Nachiketa – Brown Pundits

The saffron and the crescent – why BP matters

Nachiketa — Wed, 13 May 2026 13:01:15 +0000

I have often noticed something distinctive that Brown pundits—especially Pakistani Muslim commentators—bring to the table.

I will highlight two or three comments from previous posts that shed light on an important aspect often missing from Indian discourse.

One comment by Kabir from about 25 days ago stated:

“Muslims tend to be more intransigent vis-à-vis conversion of a spouse.” Sharia is very clear on this point. A Muslim man may marry a Christian or Jewish woman without her converting. A Muslim woman, however, cannot marry a non‑Muslim man; there are no exceptions for women. Of course, Kareena Kapoor married Saif Ali Khan without converting to Islam, but that was not a nikaah. Under Islamic law, they are not considered married—though I doubt either of them is concerned about that.

Another important comment by Kabir was:

“Hinduism, by definition, is actually very offensive to Islam. Idol worship is probably one of the worst sins a Muslim can commit. Obviously, Hindus are entitled to believe what they want—I have no issue with that. But a fundamental reason why Muslims find Hinduism distasteful is because it is not monotheistic.”

I did not find either of these comments offensive (some Hindus may have done so). On the contrary, they reflect a candid and honest analysis on Kabir’s part and are quite instructive. Such observations are largely absent from Indian liberal discourse because Indian liberals—secular, Hindu, and Muslim alike—tend to shy away from confronting the uncomfortable mismatch between Hindu and Islamic worldviews. This is fundamentally a clash of outlooks. The inability to address it honestly creates more problems today than necessary.

Looking at Pew data on attitudes toward inter‑religious marriage, Hindus and Muslims appear to be similarly conservative, with a very high proportion in both communities opposing interfaith marriages. However, in the outlier 1–2% of cases where such marriages do occur, Muslims often insist on conversion, whereas Hindus—who may oppose such marriages nearly as vehemently—generally do not insist on conversion.

This asymmetry echoes a point XTM makes in his post on Hinduphobia. Despite over a thousand years of interaction between Hindus and Muslims on the subcontinent, cases of genuine synthesis—though often celebrated—remain outliers.

Another example of asymmetry: while it is true that there is considerable distrust of Muslims among Hindus today (one may call this bigotry or something else), outright disrespect for Islamic traditions or for the Islamic Prophet is very rare among Hindus. Even staunch Hindutvavadis (though this may have shifted somewhat in recent years) have traditionally maintained that their issues are with Indian Muslims, not with Islam or the Prophet.

As a result, when controversies such as the cartoons issue or The Satanic Verses arise, many Hindus—even those who harbor some prejudice toward Muslims—tend to support the Muslim position on blasphemy. Owing to their worldview, Hindus generally regard holy prophets with a largely positive outlook (and this is even more pronounced in the case of Jesus).

The converse, however, is less common. It is quite frequent to encounter ordinary Muslims—who may or may not be personally bigoted—being openly disrespectful toward Hindu deities. This is not surprising when viewed in light of core Islamic attitudes toward idol worship.

The Amazon Prime series Paatal Lok once depicted a Hindu police officer refraining from offering prasad to his Muslim colleague, while the Muslim colleague extended a helping hand. In my own corporate experience, I have often seen the reverse: a Hindu offering prasad from their ancestral deity—sometimes following a pilgrimage they had dreamt of for decades—European and American Christian colleagues making extra efforts during such exchanges due to cultural conditioning, and Muslim colleagues politely refusing the prasad. Such interactions can fuel long‑lasting resentments.

There may be other sources of friction as well, possibly from the other side. For instance, Muslims and Christians might feel uncomfortable walking through streets filled with Hindu deities during festivals—or perhaps most do not.

However, if these issues are to be addressed in public discourse, there must be an honest acknowledgment of this asymmetry. This is not merely a clash of civilizations, but a clash of outlooks. As some commentators have noted, even American Christians are now encountering Hindu deities more visibly with the growth of Hinduism in the United States.

I do not claim to know if and how—these issues should be resolved. But one thing is clear to me: if this space helps surface these uncomfortable truths honestly, it is doing something worthwhile.

Biggest takeaway of Assembly elections

Nachiketa — Thu, 07 May 2026 11:33:13 +0000

I was listening to this interview of pollster Pradeep Gupta with Barkha Dutt and this line stuck out. {Copied at relevant point}

Last few assembly elections including the Maharashtra landslide were suggesting that direct cash transfers to women 1 year prior to elections was turning elections sharply in favor of incumbent. Notable examples being BJP in MP in 2023, JMM in Jharkhand 2025, BJP in MH 2025 etc.

All 5 states went into handout mode in late 2025-2026 for this election, but incumbents have only one in 2 small states out of the 5 states. Most notably – DMK which has spend significant amount from state funds last year {apart from usual vote for Cash campaign} has lost big. My contacts in TN tell me that both DMK and AIADMK had spend their significant party coffers on cash for votes – whereas T Vijay had not – only giving away flags and whistles. {not sure if this is 100% true but seemed to be the sentiment}.

If true this truly is the biggest positive of these election results.

Also appending Shekhar Gupta’s post
Key takeaways from West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala elections

Matuas – Dalits mostly from Bangladesh – who are one of the communities specifically touched by SIR had backed BJP despite that – owling to increased violence against them in Bangladesh :

Why Bangladesh played a big role in BJP’s West Bengal win

Ayan Guha, British Academy International Fellow at the Department of Anthropology, University of Sussex, told ThePrint that while it is a fact that a substantial section of the Matuas has suffered exclusion from electoral rolls due to SIR, it seems they have chosen to stay with the BJP this election. The reason, Guha believes, is Bangladesh.

“While this exclusion has created anxiety and frustration, it is quite evident that the BJP still remains their preferred choice. It clearly appears that widespread violence and atrocities committed on the Hindus in post-Hasina Bangladesh have made them vote as Hindu refugees,” Guha said.

Citizenship Amendment Act – the straw that broke the camel’s back

Nachiketa — Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:21:23 +0000

Since the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, which culminated in the demolition of the Babri Masjid, nothing has polarized Indian politics and society as much the Citizenship Amendment Act. On its own, its fair to assume that CAA is not a particularly insidious piece of legislature, but when it gets combined with National Register of Citizens (NRC) as explained by Amit Shah below, it becomes some to be vary of.

As Amit Shah stated, CAB(A) will be applied before carrying out the process of NRC. In his own words, the refugees(non Muslim migrants) will be granted citizenship and the infiltrators (Muslim migrants – he also referred to them as termites at one instance) will be thrown out or prosecuted (there was some talk of throwing them into the Bay of Bengal).

Its clear to conclude that by refugees – he means Bangladeshi Muslims who reside illegally in India as almost no Muslims from Pakistan and Afghanistan come to India illegally with an intention a better life. (When they do cross the LOC illegally, they’re treated as enemy combatants or terrorists)

The ACT:

The instrumental part of the act reads

any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014 and who has been exempted by the Central Government by or under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or order made thereunder, shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the purposes of this Act

While this amendment to the ACT is seen as problematic, one must point out that large portions of the existing ACT are also extremely problematic – most of which were added after 1955 under various governments at various times. In particular the 1986 amendment (under Rajiv Gandhi) – which meant children born to both illegal immigrants wouldn’t get citizenship. This is seen as a contradiction with the Birthright naturalization (Jus soli ) principle of the Constitution. The 2003 amendment (under Vajpayee) further restricted citizenship to children, when either of their parents is an illegal immigrant.

The 2003 amendment also prevented illegal immigrants from claiming naturalization by some other legal means. So in short with the CAA 2019, this particular amendment (2003) has been annulled for Non Muslims who have come to Indian sovereign land from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In other words, the CAA facilitates the imagination of India as the natural homeland of subcontinental Non-Muslims (but not a Hindu Rashtra or Hindu State).

Objective Reasons for opposing the CAA:

The CAA 2019 doesn’t include the word “persecuted minorities” which has been the first line of defense from the government when asked to explain the logic of the Act.
The communities like Ahmadiyas & Hazaras are not protected in the Act. One can argue reasonably that Ahmadiyas are as persecuted in Pakistan as Hindus or Christians. The insincere defense presented by the government to this question is utterly unconvincing. (that Indian state recognizes these groups as Muslims). Additionally no one can deny that Atheists(Apostates) and Shia are also considered anathema in some fundamentalist Sunni cultures (in Pakistan/ Bangladesh), hence a humanitarian act would protect the persecuted among these too.
Sri lankan Tamils (Hindus, Christians & some Muslims) and Tibetan Buddhists are not included in the act. Tibetan Buddhists who have fled the Chinese communist state in the 50s and 60s are yet not naturalized citizens of India.
The cut off date of 31 December 2014 appears arbitrary. If the aim of the act is humanitarian as it claims, why have a cutoff date in first place ? Surely these communities continue to be persecuted even after 2014.
If the aim of the act was truly humanitarian, naturalization could have been accelerated for these communities without the ACT. Till date under 32000 people have taken refugee under this act.

