, caste, race, language, etc.) as their people that they are appealing to daily; loyalty that stems from commonality may be hindered by conflicting interests that stem from their diverging parts of their identity.
The tokenism and broader political decisions follow the old Kautilyan epithet: Sama, Dana, Bheda, Danda. You begin conciliation (sama), then you move to gifting and paying (Dana). If that doesn’t work, then you use tricks, dissension, discord (Bheda). When all else fails, one uses force and violence (Danda). Vijay, in some sense, will begin with Sama, which includes: “praising the person, referring to a relationship (for example, marriage), pointing out common benefits, telling what might happen in the future if something is done in a specific way, and lastly putting oneself at the other’s disposal (Arthashastra 2.10.48-53)”. He probably will begin with some kind of praise, maybe, can’t wait to see how this goes.
Very interesting take. Any thoughts on Machiavelli?
Actually, I don’t even need to share my opinion, since there’s a paper titled “Reexamining Kautilya and Machiavelli: Flexibility and the Problem of Legitimacy in Brahmanical and Secular Realism” by Stuart Grey. The main papers made a few points about the differences between the two positions presented in the main works. Machaievelli looks at state formation as the creation of a new state from scratch, while Kautilya argues that a new state should maintain the older structures without fully starting from scratch. So when an indian king tries to conquer a new place, there is an incentive for them to maintain the historic customary practices in the religion, while a European ruler is incentivized to change the new land to fit the new ideals associated with their state.
Another main difference comes from how individuals look at external and internal constraints. Kautilya enables the ruler to have internal flexibility at the price of being externally restricted, while Machiavelli argues for the reverse: internal constraint and external restriction. A good real-life example would be Bill Clinton’s resignation. During Bill’s reign, there were multiple wars, political conflicts, and other issues, but the main reason he fell from power was due to his sexual conduct. Same thing in reverse with Bush, who started multiple wars and conflicts, but never really fell from power since his personal conduct remained acceptable. For Machiavelli, there is an emphasis on personal conduct and procedure (Internal constraints) since it enables the production of legitimacy, while the ruler has external flexibility (think foreign policy).
The Kautilyan example can be seen in the farmers’ bill protest during Narendra Modi’s second term. A significant portion of the voters in India don’t care about the moral or personal conduct of their leaders since everyone from criminals to saints has been elected over the years. They are given a degree of internal flexibility, often at the price of poor legitimacy and disloyalty in spite of political success. However, they are externally constrained in a manner where they can’t simply change the actual policies of the state as easily as a US president, like Clinton can. When Modi, for example, changed the farming law, he indirectly crossed the external limit given to him, and naturally, it led to a massive backlash. Kinda the reason why, all political parties, despite their moral corruption, never fully break the rules and instead use legal loopholes as well as grey areas to have their way.
very good examples
Minor correction: It’s Sama, Dama, Bheda, Danda. So Dama – bribes, money, concession etc.
Modiji doing bakchodi
https://x.com/GiorgiaMeloni/status/2056983259633062130
“Why don’t you take questions, Mr. Modi?”
https://www.dawn.com/news/2001637
Documentary The Gymnasts of Fisherman Colony To Compete At New York’s Tribeca Festival
https://images.dawn.com/news/1195317/documentary-the-gymnasts-of-fisherman-colony-to-compete-at-new-yorks-tribeca-festival
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/tamil-nadu/story/tamil-nadu-politics-vijay-dravidianism-tamil-nationalism-ltte-sri-lankan-tamil-tigers-tvk-2913731-2026-05-19
An interesting take on Vijay bridging the gap between Tamil nationalism and Dravidianism.
Excerpts from the above article –
BRIDGING DRAVIDIANISM AND TAMIL NATIONALISM
Vijay’s victory ended the six-decade dominance of the DMK and AIADMK, signalling not just a celebrity breakthrough but a larger ideological shift in Tamil Nadu politics.
At the heart of Vijay’s political project lies a delicate yet highly strategic balancing act: the fusion of Dravidianism and Tamil nationalism. Through symbolic gestures, ideological references and emotionally charged political messaging, Vijay has sought to construct what analysts increasingly describe as a “neo-
Dravidian” framework, one that preserves the welfare and social justice foundations of traditional Dravidian politics while placing Tamil identity and civilisational pride at its emotional core.
DBS Jeyaraj, Fearless Chronicler of Sri Lanka’s Ethnic Conflict and Tamil Struggle, Passes Away
https://thewire.in/south-asia/dbs-jeyaraj-fearless-chronicler-of-sri-lankas-ethnic-conflict-and-tamil-struggle-passes-away
Art is supposed to be borderless: Hasan Raheem says he enjoyed working with his ‘brother’ Talwiinder
https://images.dawn.com/news/1195320/art-is-supposed-to-be-borderless-hasan-raheem-says-he-enjoyed-working-with-his-brother-talwiinder
I recently had the opportunity to visit Rakhigarhi with a professional archaeologist, who’s conducting excavations there.
Considering this blogs provenance in the old gnxp-sphere and the general interest in history of the participants, I believe this might be an update of interest.
It was certainly very overwhelming to hold shards of pottery in my hand that mostly likely have not been touched by a human in at least 4000 years.
Do you want to
Write on your experience.
Welcome back
That is awesome. Would be great if you could share your thoughts along with some pictures.
I still remember taking a bumpy 4+ hour one-way car ride to go and visit Lothal in the late 1990s. I was annoyed by the lack of protection of the site, and the sad little ‘museum’ they had on site. I hope things have improved since then. Contrast that with, say how Akrotiri in Greece is protected – they built an entire museum over and around the archeological site – tourists can actually walk the streets, walk past excavated homes, beds pots etc.
ASI does some good work, but the funding and the quality of facilities is long overdue massive investment and management upgrades.
Yeah, that is directly related to India becoming richer.
All of these are higher on the Maslow scale.
Forget secularism or pluralism, this is a call for civil strife coming from the government itself. Muslim students being forced to recite vande mataram in UP was the primary cause of Pakistan Movement taking off from there in late 1930’s.
https://x.com/i/status/2057295983026037224
I am not really a proponent of compulsion but I am unclear on what exactly is the problem with Vande Mataram. What’s the big deal really.
1) It’s clearly considered ‘shirk’ which is a red line for Muslims. Very much akin to forcing vegetarian Hindus to eat Beef.
2) It was published in a novel that called to wage war against Muslims in India and to expel them and this song was part of that storyline. Ironically the novel was pro-British.
Smacks of religious chauvinism and manufactured controversy really.
Many traditionally vegetarian Hindu castes eat meat and for that matter even beef, especially amongst the more urbanized westernized classes.
A lot of Indian Muslims, especially celebrities already indulge in “shirk” like idol worship, marrying Hindus (both genders) without conversion etc.
Even the most famous contemporary version of Vande Mataram was composed by an Indian Muslim, A.R. Rahman.
Considering there is no major backlash against these celebrities other than the odd fatwa, I assume these are “minor” transgressions compared to “major” ones (like what the Ahmadis do).
So while this might be a red line for Pakistani Muslims, don’t see why it should be for Indian Muslims.
The Actor Salman Khan and his enthusiastic support for the annual Ganesh Chaturthi festivities is affectionately embraced – by most Indians, whether hindu or Muslim.
Such syncretism is a matter of pride not “shirk”. The Wahabbist re-assertion of radical fundamentalism over subcontinental Islam has been incredibly toxic, and arguably self-harm to the sub-continent’s muslim society.
Lots of Hindu bollywood actors eat beef when they are abroad and have easy access to it. As per this ridiculous logic, is proof that Hindus can eat beef without it being a big deal.