Subjective fear-induced reasons for opposing the CAA:

This ACT is the last straw that has broken the metaphorical camel’s back. The 5 years of first Modi government, which were seen as a highly polarized time, concluded with an even more polarizing Election campaign. Ticket to Sadhvi Pragya, divisive speeches by the BJP president and others, almost Zero tickets given to Muslim candidates outside the Kashmir Valley – all had pushed the Anti BJP sentiment to a new high. The introduction of CAA, the violence in JNU/Jamia, the Liberal media outrage all pushed the opponents of Modi government & BJP (including considerable number of non political Muslims) to see the CAA-NRC protests as their last stand.
The opponents of the act say that act was meant as a bandage of the badly executed NRC in Assam. Its claimed that more than 50% of the 11 lac exclusions from the Assam NRC (i am unsure of the latest numbers) are Hindus. BJP cant afford to throw these under the bus (large reason for growing voteshare of BJP in north east are these migrants), while wanting to exclude the Bangladeshi Muslims from the franchise.
Given the pathetic state of affairs in India state, its fair to assume that an exercise like NRC will lead to significant collateral damage. Even if innocent Indians citizens (particularly Muslims) are not disenfranchised, they will surely will have to suffer the Kafkaesque bureaucracy. When dealing with populations of crores, even a error of the magnitude of 0.0001% will lead to thousands of personal tragedies. While its logically coherent to assume no state could take such a rash decision, examples like Demonetization and Covid Lockdown migrant fiasco remind us something else.
There is a fear among some of the Anti Hindutva folks (largely misguided imho) that CAA-NRA will be used perniciously by the state to disenfranchise all those who oppose the Hindutva ideology (Particularly Dalits and Tribals). (Intelligent and articulate politicians like Prakash Ambedkar, public figures like Varun Grover, Javed Akhtar and many others are guilty of stoking these unsubstantiated fears.). There has been an end justify means (dishonest ) attack on CAA-NRC from the left which is largely counterproductive imho.
And last but not the least – CAA-NRC is largely seen by a section of liberal india as the next Ram Mandir for the BJP. Shekhar Gupta makes this very point in the following video.
Many see this as an Inflection point for India – as the conception of Homeland of Muslims was for Pakistan. The pettiness with which the BJP has handled the Aatish Taseer case has raised serious questions in minds of many. Its not hysterical to assume that citizenship could be thus weaponized for petty politics.

Why CAA – NRC remains popular ?

Link to article:

The fear the ten year religious census evoke in the non Muslim communities by and large cannot be understated. This is true for Christians in Northeast/ Goa/ Kerala too – not just Hindutva folks. Assam/W.Bengal & Kerala have crossed the threshold of comfort for most non Muslims (Kerala Christians are turning to RSS). The logical explanation for the disproportionate growth of Muslims is a long-winded and difficult to appreciate for most people (who are already driven by fear). Unless we get a charismatic lefty figure (Gandhi-like figure) who can calm the fears- i am afraid support for exclusionary CAA-NRC laws will continue in the silent majority. The Liberal side would do well to address these fears instead of dismissing them as fears of bigots. Its important to distinguish fear at rise of Muslims vs Christians. Most ordinary Hindus who have a life don’t care if Christians rise as a % of population (including coercive conversions) no matter how much Hindutvavadis scream about it. Hence despite being monotheistic, Christianity doesn’t evoke similar fear as Islam owing to a range of past and present problems.
A significant section of Hindus (idelogical RSS/BJP) people have long espoused an explicitly Hindu Rashtra (not state). This thought is by no means a majority even among Hindus, but a significant minority nonetheless.
Indians by and large are under the charm and propaganda influence of the Cult of Modi. When he says jump – they ask how high ? no matter their previous or personal ideological beliefs.

Why i oppose CAA-NRC ?

I second all the objective critiques of CAA mentioned above.
I do not trust the BJP government under Modi and especially Amit Shah to be fair.
The Kafkaesque state of India is likely to do more collateral damage than good with the NRC.
I am extremely apprehensive of the dog-whistling and polarization which is a natural outcome (maybe desired by the BJP) of pursuing the policy of CAA-NRC.
If i were a born Muslim – i would’ve have been uncomfortable with the CAA.
While i grant the Hindutva folks the argument – most the opposition to CAA is due to the fact that BJP has brought that in. Yes that is indeed true – most of even my opposition to CAA stems from the subjective unease than concrete/objective criticisms.
I feel the CAA dilutes India’s moral claim on Kashmir. I feel its akin to accepting the Two nation theory.

The argument often made by Hindutva folks is that even if India becomes a Hindu Pakistan it wouldn’t be even be half as bad as Pakistan –

largely due to fundamental differences Hinduism & Islam
large size & diversity of India
integrated service economy which will prevent worst forms of majoritarianism (i am a bit skeptical of this argument)
democratic spirit which has percolated to certain extend in the franchise.

While i grant some of these arguments as I am just unwilling to take the risk.

The Dharmic Rashtra i wouldnt oppose: (thought not fully SUPPORT)

An imagination of India as the civilization which is predominantly Hindu or Dharmic and hence plural is something i can support to a certain extent. If such conception leads a state like Great Britain or Denmark (where these countries are concretely Christian – yet in application there is often very negligible discrimination) it could help assuage some of the identity concerns of Hindus without necessarily ruffling other communities.
As a person who identifies as a Hindu Atheist – i wouldn’t mind it if Indian Islam & Christianity come under the Wider Dharmic umbrella as other sects did before the Brits interfered (Stable equilibrium). This appears as wishful thinking nonetheless and hence i am skeptical of the Hindutva project.
What would be more realistic to hope is a neutral yet tolerant equilibrium where these monotheisms act as Zoroastrianism and Judaism in India. It can be argued that these 2 denominations are too tiny to be successful models of integration for large and particularly uncompromising monotheisms. (Neutral equilibrium)
Both these outcomes would be a marked positive over the current Unstable & Unequal equilibrium.

This crude analogy offers some insights in my understanding the interactions of various religions (for a lack of better word) with the Dharmic/Indic world.

Post Script:

I have not addressed the concerns of people of the North east in this piece. None of the critique above justifies the apparent encouragement of illegal immigration (Muslim) done by the Congress and other left parties over the years. The accusation that Trinamool have actively encouraged illegal immigration in West Bengal appears to have some truth to it. Whether the NRC is implemented in West Bengal or not – i foresee some bloody years ahead for land of the Bhadraloks.

I must make it clear that i have no sympathy for violent demonstrations and even Chakka Jams (Road blocks). If the opposition to CAA is serious, their time and energy would be better spend in traversing the width and length of the country and starting a Liberal movement rooted in ground realities (a mirror to RSS). It takes hard and long work to bring about desired change in politics & society (ask the RSS). The CAA passed through both houses & truly represents the will of the people – the road to annul it must begin from the people on ground and not Courts or demonstrations (any such intervention from blackmail will be detrimental to the liberal cause in long run).

As this is a highly consequential debate, i welcome all feedback short of abuse.

Post Post Script:

CAA doesn’t grant ASYLUM to oppressed minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan. It grants Citizenship (including voting rights) above residence to those who have crossed over before January 2015.

IMO – ASYLUM >> CITIZENSHIP on priorities

At the Heart of the conflict

Nachiketa — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 17:33:17 +0000

Reams of digital pages on this forum have been devoted to India–Pakistan relations and the broader Hindu–Muslim, or Muslim–non-Muslim, conflict. I think most of these discussions miss the crucial issue at the heart of these conflicts.

I will try to navigate to that core. This particular reflection was triggered by a news item that broke recently:

TCS Nashik conversion case widens: Undercover women cops, Malaysia-linked preacher angles surface – India Today

If, twelve years into the Modi government’s Hindutva agenda, a dozen educated Muslim employees can allegedly engineer a conversion racket in TCS—with all its POSH and diversity guidelines—one wonders what Muslim radicals might get away with in majority-Muslim countries.

One doesn’t need to wonder. A Dawn report from 2014 alleged that around 1,000 non-Muslim girls are forcibly converted and married off every year. Even if the number is 100, that is a huge number for 2-3% of population. The demographic change in East Bengal over the last eight decades is a testament to these currents.

The grooming gang scandal in the UK was hushed up for decades, though one might almost expect such things in a “soft,” “liberal” country like the UK. But even in so-called “saffron India,” where Muslims are supposedly under danger (as Indian left-wing media would have you believe), one finds dozens of such scandals across states. I will link just one such report:

Family of Man Killed by Girlfriend’s Family Says Killers Told Him to Accept Islam or Call Off Relationship | Swati Goel Sharma

Today, I am not in the mood to conduct a statistical analysis to separate noise from signal. However, when I did this exercise about four years ago, I came across four times as many such stories as those related to beef lynchings. Maybe some other day. These instances may well be noise—but if this is noise, then the anti-Muslim violence one hears so much about is an even lighter noise.

Has the history of past victories against idolators imbibed so much confidence in the supposedly downtrodden? I would not be surprised if this is spun as revenge against “systemic Brahmanical corporate discrimination.”

Sadly, the behavior of a significant fringe (and what exactly constitutes a fringe?) isn’t the only problem. Sexual crime is widespread in India across communities, but what is alarming is that one hardly sees any prominent Muslim voices being guilt-tripped into public shame. Just imagine the outcry—in global media as well as among Hindus themselves—if ten Hindu leaders were caught force-feeding Muslim juniors pork.

For liberal Hindus, distancing themselves from their co-religionists isn’t enough; they often go further, masochistically making mountains out of molehills. For liberal Muslims, the initial instinct is to worry about how such incidents will be used to demonize Muslims. This self-preservation instinct was also prevalent in the Valley during the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus.

Take another example: our resident BP author Kabir. Many of his posts focus on rising Hindutva and abuse in India, but I don’t recall him posting about the systemic abuse of Hindu and Christian girls in Pakistan. I am not alleging that he (or others) condone these actions, but the silence itself is systemic.

While I have often argued that this conflict is only nominally historical, I am now wondering whether I was wrong about that.

A famous politician from Hyderabad once said, “Hum in Hinduón pe raaj karte the” (“We used to rule over these Hindus”), to a large, cheering audience. The Pakistan project was largely driven by a “we were rulers” mindset—but it didn’t stop there.

Why did Pakistan start four wars (or perhaps three, if we ignore 1971) with India despite the size differential? The Pakistani establishment believed it could overcome India’s numerical advantage. Does the history of Islamic victories against idolators continue to imbibe confidence among believers in the 21st century? When Jinnah called for Direct Action Day in a Hindu-majority population, was he thinking along these lines? Did the conspirators in the TCS case draw courage from historical victories such as those of Alauddin Khilji?

This may appear far-fetched to my rational mind—but perhaps those without a rational mind see it differently.

Why Hindutva Worries me: Annual Onam debates

Nachiketa — Mon, 31 Aug 2020 12:24:05 +0000

This is first in the series of blogposts I plan to write about my worries with Hindutva.

Every year on Onam, social media witnesses flame wars between Hindutva and Anti Hindutva forces. The point of contention often is the Hindutva assertion that Onam is Vamana Jayanti and the counter to that is Onam is a secular harvest festival of Kerala. BJP handles have been tweeting their versions of Onam ever since they have been active on internet. The level to which both sides are unwilling to compromise on occasions of festivals – which ought to reflect human community celebrations, is petty. This year Arvind Kejriwal, flush with his success as modeling himself as a Hindu (or Soft Hindutva), took to twitter with this. It was met with a reply from Shashi Tharoor which in turn was countered by ever growing internet Hindutva – including the widely popular TrueIndology. One cant expect these flame wars to subside anytime soon, given the interest people have been taking in history & hindutva these days.

For decades, liberals have critiqued the Hindutva project as exclusionary. The Hindutva response is – wrt Abhrahamic faiths – if that only these people (religions) connected with the culture on ground and accepted native customs along with their own customs, we wouldn’t protest. For the Hindutvavadis, the said project was always Indianize (not Hinduize they claim) these monotheistic faiths, so that these faiths are more integrated in the larger Indian society. By that train of logic the Hindutvavadis should be happy if Keralites Christians & Muslims celebrate Onam as a Secular festival. Couldn’t this be held as a beacon of syncretic Keralite culture which the country should follow ? For most times, festivals evolve and change with times, their origins though not irrelevant, tend to become less salient as time goes on. The origins of Christmas are testament to the fluid nature of festivals. Onam in Kerala is a truly spectacular festival full of dances, food, music, boat racing and many things, not unlike Diwali. Across the world, harvest seasons have festivals and religious significance because of the underlying material importance. Do contested origins of festivals matter or the human community experience of festivals matters? Nowruz (whether that is an Iranian mirror of Holi is something that interests me) celebrated by the broader Iranian people, after a millennium of Islam is a testament to the longevity festivals rooted in culture. The insistence of always getting sole ownership of the Onam story comes of as toxic chauvinism & deliberately exclusionary IMO. Yet every year, there are the same debates around Onam with Keralite Christians and Muslims abused for trying to own Onam in a way they have come to define it. (Ricebags and other demeaning words are often used).

The apparently ironic way the Hindutva movement is becoming very much like its primary enemy is not really unprecedented. VD Savarkar, the foremost and most intellectual ideologue of Hindutva was critical of Muslims and Christians putting their religion above the country. Sadly during the negotiations of princely states, Savarkar himself campaigned for independent Hindu Travancore against the plans of Sardar Patel. It can be alleged he put Hindutva before the country at that moment – exactly what he accused Muslims of for all those years. Yet Hindutvavadis have no qualms putting Patel and Savarkar in the same tent – while claiming Patel and Nehru had irreconcilable differences.

These flames wars were merely part of twitter for a few years but now they’re penetrating larger audiences via whatsapp. While this may be a symptom of taking trivial social media more seriously than it deserves, the point I am arguing is beyond the flame wars of twitter. There is a deliberate and uncompromising framing of Hindutva underway – which covers a variety of tropes from calling Jains/Sikhs Hindus to soft diktats against celebrating Christman/Eid. I consider these manifestations of the nascent ideological moorings, troubling. In a weird way at times, I hope Hindutva remains REACTIONARY and resists ideological framing, for I am more wary of deep ideological movements than mere reactionary ones.

While its not my argument that their might not be any deliberate maneuvering by the liberals in framing of the Onam as a secular festival – I dont know and I dont care enough to investigate. If the world Hindu is defined as broadly as some do, everything east of the Sindhu will be Hindu & most festivals will have some connection to traditional Hinduism/native religions. At end of the day what matters is Onam is a harvest festival for Keralites.

Post Script:

I personally have tried to indulge in the so-called Dharmic/Indic arguments for India (Harsh Madhusudan& Rajeev Mantri are publishing a book i am looking forward too), put they also indulge in unnecessary labeling IMO. I find the use of these labels – Dharmic/Indic – churlish at times.

As usual all comments short of abuse are welcome.

What did Asim Munir talk with Trump

Nachiketa — Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:12:48 +0000

Now that the blog has a lease of new life i thought why don’t I join the fray.

Funny that Asim Munir is having lunch with Donald Trump only a day after Trump was having X diarrhoea threatening Iran and its leadership.

What could potentially be the points of discussion one wonders. I have a few wild thoughts.

Trump is asking for Pakistani help against Iran. Either back-channel negotiations and/or direct intelligence. I am not sure of this one as this seems for a Pro-India cope which sort of makes sense of the ceasefire.
Pakistan wants to remain the only Nuclear Islamic nation and hence is willing to get into bed with Zionists in Trump towers while giving a middle finger to Ummah.
The felid marshal wants swip up some Tomahawks to counter Brahmos.
Trump in all his infinite wisdom is playing at 56D Chess against China via flirting with the felid Marshal and Dumping Modi after a brief fling (or maybe it never was a fling).
Trump wants to learn some catty dictatorship from the felid Marshal for the 3rd term.

Ironically Modi declined US invitation which seems to be related to either claimed US mediation into Op Sindoor or Israel Iran war.

Finally Sorry Amey and Poulasta but the podcast episode on OP Sindoor was terrible. Cant have a podcast where Omar’s wisdom is interrupted as frequently as that with all the rants and interruptions.

I hope to write a longish post from India POV about Op Sindoor and the future as soon as i get some brainspace.

Be civil in comments.

Indian RW cheering for Iran

Nachiketa — Fri, 20 Mar 2026 05:21:03 +0000

I am adding this post after procrastinating putting it up for days.

Most Indian RWers and even Centrists and LWers are directly or subtly on side of Iran vs Israel/US. One just has to visit timeline of Hindutvavadi influencers like JSai Deepak, Abhijit Iyer, Kushal Mehra.

Even the Right leaning or Centrist media people like Shiv Aroor, Palki Sharma, Arnab are actively cheerleading Iran. Indian government has thus far avoided taking a position pro Iran, but its obvious where Indian interests lie.

Despite Military ties with Israel and India seen as generally pro Israel – the criticism of Israel and Bibi is very common now in Indian SM.

Funny none of the posters here have noticed this !

Playing with fire ?

Nachiketa — Mon, 05 Oct 2020 15:23:36 +0000

Unless you are living under a rock, you will have noticed the Babri demolition conspiracy verdict. All 32 accused including the firebrand Ashok Singhal and Uma Bharti were acquitted of the conspiracy charge. A conspiracy charge is notoriously difficult to prove in Indian court even with Political will, in this case from an objective perspective, the charge was unlikely to stick owing the excessive burden of proof required to prove conspiracy.

I came across this interview of Advani with Prannoy Roy from 2000.

After six years of Modi Shah, Advani appears like a fresh of breath air (to my liberal ears). Notwithstanding his role as the prime mover of the Ram Janmabhooni movement which left trails of blood across the country, Advani appears significantly liberal to my eyes in 2020. The willingness to talk to the enemy (as seen in a range of interviews given to aggressive media), comparatively more respect to democratic ethos and institutions, and an overall soft spoken-ness.

However, the interview leaves us with the question – Is Advani telling the truth?

There seem to be three potential chain of events which led to the culmination of the demolition of Babri Masjid.

The aim of the Rath Yatra by Advani was always to demolish the mosque and the previous years were spent in raising support for the demolition of the mosque. This was the narrative the most far left and far right in India believe. In other words, the whole movement was a conspiracy under a facade of Rath Yatra.
The leadership of the movement – namely Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, and to a lesser extent Vajpayee under the umbrella of RSS (this included the current Prime minister) never really planned to break the mosque. Their aim was to mobilize the Hindu over and above their caste boundaries. The mobilization has political benefits as well as social benefits in response to Islam. However, during the movement, a small group actually conspired to break the mosque. That means if there was a conspiracy, either the top leadership was kept in dark or the top leadership turned a blind eye towards it. This seems to the claim made by Advani and Vajpayee where both of them on record called the demolition of the mosque as the saddest day of their life.
The mass movement got carried away in hubris. After years of chest thumbing, for the karsevaks – this was the moment to go down in the history and they did.

If either of 2 and 3 is true, it is fair to say the BJP and Sangha Parivar leaders were playing with fire and when the fire got out of control it burned every one to a certain extent. Though today even if the fire was unintended, the fruits of the fire continue to be reaped.

The Indo-Pakistan problem — To be or Not to be

Nachiketa — Tue, 11 Aug 2020 03:59:17 +0000

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN IN 2016 in the immediate aftermath of the URI ATTACKS with the aim of bringing some nuance in the increasingly binary discussions of Pakistan. Looking back at it in 2020 there are a few points in the essay I mildly disagree with but on the whole, I stand by my arguments.

For anyone willing to read a shorter -TL-DR version find the link HERE:

Note: This is not a scholarly analysis of Indo-Pak question but an essay ((*mildly subjective)) on the question with references being presented for most of the essay.

Every well-read Indian who has thought enough about the India-Pakistan issue will have faced Hamlet’s dilemma — “To be or not to be”. It’s fair to assume that national patience, with everything related to Pakistan, is waning very fast nowadays aided by the explosion of social media. Simply put — most Indians have had enough of this shit for 69 + years (the Idea of Pakistan being older than Pakistan). The leftist solution to the Pakistan problem has always been the “Aman ki Asha” narrative. The reactionary position of some of the Right-wing is to totally boycott anything related to Pakistan every-time a terrorist attack takes place in India. This position though backed by popular opinion at times like this seems to be no closer to a permanent solution to the problem. To come up with potential solutions for this problem, we need to discuss both these approaches and we also need to dig deep into the Nation-state of Pakistan.