When shakahari Hindus start eating beef, I think people will take them more seriously when they start preaching about the benefits of ”syncretism” which only goes one way. Otherwise it’s the same old trick that great leaders like Jinnah and Iqbal saw, their pretentious talk about syncretism is just another way to oppress you. As the famous saying goes about them: “baghal main churi, moon pe raam raam”
OK “baghal main churi, moon pe raam raam” is actually Hinduphobic.
You really don’t need to turn into the Pakistani version of BB.
The song ‘Vande Mataram’ is clearly Islamophobic.
I think it’s completely fine to bring out some steroetypes to counter it, especially when its proponents act like that stereotype. Their intentions are well known, but they pretend.
Don’t fight fire with fire..
Agree “Vande Mataram” is Islamophobic. And it is “shirk”.
All I’m saying is don’t turn into the Pakistani BB.
It’s a good thing all Indian students are singing it; Madrassa or not..
There is always Pakistan or Bangladesh for who don’t wish their children to sing it.
Exactly. Pakistani traditions/laws don’t translate to India.
In Pakistan conversion might be required for Muslim non-Muslim marriage by law and is “shirk” otherwise but India has the Special Marriage Act to facilitate it.
Almost all of the big Muslim actors/actresses of Bollywood married Hindu (Madhubala, Waheeda, Nargis in the old days, Shahrukh, Aamir in recent times).
In fact you can count the number of Muslim-Muslim marriages between big actors on one hand.
This is why, more Pakistans need to be created from India to protect Islam from this unprovoked onslaught. West Bengal is natural part of Bangladesh, while Pakistan should look to absorb Punjab.
How will this happen exactly
The ‘K’ of your acronym btw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moow-Lq1mUE
Maybe try “absorbing” it first.
Mauqa Mauqa
Mauqa Mauqa
“There is always Pakistan or Bangladesh for who don’t wish their children to sing it”–
Sorry but this is like the Hindu Right telling Indian Muslims to “Go to Pakistan”.
Indian Muslims are Indian citizens. They should not be compelled to sing Hindu songs. “Vande Mataram” is a hymn to the Mother Goddess. It is not part of Islam.
Now, if someone wants to sing this song it is his or her choice. But compelling children to sing it is something else.
This is not done in a constitutionally secular state.
Which is evolving .. states evolve beyond the constitution
As long as the state is secular, Indian Muslims cannot be compelled to sing Hindu songs.
If the country becomes a “Hindu Rashtra” then fine.
The problem is the compulsion.
Surely if the Pakistani state made non-Muslim students sing Islamic songs, you would be appalled?
And Pakistan is an Islamic Republic. We have never pretended to be secular.
Forget secular state, this is not even done in any non secular state, except the most ethno-fascist or stalinist-communist countries.
Exactly. Many liberal westernized Hindus eat beef without it being an issue.
Similarly many liberal westernized Muslims in India openly eat pork, drink alcohol, do murti puja, marry non-Muslims without conversion (and celebrate each other’s festivals), are openly homosexual etc.
India is not an Islamic country so the laws allow all of this.
Considering there really isn’t much of a backlash to any of this apart from random fatwas and social media posts by hardliners, I would guess these are relatively “minor” transgressions. No one is disowning them from being Muslim like Ahmadis or trying to assassinate them like Rushdie.
I would assume as India liberalizes/westernizes further, more Muslims (and Hindus/Sikhs/Christians) will converge into this class. Just like it did for Turkey and the central Asian stans.
“Syncretism” is beautiful. It is the future.
Pakistanis might not like it but then it is not their country. They are free to do what they like in their own country.
Pictured:
Hindu Shivam Dube celebrating Eid with his Muslim wife
Muslim Zaheer Khan doing puja with his Hindu wife
do you have evidence for the pork eating behaviour – Muslims almost never eat pork unless they are completely atheistic
Some of my relatives actually eat pork. But they are not religious.
Anecdotally, my friends. Of course they are “cultural” Muslims rather than religious but they exist.
As far as evidence –
Hussain Shahzad is one of India’s biggest chefs and is behind some of India’s most famous restaurants including Bombay Canteen, O Pedro, Papa’s etc.
Here he is doing a suckling pig for Easter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfgeFRuHc2o
I have friends who are proudly hindu and consume beef. Thats their choice. I or others don’t get to ‘gatekeep’ and browbeat personal choices.
Your hinduphobia is leaking again with these TNT bigoted tropes of churi etc.
When a government starts feeding your friends who DONT consume beef, beef.. then you can draw equivalency. We can then just tell you its your religious chaivinism because its just food.
That’s why I do think Shias integrate rather well – Bohras, Khojas, the Lucknavi ones.
Sunni Wahabbism has to be fought by liberalism. An “Ataturkization” if you will.
Is it not for Muslims to decide how they will modernise or are they too be robbed of that autonomy.
As we can when it comes to caste there aren’t very honest conversations about that
Yes, of course it is entirely up to them. But within a certain legal framework which is equal for everyone.
Thing is Ambedkar/Nehru did the massive Hindu reforms back in the day. Caste based discrimination is illegal. Caste based reservations exist in legislature as well as education/jobs. The SC/ST atrocity act exists.
Of course, passing laws do not change the structural nature of society immediately or discrimination but it at least shapes a path forward.
And these reforms were done without the “autonomy” of the vast majority of the Hindu populace and faced significant pushback by both the Hindu right and members of Congress.
Regressive norms cannot be allowed to exist under the condition of “autonomy”.
The Congress party often indulged the worse tendencies of conservative Islam (Shah Bano case) which does play a part in keeping Muslims backward.
The government taking legal steps to facilitate “modernization” is not wrong. Ataturk did in Turkey and the Soviets did it in the Central Asian stans.
We cannot have a situation where only Muslims get to decide how Muslims will live because then you can keep extending that logic to subgroup after subgroup depending on caste, sect, gender etc.
In their personal life, Muslims are free to do what they want – if they wish to wear a hijab/grow a beard, marry/not marry non Muslims, drink alcohol/eat pork etc. And there will be different effects amongst different social groups (both positive/negative) but that is for them to choose.
But autonomy can extend to personal choices, not unequal laws.
Ideal Indian Shia 😀
I mean if he was magically resurrected in the present day, he would choose to live in Bombay and probably would vote for Modi.
What he envisioned for Pakistan and what Pakistan has become are, let’s say “very different” for lack of a polite word.
There is a reason his entire bloodline lives in India (as does the Raja of Mahmudabad’s).
Droll
Salman Khan is a product of Love Jihad, while Shahrukh is a practicing Love Jihadi.
Portraying them as a symbol of syncretism is just hilarious when half the people are whining here about Love Jihad.
The jokes write themselves
I mean, if it leads to more “shirk” practicing Muslims, I am all for it.
I never did whine about “Love Jihad”. And people have a problem with conversions.
I am absolutely okay with marriages with no conversions (for which the Special Marriage Act 1954 is there) and where the couple celebrates each other’s traditions.
A truly syncretic feminist equal marriage.
And anyone calling these “Love Jihad” or the Hindu equivalent “Bhagwa Love Trap” is an idiot.
Using your logic Sanjay Dutt is a product of “Bhagwa Love Trap”, while Hrithik is a practicing “Bhagwa Love Trapper”.
But the reality is that these are rich elite alcoholic drug-imbibing libertines who have more in common with each other than the vast majority of people of their religion.
This is the same reason Jinnah married a non Muslim as did his daughter (“shirk” according to Islamic law).
Because there are things above religion – like common interests, hobbies, worldviews etc.
Therefore, they are not relevant to this discussion.
They are, because their existence implies the possibility.
The liberalization/westernization of India that has come with the economic rise has not unaffected Indian Muslims.