The movement for Pakistan and it’s founders:

Mohammad Allama Iqbal and Mohammad Ali Jinnah are often credited as the prime-movers of the Pakistan movement- both being advocates of the Two-nation theory. The dichotomy in the positions held by both these leaders would serve as a good instrument in analyzing the contrasting narratives in the creation of Pakistan.

Mohammad Iqbal

Iqbal, wrote his famous poem “Saare Jahan se accha” or tarānah-e hindi in 1904 which still resonates with Indian patriotism. However, a less widely known poem was also published by Iqbal in 1910 — tarānah-e millī.

In tarānah-e hindi, Iqbal wrote of secularism in Hind (India) –

mażhab nahīñ sikhātā āpas meñ bair rakhnā;

Hindī haiṉ ham, watan hai Hindūstāṉ hamārā

In 6 years time, Iqbal wrote another poem on the same composition, this time carrying a Pan-Islamic message. (a message all international Islamist militants share)

Cīn o-ʿArab hamārā, Hindūstāṉ hamārā
Muslim hain ham, watan hai sārā jahāṉ hamārā

It seems prudent to guess that Iqbal had been thoroughly reoriented between 1906–1910 becoming the philosophical backbone of the Pakistan movement.

Mohammad Ali Jinnah — The main founder of Pakistan

Jinnah was a pork eating and whiskey drinking secular aristocrat and a great follower of Gopal Krishna Gokhale and also a Congressman. A true secularist in his early life, Jinnah was deeply uncomfortable with the public display of Religion. Jinnah was also Tilak’s lawyer when the Lokmanya was acquitted from Mandalay (Tilak and Jinnah shared a very warm friendship after Tilak’s release from Mandalay and his reentry into politics). Jinnah broke off from the Congress after Gandhi’s influence on the party began increasing. He was particularly opposed to Gandhi and Maulana Azad on the Khilafat movement (Gandhi supported the Khilafat movement for consolidation of faltering Hindu-Muslim unity) — calling it a pandering of most reactionary elements of Muslim Ulema. The subsequent rise of Gandhi and his mass appeal meant that Jinnah was sidelined in the rapidly growing Congress party. Jinnah retired from politics, only to be inducted into the Pakistan project by Iqbal in the 30s. When all negotiations of Muslim league with Congress failed, Pakistan and Partition seemed to be more likely than the Cabinet mission plan. It was the same Jinnah who — 26 years earlier had opposed Gandhi on Khilafat movement (Bringing religion into politics), called for the Direct Action Day– one of the bloodiest days in Indian history — which lead to immense violence — especially in Bengal. This smart and astute lawyer continues to be a celebrated figure in all of Pakistan and some of the Hindu Right while his legacy in India and the rest of the world is considered tainted. (Hindu Right in India tends ironically salute Jinnah while castigating Gandhi and Nehru).

However, it’s important to note that Pakistan was not always conceived as an Islamic republic but as a homeland of Muslims in India. While Congress and Hindu Right had a part to play in the formation of Pakistan — major blame of the Partition has to be laid squared on the Jinnah and the Muslim league.

References: Section 1 and Section 0:

Pakistan- the Nation-State:

Nehru and Jinnah discussing the terms of Partition

Created at the back drop of the worst violence on Indian soil in centuries and the biggest mass migration in human history, Pakistan the nation state was created with extreme handicaps. While its a popular notion that it was India that got the bad end of the stick w.r.t Partition, the truth of partition is more nuanced and conflicting. While all the resources of British India were shared fairly according to population proportions, nearly all the machinery of the British Raj and its administrative and democratic institutions remained in India. While Pakistan received 20–25% of the British Army — depending on sources and methods of counting (for a population percentage of around 17%), India overwhelming inherited the entire machinery of the British Raj.

The geographical separation of nearly 1800 km between Lahore and Dhaka also offered tremendous governing problems. Even with the 21st-century technology, governing over such geography is inconceivable, the feasibility of such geography must’ve been difficult in 1947.

This newly created nation-state of Pakistan also faced a tremendous identity crisis. While Indians had been Indians for millennia, Pakistanis had been bankrupted of that identity and heritage. In the aftermath of the bloody Partition, the Muslims of Pakistan — which was conceived as a Muslim homeland began to see itself of a Muslim State. While 4 major languages (Bengali-50%, Punjabi ~20%, Urdu — 10%, Sindhi ~10 + Afghan and Balochi languages) were spoken in Pakistan, Urdu — the Islamized and Persianised version of Hindustani was imposed on a population of 60 million. This imposition of Urdu rather than having a unifying effect on the country has only added to the identity crisis (in retrospect).

The first act of this Islamized and the identity-less country was to wage jihad on the independent princely state of Kashmir to free it from its Hindu ruler. The issue of integration of other princely states was still being sorted when Jinnah sent troops and infiltrators in the guise of tribesmen to conquer Kashmir. India had to intervene to protect Kashmir from the Pakistan backed infiltrators and jihadis. If the Pakistanis had not acted this rashly, it’s conceivable to assume that Kashmir would’ve been Partitioned with Jammu and Ladakh coming to India with the Kashmir valley being partitioned. A formula similar to Junagadh would’ve applied to Kashmir with a potential referendum/ plebiscite. (Junagadh was a border state with Hindu majority and muslim ruler, whereas Kashmir was a Muslim majority state with a Hindu ruler)

While Indians will like to reiterate that the ruler of Kashmir acceded to India, Sardar Patel had not allowed the Muslim rulers of Hindu majority Junagadh and Hyderabad to accede to Pakistan. After failing to capture all of Kashmir, Pakistan annexed (via accession, political incentives, and military pressure) the princely states of Kalat, Makran, Las Bela, and Kharan to form the province of Baluchistan and extended its rule over the Pashtuns of Northwest provinces along with Afghanistan. The integration of these states into the country was not smooth and force had to be used to integrate these regions. Insurgencies and resistance are rife in Baluchistan and Sindh today (Baloch secessionist movement has been active since the 60s).

References: Section 2, Section 0 and Section 3.

The idea of Pakistan:

While being without a vibrant political class and bureaucratic machinery Pakistan inherited 20% of the military of the British Raj and its military strength was consolidated after its Pakistan became an ally of the West in the Cold War. This largely Punjabi army was now responsible for a country of 8-Crore — 6–7 Crore of whom were not Punjabis. The only easy narrative that could unite such an identity-less state was the threat of an existential common enemy. Historically an external threat has always been the best unifying factor when it comes to identity politics. Pakistan started defining itself as Anti-India. It not only embraced the USA and Britain in the Cold war (While India tried to remain neutral), it adopted Islam as the unifying factor for the country which also had significant minorities (esp East Pakistan). Thus Pakistan’s identity was reinforced as being antithetical to the Idea of India.

Snide comments to the Vegetarian Hindus were let in everywhere from newspapers to textbooks. Because of the overwhelming success of medieval Muslim invaders in India, the Pakistanis — including the army always believed that Pakistan could always overcome the numerical advantage India held. In some circles, Pakistan was also conceived as the temporary strategic phase in the ongoing Islamic conquest of India or Ghazwa-e-Hind.

When the wars of 1948 and 1965 served as a nasty shock to this feeling of Muslim superiority (overlooking the fact that many Muslims have served in the Indian armed forces and died fighting against Pakistani troops) the state of Pakistan refused to acknowledge defeat in these wars to the public. To date, some Pakistanis don’t know that Pakistan did not win the 1965 war against India (Many Indians also believe that India totally smashed Pakistan in the war which is far from the truth). The aggravated identity conflict naturally meant further Islamization of the state. By 1960, Pakistan’s capital was relocated from Karachi(Its largest city) to Islamabad.

References: Section 2 and Section 3.

1971 and the following crisis:

The imposition of Urdu on 50–60% of its Bengali population was not taken well by the Bengal. Bengalis had increasingly become frustrated with the gross political and economical neglect of East Pakistan by the West Pakistani elites under the guise of Defense. The 1970 cyclone which devastated East Pakistan further increased Bengali nationalism. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (leader of Awami league — the Bengali party), won the elections of 1970–71. The military launched Operation Searchlight, which not only included detaining of the democratically elected leader of the country, but also resulted in a genocide of the Bengali population (particularly Hindus and Buddhists). The war culminated with the formation of Bangladesh — a Muslim majority country and an utter humiliation of Pakistani forces at hands of Bengali Mukti Bahini and Indian armed forces.

The 1971 war also led to the shattering of the Pan-Muslim identity cultivated by the Pakistani state. Instead of accepting the 2-nation theory as a mistake and introducing a more diverse definition of Pakistan, Pakistan first under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and more so under Zia-Ul-Haq began calling itself as an Arab country and slowly became the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. While Iran, closer to the Arab world never calls itself Arab, Pakistan has ostensibly made it clear that it thinks of itself as an Arab country.

Pakistan started calling — Mohammad bin Qasim, a general of Ummayad Caliphate to invade Sindh in the 7th century as the first Pakistani while Sindh was called the Gateway to Pakistan (It was Jinnah who had initially begun calling it so). The idea of Pakistan began in 7th century AD with its Hindu and Buddhist ancestry largely forgotten. Ghazwa-e-Hind, an obscure Islamic doctrine devised in the 7th and 8th centuries as a guise to invade the land known as Hindustan, became the official doctrine of the Pakistani army aimed at making Jihad against India.

bin-Qasim conquered Sindh which became called as the Gateway of Islam

The Islamic indoctrination of the country even led to Indians being referred to as Hindus and not as Indians in general discourse. Pakistan, a country that has never encountered any Jews, preaches extreme and open anti-Semitism without any pretense. A Pakistani Muslim feels itself much closer to the Arab world with its hatred of Israel than any Bengali or Indonesian Muslim would feel. As a result, some Pakistani feels closer to Fallafal eating Arabs than North Indians — whose cuisine is largely similar to Pakistanis. People also think that Urdu is an Arabic language (a delusion shared largely by Indians) and not an Indian language. Urdu has grown out of the amalgamation of Farsi with Hindi/Sanskrit over centuries and has very few direct to Arabic (it has more links to Persian though). While its script is closer to Arabic, most of the words and grammar of Urdu is common with Hindi/Hindustani.

References: Section 3 and Section 5.

Cold War and Oil Boom:

The Oil crisis of 1973 and following boom in the oil industry meant that the Sunni Gulf states had become very powerful. These states (Saudi — Bahrain — Qatar etc) controlled the oil production and held the world economy by the jugular. US-UK policy towards this region changed to one of almost servile friendship. Having a Sunni majority, Pakistan naturally became an ally for the Sunni Gulf states against the Shia Iran. Wahhabism/Salafism, the state religion of Saudi Arabia (a particularly regressive and fundamentalist interpretation of Sunni Islam) started propagating world-over along with Pakistan. As a direct result of this, under the rule of Zia-Ul-Haq, the persecution of Shias and Ahmadis became common. Pakistan, not only become an Islamic republic, but also a Sunni Islamic republic.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the stage was set for the climax of the Cold war in Pakistan’s neighborhood. The US-Pakistan-Saudi partnership funded and trained the Religious Mujahideen to fight against the godless communists. Pakistan had always pursued a policy called strategic depth in Afghanistan- which was that Pakistan influenced and controlled Afghanistan to prevent India from using friendly relations with Afghanistan to corner Pakistan from both sides. To achieve its own ends Pakistan kept on funding the most extremist of these Mujahideen with Saudi money keeping the US in dark, thus helping them morph into Taliban which took a fanatical form and took over most of the Afghan government after Soviet collapse. Thus at the end of the Cold war, Pakistan was left with a well-trained army of Islamic fanatics ready for jihad (Not all the jihadists went to form the Taliban).

References: Section 6 and Section 0.

Disproportionate warfare:

If Pakistani army had learned anything from 1971 war, it was the fact that Pakistan cannot ever beat the Indian army in a conventional war. Pakistan also believed India had a Nuclear weapon, though India’s nuclear test in 1974 — was officially released as a peaceful and non-weaponized nuclear test. Pakistan also began pursuing nuclear weapons and had come close to getting it by mid 70s. When the CIA got the whiff of Pakistan’s nuclear program, US congress sanctioned Pakistan for its proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, after the beginning of war in Afghanistan in late 70s meant that the US had to turn a blind eye towards Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions. While Pakistan is believed to have nuclear weapons from as early as the late 80s, it only tested its nuclear weapons after India tested its own Nuclear arsenal in 1998. (Pokhran II).

Now under Nuclear umbrella, Pakistan began with Disproportionate warfare. The ISI trained jihadis went on to form the Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad and Jamat Ud Dawaa which were funded and protected by the Pakistani establishment. These jihadist entered Kashmir in the late 80s and the Kashmir conflict erupted anew with more blood than ever before. The ethnic cleansing of the Kashmiri Pandits that followed the entry of these jihadis into the Kashmir valley went on to change the Kashmir conflict forever.

The Babri mosque demolition and the growing Hindutva movement (which resulted in bloody riots across north and western India) further strengthened Pakistan’s resolve to “Bleed India with a thousand cuts”. The increasing Indo-Pakistan conflict in the following decade included the 1993 Bombay blasts and culminated with the Kargil war in 1999. Hostilities between India and Pakistan continued well into the new millennium, which included the 2001 Parliament attacks and the 2002 Indo-Pak standoff (which was the biggest ever mobilization of Indo-Pak forces). Over 100 terrorist attacks in India from 1988 have been attributed to the above mentioned terrorist organization with implicit or explicit support of ISI. This disproportionate warfare has been seen as a successful strategy by the Pakistani establishment, as they themselves bear the very little cost of possible repercussions and maintain plausible deniability about particular incidences.

References: Section 6, Section 7 and Section 0 .

Pakistan today:

Pakistan today is a very young nation with more than 70 percent of its citizens being born after the 1971 war. These people don’t remember the humiliating loss of 1971 which led to loss of 50% of its population and unconditional surrender to the Indian army with over 90k prisoners of war. These people have never been taught about the historic ties they share with Indians. They are extremely misinformed in the actual history of the region they inhabit (Saffronisation of education in India means we are following the same), with many not paying any attention to the pre-Islamic history of the country. The Indus valley civilization, the preeminent urban civilization which mainly lies in Pakistan is not fully embraced by Pakistanis because of its Pre-Islamic origins. Not only have the Buddhist and Hindu influences over the region of Pakistan been erased, but the Sikh heritage of Punjab has also largely been forgotten. Lahore, the eminent center of Sikh heritage no longer has any Sikhs. Bhagat Singh, arguable the most popular modern historic figure in India is largely forgotten in Pakistan in-spite of hailing from Lahore.

The civil society though alive in Pakistan has largely unsuccessful in fighting the state level radicalization of its people. The masses from this country today believe 9–11 was a Jewish conspiracy to turn Americans against Muslims. Most polls conducted in Pakistan believe that Osama-bin-Laden is a Hero while America and India being the ultimate Satans. Pakistanis overwhelmingly do not believe that India has suffered huge amounts of terrorist attacks emanating from Pakistan. Pakistani regional papers regularly call a terrorist attack in India as a Hindu-Jewish-American conspiracy. When evidence of Muslims being perpetrators of this violence emerges, the focus is shifted on atrocities on Muslims in India and the terror is viewed as a defensive jihad by the larger Umma (worldwide Muslims).

Even the atrocious terrorist attacks carried out mostly by the Pakistani Taliban — Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, are blamed on Indians. The ISI is believed to have placed Indian Rupees on some of the worst terrorist attackers captured in Pakistan (Indian rupees which ISI prints in abundance). When even one of the terrorists caught in Pakistan is found or believed to be un-circumcised (Some of the Pakistani Afghans who form the majority of Pakistani Taliban are uncircumcised) the terrorist attack is blamed on the Hindus in the local media. The devastating floods of 2010 which ravaged Pakistan were also linked to some Hindu-Jewish conspiracy in some of the local newspapers.

While such conspiracies are common around the world — they’re a normal part of the national discourse in Pakistan. The horrible attack on school children in December 2014 by the Pakistan Taliban was squarely blamed on India by both the administration and some parts of the media. While no one around the world takes such claims seriously because of the terrible reputation Pakistan has garnered, many Pakistani citizens must fall prey to the ISI-Army propaganda machine (like some Indians do to the RW propaganda which is increasing especially ONLINE).

References: Section 6, Section 7 and Section 0 .

To be: Aman ki Asha:

Aman ki Asha theory is that only normalizing relations with Pakistan can help the Pakistanis realize that Indians are not the dirty Hindus they are taught but decent people with whom they share an ancient heritage. These folks also believe Indians can overcome their long-held prejudices about the average Pakistani. While in theory, this idea looks as an idealist and good, this approach has been failing for 70+ years. The Aman ki Asha folks tend to make a fatal error in understanding the Pakistan approach.

The Pakistani state is largely controlled by the Military which stands to lose a lot from normalizing relations with India. The only reason the Pakistani military continues to hold on the disproportionate resources of the nation is the perceived existential threat posed to Pakistan by the Hindu-India. The Army generals continue to run the country either directly or indirectly as they want. Anyone who opposes the Military is eliminated- from state execution of Zulfikar-ali-Bhutto to killing of Benazir Bhutto- his daughter. Apart from these 2- an exceedingly high number of Pakistanis have been killed directly or covertly by the Military or Military backed Terrorists since its inception. Anytime a civilian elected government wavers from the Army line, a perceived coup-de-grace is delivered to the faltering government which inevitably results in a military dictatorship. To assume that the Pakistani military will lead to normalizing relations is a highly deluded position to hold.

The Aman-ki-Asha folk also believe that coming to a satisfactory solution to the Kashmir problem will remove the bone of contention from Pakistan, thus letting it become a normal state over the following decades. This seems possible in theory but has been proven to be not so. India-Pakistan has come close to coming on a consensus on Kashmir issue 2 times in the previous 2 decades. Vajpayee’s Pakistan outreach with the Lahore trip was treated with Kargil. Vajpayee and General Musharraf (who had been instrumental in the Kargil conflict) had reached a consensus in 2001, but this progress was hindered by the attacks on the Indian parliament. A few years later, Manmohan Singh reached a consensus first with Musharraf and second with President Zardari. This peace process — which was opposed by the Hindu Right, would’ve still gone ahead if not for the spectacular Mumbai attacks- 2008.

This behavior has been repeated every time Modi has made progress in talks to Pakistan and can be safely considered as a pattern. Attacks on Pathankot and Gurdaspur have followed Modi’s reaching out to the Pakistani government leading to the continuation of hostilities.

India cannot be expected to sit back and suffer regular Pakistan funded attacks and continue peace talks and Kashmir settlement. Reaching on any Kashmir settlement when Pakistan sees itself in a position of strength is not only India’s national interests, but also gives the impression of bowing down to terror. Such behavior will certainly encourage further terrorism fueled blackmail by Pakistan from under its Nuclear umbrella.

Thus its safe to debunk most of the Aman-ki-Asha talks.

(With the revocation/dilution of article 370 and the muscular Nationalism of Modi government, especially after Balakot – such Aman-ki-Asha talks appear even stupider than they did in 2016)

References: Section 6, Section 7 and Section 0 .

NOT TO BE:

A fraction of Indians, believe that an all-out war will be a solution to the Pakistan problem. The very deluded ones don’t mind a nuclear holocaust if it means annihilation of Pakistan. These are the ones not worth wasting much digital space on (Than necessary in pointing out that they exist).

While most rational Indians don’t want war, options like ostracization or boycott, revoking the Indus valley treaty are increasingly gaining traction in the country.