While obviously not on the terms of movie stars, Indian Muslims are also feeling the effects of this “westernization” – feminism, female autonomy, education etc.
Their TFR has the sharpest drop between all groups and is now almost at replacement.
India’s continued economic progress will accelerate this process.
“Jinnah married a non-Muslim”– and promptly converted her to Islam.
Ruttie Petit became Maryam Jinnah.
The Quaid converting his wife to Islam is exactly how it should be under Islamic law.
You seem proud of that?
I personally don’t care who marries whom (whatever their religion, caste or even gender).
BB said “Jinnah married a non-Muslim”. My factual response was that he converted her to Islam.
There is no way that the leader of the Muslim League could have had a non-Muslim wife. That was the context of the time.
And that was her personal choice.
What exactly is your point?
I’ve just said above that I don’t care who marries whom. I don’t care if two men marry each other or two women marry each other.
The point was there are things above religion – like common interests, hobbies, worldviews etc. That was what my original comment was.
I don’t disagree with that.
But it is empirically true that most Indians marry within their religion and caste.
Anyway, using the Quaid’s marriage or Dina Jinnah’s marriage to make your point is not a good argument.
and so they got a country and those who were not happy in India went to Pakistan.
The fact is that Hindus were denied a chance of singing the full song, which was the anthem of freedom movement.
The British would arrest anyone singing vande Mataram and many hindus were arrested.
This is just a political stance.
The mughal miniatures show the royals with a halo!! equating them with divinity. No issues here.
The royals were called zill -e-ilahi.
The lack of participation of the Muslims in freedom struggle is also a reason that these objections are being raised.
Getting jailed for years on end without result, is called ‘freedom struggle’ for Indians which is hilarious. Indians had no hand in getting their freedom. The Brits basically gave out freedom to India, only because the Germans had wrecked them and the Americans -who they were indebted to- wanted to end the British empire. Indians achieved nothing on their own really.
There was only one actual freedom struggle in India. That was in 1857. Most “Indians” sided with British to put it down.
Indians certainly had a hand in getting the Bangladeshis’ freedom. And it didn’t take “years on end” but merely 13 days.
Like Nelson Mandela? Just being happily in jail. Imran khan?
Imran Khan cannot be compared to Nelson Mandela.
Mandela fought apartheid.
IK got on the wrong side of the Pakistan Army. That’s why he’s in jail. He can make a deal with them at any time (provided they are willing to make a deal with him).
How many divisions did Mandela command to free South Africa from apartheid?
Tata should probably list
I think Tata Sons is a charity trust. Recently charity commissioner was involved there.
If it gets listed, it becomes a for profit only enterprise. In any case all its subsidiary companies are listed.
Pakistan has done much much worse to its minorities; Aasiyah Bibi?
Who is defending that?
I have written an entire essay on the Blasphemy Law.
For reference:
https://kabiraltaf.substack.com/p/the-assassination-of-salman-taseer
An Islamic Republic cannot be compared to a constitutionally secular state. This is intellectually untenable.
Suitably chastened by you & Q; we have written a mea culpa in our latest dispatch, the Long Night.
“The BJP’s victory in West Bengal belies Bengali exceptionalism and bhadralok liberalism”
By Ankush Pal
https://www.himalmag.com/politics/bjp-west-bengal-bhadralok-caste-hindutva
Mark rubio goes straight to sisters of charity in kolkota and then attends to official business.
Is he playing to his Bible belt. Also said that they want relaxation on foreign contribution act.
It somehow reinforces the view that abrahamanic clergy are a fifth column.
Funnily does any body know who heads the sisters of charity now? Once a white face goes, west is not all that interested!!
Interesting article on the Tata Sons controversy.
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/markets/tata-sons-rs-25-lakh-crore-empire-ingovern-says-tata-trusts-internal-differences-strengthen-case-for-listing-13929145.html/amp