It’s important to point out that ostracization/boycott will not work unless it is backed by the international community. Iran — a country much more informed and educated than Pakistan could hold on to severe international sanctions — for its nuclear program. Pakistan — a nuclear state is much difficult to handle via sanctioning (while not impossible). Of the 5 permanent members in UN security council, 2 countries are unlikely to allow complete isolation of Pakistan. — At least today.

Current Geopolitics:

United States:

Supply routes for US to Afghanistan

Afghanistan being a landlocked country, can be reached most easily through Pakistan. Routes through Iran are tougher to navigate even if Iran was not a US enemy. Routes through former Soviet countries are equally difficult as these countries themselves are landlocked (Russia also has a significant say still in these countries). This along with the Nuclear blackmail, which Pakistan plays well has meant that the US has been unable to take tough action against Pakistan for being the most fertile breeding ground of terrorism. If the killing of hundreds of US soldiers in Afghanistan due to sabotage by Pakistan and the Abbottabad raid to kill Osama bin Laden have been able to make Pakistan a pariah state in US eyes, India’s tragedies will most certainly not. Though apparent US withdrawal from Afghanistan makes news every now and then, it is unlikely to happen completely by 2019. Even if the US withdraws from Afghanistan, Pakistan can still support the Taliban leading to destabilization of Afghanistan which will ensure US intervention. Pakistan thus has the United States by the proverbial throat till the mess in Afghanistan clears up.

References: Section 6 and Section 0 .

China:

CPEC — China Pakistan economic corridor

Few countries in recent times have been as allied in interests as China and Pakistan. China and Pakistan have agreed upon the CPEC which connects China to the Arabian sea via a series of roads and rails along with Pakistan to the port of Gwadar which lies in Baluchistan. As visible in the above picture, this highway passes through the Gilgit region of Pakistan Administered Kashmir. India still claims this region as its territory making any Chinese project there illegal if India were to reclaim this region. The UN resolution on Kashmir which talks about the plebiscite requires Pakistan to completely demilitarize Pakistan administered Kashmir regions. Any progression of talks leading to a plebiscite might lead to serious problems for the CPEC. China also aspires to have these routes running through the Kashmir valley, which falls on the Indian side of the Line of Control. Thus it falls in Chinese national interests to escalate the tensions in Kashmir which might eventually lead to some agreement that China perceives as being more in line with Chinese interests.

China has till now vehemently opposed Indian initiatives in the UN in sanctioning terrorists based in Pakistan. It can also be argued that China believes that its regional hegemony will be challenged by a strong India and hence want to prevent India from ever achieving its potential.

However such innuendos fall deeply in the realm of speculation.

Aside from these 2 roadblocks in isolating Pakistan, there is an argument that isolation will only help the authoritarian state machinery of Pakistan. Barring a few examples, isolation rarely has made modern nation-states change its record. Critics will point out that apartheid worked in South Africa — though it took decades. South Africa in-spite of horrible racism and apartheid was a functioning state. To call the military governed country of Pakistan as a functioning democracy is a laughable proposition. North Korea- a country sanctioned for its entire lifetime, shows no sign of falling apart. These sanctions on the country have in no way made South Korea safe from North Korea. However the average North Korean continues to be underfed and malnourished while its fat psychopathic leader remains the unifying figure in the country. The harsh sanctions imposed on Saddam’s Iraq did nothing to weaken Saddam’s Baath party but resulted in nationwide child mortality as a direct result of these sanctions. The popularity of Saddam also saw a rise after the harsh sanctions, as Saddam was made out as the sole bulwark against the United States.

It’s thus fair to assume that any angry rhetoric from India only strengthens the position of Army in eyes of its countrymen as its sole protector from Angry Hindu India. Political isolation, if it occurs has to be handled in a diplomatic manner without excessive hate-mongering.

However, the SAARC boycott, though not sufficient, is a welcome development that might lead to some softening of the Pakistani terror M.O.

References: Section 6, Section 8 and Section 0 .

Indus waters treaty:

Any drastic step taken with the withdrawal of the status quo on Indus waters for Indian goodwill led to 70–80% of Pakistan being under extreme droughts in the future. For a country which saw the worst drought in 30 years in 2016 — especially in Maharashtra, should not be talking lightly of starving a nation full of poor people of the most basic of human rights. Such an action will not only ravage the country but also throw away the internationally responsible image of our country. A disintegrating state and water calamity will also attract Islamic jihadis from the world (As Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq war — 2003 have done) — as any humanitarian disaster in the Muslim world does. With climate change, the subcontinent is going to face severe water shortages in 10–15 years, any such rash act can lead to unimaginable consequences. Such a country may be more likely to use nuclear weapons in the future than it is today. Today the state of Pakistan has largely used Nuclear weapons as a blackmail chip against India and the USA, its role may change in a country under severe and perennial human disasters which can now be rightly attributed to India. Amidst the understandable anger at terrorism from Pakistan, one mustn’t jingoistically sow seeds for further calamity. To assume that the rationality of Pakistan, in wake of impending droughts, may help tone down the bellicose nature of the state is deeply flawed.

Due to Fatwas against vaccines by the Taliban and generic anti-scientific attitude, Polio has made a come back in Pakistan. Waterborne diseases like Polio now extinct in India (but not Pakistan)- can become a subcontinent epidemic again if Pakistan were to suffer from water shortages in the near future. (A single migrant from Pakistan can spread Polio across the country amidst water crisis). All this while we cannot forget that the Brahmaputra which enters North-east India from China can be used in the future by the Chinese as a weapon of war if India sets such precedence. While the water-rich Assam region may not starve for water due to such Chinese actions, the release of high volumes of waters by China can worsen the annual floods of Assam.

Aside from all these practical reasons, the argument of morals should surely prevail before India escalates any Water wars.

References: Section 8 and Section 0.

While it can be claimed that no conflict has an easy solution, it has to be conceded that some conflicts have no feasible solution. Is Pakistan’s problem such a conflict? Many would concede so.

In the short run, under the current jingoism, it is inconceivable for Indians to take a nuanced path forward.

Possible Ways forward:

In short term:

At least in the current scenario, India needs to call Pakistan’s bluff on Nuclear weapons. Terrorist attacks like Uri have to meet with a strong and apt response. It can be safely assumed that China, Pakistan’s sole backer, is a rational entity and will prevent from letting the matter escalate into a nuclear war. Being geographically larger India can possibly recover from Nuclear war, though the world as we know it will cease to exist, with Pakistan being annihilated. As in the game of Chess, it’s fair to assume Pakistani establishment recognizes this consequence and is as today, is restrained by some sanity. The Chinese and American pressure can be counted upon to sanitize Pakistan. In such a scenario, India has to settle the Kashmir Issue. Kashmir cannot and must not remain bleeding for such long amounts of time.

All the while it is necessary to tone down the Anti-Pakistan rhetoric on social media. PM Modi has made it clear that India’s problem is with Pakistani establishment and not the people. This message has not sunk in the countrymen, who have gone to various lengths to make themselves feel good. These social media warriors along with the loud Arnab Goswami and others have used this opportunity to play war in AC studios while a real war might actually break out with disastrous consequences. We as Indians, need to resist giving into these morbid exhibitionist tendencies on display nowadays in media.

A critic on Indian Medias coverage of Pakistan issue: — Link:

Asking Fawad Khan and other Pakistani actors to condemn Uri attacks in tantamount to asking them to condemn their own country. While it is fair to assume that their opinion of their country may have changed a bit after the imploding terrorism in Pakistan and the love they received in India, it’s still unfair to ask them to make a comment which will be received poorly in their own country.

While it can be argued that if these stars can condemn Uri attacks as terrorism without blaming Pakistan, similar to the world condemning Paris and Peshawar school attacks, underneath this argument lies a subtle nuanced fallacy not widely appreciated. Paris and Peshawar attacks like most terrorist attacks were attacks on unarmed civilians carried out with the objective of terrorizing and sending a political message. The Uri attacks were specifically aimed at the army — seen as the machinery of the state — even though they’re humans who have to continue to face terrorism on a daily scale. Another point is that unlike other terrorist attacks, this was a terrorist attack where terrorists directly crossed LOC to attack the Indian Army. To assume that one can condemn this act as terrorism without pointing fingers at the Pakistan Army, which let these terrorists pass through their terrorism is naive. Only extreme verbal gymnastics would’ve let Pakistani actors make comments which would’ve passed in India without inflaming Pakistan.

It’s also necessary to point out that attacking Fawad Khan and Pakistani artists will only serve as tokenism which will achieve nothing more than making the people attacking them feel good about themselves. If we want the Pakistani people to understand that all of us don’t hate all of them (not sure there is a consensus their), jumping on the Hate Pakistani actors bandwagon will achieve nothing.

While criticizing the general Anti-Pakistanis rhetoric, it’s necessary to point out that financial concerns of Bollywood (sales in Pakistan) cannot be a major criterion in the discussion of National policy on Pakistan.

References: Section 0, Section 1 and Section 9.

In the long term:

In the long term, only the redefinition of Pakistan and the major reorientation of the Idea of Pakistan will ensure safety for India. However, this is not the process that India can directly influence while Pakistan continues to be under the nuclear umbrella. Improving relations with China can help in this process, as Pakistan without a friend and without an enemy is most likely to have a popular uprising from within which changes the status quo. The changing regional power dynamics in favor of India without a particular animosity with India (with Kashmir solved) could arguably serve as the best catalyst for the redefinition/reorientation of Pakistan.

In meanwhile India must do its best to reign in its Hindu chauvinism, which though sporadic and intermittent, can be used to reiterate the two-nation theory (As Muslims wont be perceived to be safe in India). The hugely positive response the PM received will hopefully make the BJP realize that it can win elections without Hindu-Muslim polarization. The pandering to reactionary elements in Muslims (Congress style) or Muslim identity politics (Asad Owaisi / Azam Khan) can be stopped only if the deep-rooted Anti-Muslim bias of the average Indian wears off and Hindu identity politics takes a back seat in the national discourse. Only then will an India emerge where Muslims won’t remain ghettoized and will truly participate in and enrich our national growth. Such a Muslim society is much more likely to have progressive reforms within their community than the current community of Indian Muslims.

Public Muslims in the country like Shahrukh Khan and Aamir Khan cannot be held to different standards than Public Hindus. While a Radhika Apte or Karan Johar asking for Pakistani actors to remain in Bollywood faces criticisms, the level of anger a Muslim actor will face is on a different plane. The disgraceful way in which Sania Mirza was treated after her marriage to Shoaib Malik in certain circles continues to blemish the Indian republic.

While its fair to say that the 2 nation theory was disproved with the formation of Bangladesh, it can not truly be discredited while sections of Indian Right-wing (inspired by Savarkar and Golwalkar) also continue to believe it. Indian Right-wing needs to trust its Muslims and help them come out of the cycle of reactionary politics. It is only decades after such changes that the two-nation theory will be completely debunked as Indian Muslims will on average be visibly doing better (not just in Bollywood and Cricket but in engineering medicines etc) than the average Pakistani.

Only then will the Idea of India truly win over the 2 nation theory.

References: Section 10. and Section 0

Post Script: (2020)

As someone who identifies as a Centre left-liberal, I am slightly more alarmed at the prospect of Muslims in India (than in 2016) and Indo-Pakistan question in general, due to the rising Hindutva movement- especially the CAA – which makes an attempt to define India as the natural homeland of subcontinental non-Muslims – an exact mirror of Jinnah’s Pakistan.

References:

References are not as per general academic standards. These references serve as an easy way to cross verify and deeply analyze all the statements made in the essay. It could be found that on some occasions, statements are not direct sources but are part of interpolation or extrapolation based on analysed information and data. It can be argued that certain sections of the essay venture firmly into realms of speculation.

Section 0:

India after Gandhi: Ramachandra Guha

Christine Fair: Link:

Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army’s Way of War

Hussain Haqqani: Link:

Pakistan: Between Mosque And Military

Shashi Tharoor: Link1: Link2:

Section 1:

(a): Iqbal:

The Sunday Tribune – Books
Iqbals third phase as a poet started when, under some mistaken belief, he started writing in sterile, fossilised…www.tribuneindia.com

comparison
www.columbia.edu

juxtaposition
‘Taranah-e Hindi’ (1904) was explicitly written as a patriotic song for children; Iqbal also composed a number of…www.columbia.edu

The Tribune, Chandigarh, India – Ludhiana Stories
The residents were agitated that on the one hand the government was constructing a multipurpose building in the colony…www.tribuneindia.com

(b): Jinnah:

Mohammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948)
Jinnah was an Indian politician who successfully campaigned for an independent Pakistan and became its first leader. He…www.bbc.co.uk

Jinnah, Tilak and Indian independence movement
KARACHI Karachiites on Tuesday had the privilege of listening to the comments of A.G. Noorani at the third lecture in…www.dawn.com

Where Jinnah defended Tilak
Just outside the grand, wood-panelled Central Court stands a marble tablet with these lines inscribed in stone: “In…www.hindustantimes.com

‘Vultures of Calcutta’: The Gruesome Aftermath of India’s 1946 Hindu-Muslim Riots
Religion-fueled riots, religion-fueled intolerance, religion-fueled murder – history is filled with chilling examples…time.com

Iqbal’s Letters to Jinnah, May-June 1937 – CabinetMissionPlan
The texts of two letters written by Iqbal to Jinnah in 1937 have been included in Bimal Prasad’s three volume series …sites.google.com

Section 2:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/the-road-to-partition/

Partition of 1947 India-Pakistan: Some scattered resources | www.sacw.net
www.sacw.net > Partition of 1947 – India – Pakistan : Some scattered resourceswww.sacw.net

Major Humayun Amin’s report: Link

Section 3:

‘Pakistan schools teach Hindu hatred’
ISLAMABAD: Text books in Pakistani schools foster prejudice and intolerance of Hindus and other religious minorities…www.dawn.com

http://emerald.tufts.edu/~ajalal01/Articles/conjuring.pdf

The threat of Pakistan’s revisionist texts | Afnan Khan
Pakistan’s minorities are being written out of school textbooks while the government conveniently looks the other way…www.theguardian.com

https://web.archive.org/web/20110816022019/http://www.uvm.edu/~envprog/madrassah/TextbooksinPakistan.pdf

Ayesha Jalal: Link1: Link2:

Pity of Partition:

Section 4:

Ghost Wars
From the managing editor of the Washington Post, a news-breaking account of the CIA’s involvement in the covert wars in…books.google.com

The World: Bangladesh: Out of War, a Nation Is Born
JAI Bangla! Jai Bangla!” From the banks of the great Ganges and the broad Brahmaputra, from the emerald rice fields and…content.time.com

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people5/Coll/coll-con5.html

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s piece: Link

Section 5:

The Historical Interaction between the Buddhist and Islamic Cultures before the Mongol Empire – 4…
Throughout the early years of their caliphate, the Umayyads had tried several times to invade the Indian subcontinent…studybuddhism.com

Muhammad Bin Qasim: Predator or preacher?
We all know that Arab General Muhammad Bin Qasim conquered Sindh in 712 AD. However, the facts surrounding this…www.dawn.com

Section 6:

Pakistan and the Cold War | Brookings Institution
As Pakistan undergoes a prolonged internal crisis, Stephen Cohen writes that many analysts both in United States and in…www.brookings.edu

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-yousaf-butt-/saudi-wahhabism-islam-terrorism_b_6501916.html

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-time-america-almost-invaded-opec-15726

‘Tsunami of money’ from Saudi Arabia funding 24,000 Pakistan madrassas – The Economic Times
WASHINGTON: About 24,000 ‘madrassas’ in Pakistan are funded by Saudi Arabia which has unleashed a ” tsunami of money…articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com

WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists
Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar…www.theguardian.com

Section 7:

General Asad Durrani: ISI Head interview : Link:

Pak runs special trains for Hafiz Saeed meet
In a sign of official patronage to Mumbai attacks mastermind Hafiz Saeed-led JuD, Pakistan government is running two…www.hindustantimes.com

U.S. says Pakistan’s ISI supported Kabul embassy attack
The Haqqani militant network is a “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s powerful ISI intelligence service, which supported the…www.reuters.com

Militants not dangerous to Pakistan should not be targeted: Sartaj
ISLAMABAD: Adviser to the Prime Minister on National Security and Foreign Affairs, Sartaj Aziz on Monday said that…www.dawn.com

ISI now outsources terror to Bangladesh
P rime Minister Khaleda Zia, leader of India’s crucial neighbour Bangladesh, has arrived in New Delhi when both sides…in.rediff.com

Mumbai Terror Attacks Fast Facts
10 Pakistani men associated with the terror group Lashkar-e-Tayyiba stormed buildings in Mumbai, killing 164 people…edition.cnn.com

Profile: Lashkar-e-Taiba
Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (Soldiers of the Pure) is one of the most feared groups fighting against Indian control…news.bbc.co.uk

BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | Violent ‘army of the pure’
By BBC News Online’s Santosh Sinha The Kashmiri militant group that India has linked to the attack on parliament in…news.bbc.co.uk

rediff.com: Lashkar militant admits killing Sikhs in Chittisinghpura
Lashkar militant admits killing Sikhs in Chittisinghpurawww.rediff.com

A Kashmiri Mystery
Darkness had fallen across the hamlet, where 200 families, almost all Sikhs, eked out a living in a spot of rugged…www.nytimes.com

The Hindu : Jaish, Lashkar carried out attack with ISI guidance: police
Police teams raided Shaukat’s residence from where his wife, Afsan Guru, was arrested. She said that after the attack…www.thehindu.com

Bringing back the Dead: Why Pakistan Used the Jaish-e-Mohammad to Attack an Indian Airbase
Bringing back the Dead: Why Pakistan Used the Jaish-e-Mohammad to Attack an Indian Airbase C. Christine Fair January 7…www.huffingtonpost.in

BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | Jaish-e-Mohammad: A profile
Jaish-e-Mohammad is a relatively new but rapidly growing group. The group emerged out of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen in the…news.bbc.co.uk

Section 7:

What is the wildest conspiracy theory pertaining to Pakistan?
Osama bin Laden was a US agent, who perished long before the raid in Abbottabad three years ago. Malala Yousafzai is…herald.dawn.com

Some conspiracy theories in Pakistan: Link:

Peshawar Attacks: Several Anti-India Theories Blame RAW for Military School Massacre [VIDEO]
Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is certainly not the only one pointing fingers at the country’s closest…www.ibtimes.co.in

Pakistan refuses self-examination over Peshawar attack | Asia | DW.COM | 17.12.2014
Those who were expecting a drastic shift in Pakistan’s security policies after the heinous attack by the Taliban on a…www.dw.com

Pakistan’s Urdu Media Blames India For Peshawar Attack
Twitter and Facebook, it appears there has been an upsurge of mass sentiment against jihadists in Pakistan after the…www.openthemagazine.com

Osama bin Laden death: The conspiracy theories
The decision not to release photographs of Osama bin Laden’s corpse and the way the White House has changed its account…www.theguardian.com

Osama bin Laden killed: conspiracy theories proliferate in wake of raid
The announcement that Osama bin Laden had been killed in a daring US special forces raid and then swiftly buried at sea…www.telegraph.co.uk

Section 8:

https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/155573-Propaganda-against-CPEC-upsets-China

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/cpec-why-pakistan-views-corridor-to-china-as-a-game-changer/articleshow/54306105.cms

http://thewire.in/39874/the-china-pakistan-corridor-is-all-about-power-not-electricity-but-the-real-thing/

China dams the Brahmaputra: Why India should worry
The Chinese dam at Zangmu in Tibet on the Brahmaputra is now fully operational. Given China’s history in the region…www.rediff.com

Blocking of Brahmaputra tributary: India to take it up with China – Times of India
China has blocked a tributary of the Brahmaputra river in Tibet as part of the construction of its hydro project, which…timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Section 9:

Fawad Khan breaks his silence: I pray we can live in more peaceful world
Fawad Khan speaks for the first time after MNS issued a ban on Pakistani artistes in India. The Pakistani actor says…indianexpress.com

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-28458287

Pakistan players should have been picked – Shah Rukh Khan
Shah Rukh Khan, the the co-owner of the Kolkata Knight Riders franchise, has spoken of the pressures the IPL franchises…www.espncricinfo.com

Why Indians Should Boycott Shah Rukh Khan | IndiaFacts
Shahrukh Khan is among the most famous people in India. His popularity and influence now extend well beyond the reel…indiafacts.org

Section 10:

MS Golwalkar: Link:

BR Ambedkar: Link:

VD Savarkar: Link:

http://thewire.in/61111/how-oppressed-are-muslims-in-india-a-pakistani-scholar-asks-her-answer-may-surprise-you/

How oppressed are Muslims in India?
Muslims in India form the largest religious minority in the country. According to the 2011 Census, they comprise 14.4…herald.dawn.com

What is “Brahmanical” in Indian Patriarchy ?

Nachiketa — Fri, 25 Sep 2020 11:36:59 +0000

In December 2018, Jack Dorsey had a photo-op with a section Indian feminists (left-leaning) holding a placard that read Smash Brahmanical Patriarchy. Naturally, Hindutva supporters took umbrage to the reduction of Patriarchy in India to Brahmanism & “supposed” targetting of Brahmins. The “Liberals” appeared consistent with their ideological framework, though the framework can be accused of being myopic. Here are some essays from both sides of the ideological spectrum – Wire & Swarajya.

When words become labels, they tend to deviate from their original meaning and end up serving just their political purpose. The word Brahmanical is in danger of becoming a catch-all term on the left to not just to attack Hindutva but also to indulge in some masochism. Like all terms in Hinduism, Brahminism is difficult to define. For the purpose of this essay, I would refer to all Hindu practices & rituals which have a basis in scriptures like the Vedic Canon, Puranas/Itihasa, Sutras/Shastras as Brahmanism. (I would welcome any better definition of Brahmanism. It is often easier to negate a Hindu practice as Non-Brahmanical than the other way around)

Similarly, the word Patriarchy is likewise used loosely as an amalgamation of the words patriarchy, misogyny, sexism, and male chauvinism. Patriarchy is a hallmark of human civilization, especially post the agricultural revolution. Just a handful of cultures have been exceptional. As a result, all strands of patriarchy in a society cannot be blamed on the predominant religious current of the culture unless there is a logical & direct link between the two – correlation is not causation. Coming to India lets focus on the different strands of Patriarchy present in the country and try to entangle each strand and investigate its potential origins in Brahmanism.

MARRIAGE

In Brahmanism, marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman(women) and hence unbreakable. As polygamy is allowed under Brahmanism, Men could move on to newer women without breaking the sacred bond and continue to lead a Dharmic life. Women had a lot of patriarchal restrictions placed on them. It is interesting to note that the Hindu marriage act of 1955 has transformed Hindu marriage customs in Hinduism. Hence wrt Marriage – Smashing Brahmanism would be equal to beating a dead ARYA horse in 21st century India. All these strands of “patriarchy” exist to almost the same extent in other native India “Panthas” in -Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism. No need to explain how Muslim personal law is way worse wrt marriage today and needs immediate attention from Feminists.

INHERITANCE

Brahmanism did not support the rights of women to inherit property, but the 1956 act meant that equal inheritance rights were awarded. On the other hand, Muslim women don’t get equal rights under Muslim personal law.

WIDOWS

The conditions of widows in Brahmanism was arguably worse than most other cultures. With Remarriage out of question (unlike Islam and Christianity), widows were treated inhumanely in Hinduism – especially in Brahmanical orthodoxy. The Brahmanical obsession with abstract concepts of purity and consequent “bad luck” blamed on the widow meant that widows were sentenced to social boycott in Hindu societies (social murder). The other option – Sati is also uniquely Brahmanical. (though its prevalence in olden times is debated). Even today, widow remarriage is less common than widower remarriage. A lot of regression and inhuman attitude towards widows continue to this day even among elite and liberal Hindus. Hence wrt Widows Brahmanical Patriarchy is still alive and needs SMASHING.

Eg: Widows are still considered inauspicious. Even today a widow cannot predominantly partake Brahmanical rituals on her own, she always needs a male/couple (pure and auspicious) helping hand/s to carry out rituals. Typically Marriage/Upanayana/other rituals are carried out by the Uncles of her children. Though Hindu society has moved beyond the Social ostracization of earlier times, the position of widows is far from equal.

Having said that, the overlap of these practices with Varna oppression isn’t wide. These practices are particular to the Dvija Varnas. Conditions of widows in subaltern castes & tribes were historically significantly better – with remarriage/separation allowed in many subaltern/tribal communities.

DOWRY

It is difficult to pin down the custom of Dowry on Brahmanism. By accounts of most experts, it is a sociological custom not unique to India.

FEMALE FOETICIDE

A Direct consequence of Dowry and Two child policy (along with economic hardships and some other factors) Female Foeticide – arguably the worst Anti-Female practice in India is also a deeply sociological practice with very tenuous or no links to “Religions”. (Though Christianity actively condemns all abortions and hence Female Foeticide has no existence in Christians)

RELIGIOUS ROLE OF WOMEN

All religions present in India are deeply sexist and Brahmanism (Hinduism) doesn’t stand out as a particularly bad. However, the impurity attributed to menstruation is directly an outgrowth of the Brahmanical obsession of ritualistic purity. From practices of untouchability for menstruating women to the temple entry conflict, these customs can be attributed to Brahmanism though other faiths aren’t doing a particularly great job. Even Buddha’s teachings and the role of women in Buddhist Sangha are not remotely equal. However, the position of women in a lot of Brahmanical rituals is secondary/inferior to men. One could make a logical argument from Brahmanism to the demoted the role of women in rituals. (same as other faiths)

Sabrimala – though people claim the issue in Sabrimala is due to the Celibacy of Lord Ayyappa & not ritual taboo of menstruation- the priests of Sabrimala carried out a purification ritual after the women visited Sabrimala.

SEXUAL VIOLENCE

No correlation. This problem is worse in India than some regions of the world but no coherent link between this and Brahmanism exists.

CASUAL SEXISM & MISOGYNY

Is a universal societal problem. There is an argument that some aspects this is an overreaction to the overreach of some aspects of feminism (from conservative POV- I don’t hold this view)

ENDOGAMY

While caste endogamy is often blamed on Brahmanical doctrines – and especially the notorious Manusmriti, on a deeper investigation of the texts, the link is found to be not very robust. While the DIKTATS against the mixing of Varnas is a very important part of Manusmriti (and other texts too), the jati endogamy practice in India doesn’t have many sanctions in Brahmanical texts. Getting deep into the nuances around Jati and Varna is beyond the scope of this essay. Given the fact that Varna is a salient feature of Brahmanism and Jati is an outgrowth of Varna in a sense, we can logically argue that the origins of Endogamy are Brahmanical.

However its sustenance in 21st century India is due to tribalism, pressures of families (larger caste groups) and Compatibility correlated with Jati.

HONOR CULTURE

Honor culture is a salient part of most caste conflicts in the country, but given the preponderance of similar conflicts in other cultures (Islamic), this practice cant be blamed on Brahmanism.

CHILD MARRIAGE

The universal practice in medieval and early modern times. On the contrary Vedic canon advises post-puberty marriage for both sexes.

EDUCATION AND OTHER FREEDOMS

Like most religions wrt education and other freedoms, Brahmanism was harsh on women. But it doesn’t stand out. Even though subaltern women faced harsh Brahmanical opposition (Like Savitri Phule), the same is true for upper-caste women reformers as well. Sub Altern women faced the double combo of Brahmanical Casteism and Patriarchy, hence the blame of this strand can be put mildly on Brahmanism wrt Christianity but not wrt other faiths.

MODESTY (PURDAH)

Practiced in North Indian Hindu cultures, but most experts believe these practices were imposed on women after Islamic Turko-Afghan invasions of 11th century.

There may be some more strands of “Patriarchy” in India which are not covered here.

Out of the 13 strands identified above a modest 5 practices can be partially blamed on Brahmanism. Even out of these 5, 2 are addressed legally and are inconsequential today with 3/13 Brahmanical strands remaining (though these aren’t the biggest problems for 21st century India). If the aim is to Smash All Patriarchy – smashing Brahmanical Patriarchy which achieves only a fraction of the aim, can’t logically be the primary objective. In other words, wrt Feminism in India there are bigger fish to fry.

Some have argued that “Brahmanical patriarchy is a conceptual framework” that has a wider meaning. But it has been a word (Brahmanism) which means something specific for almost over a century and its definition was never as broad or loose as Hinduism.

Another issue I had with the “Smash Brahmanical Patriarchy” was the lack of understanding in the general population of the term Brahmanism. Any political point being made has value only if it resonates with the masses for whom it is coined. That certainly doesn’t seem to be the case here. As a result, such a sloganeering can be viewed by a considerable population as bigotry against Brahmins (As lots of people pointed out). Having said that, had the slogan been analytically watertight it wouldn’t matter IMO.

Next time there is ideological virtue-signaling – let us hope there is robust elucidation instead of attack with language meant as a catch-all for what one opposes. (Like calling your opponent fascists)

Ironically brahmin communities (mostly due to early exposure to education) are some of the least patriarchal communities of the country. Most women wouldn’t mind freedoms enjoyed by women in these communities (especially MH and WB). Though this would be explained as Brahmanical patriarchy which aims to oppress Bahujan women while emancipating Savarna ones. An incredibly contrived discussion arguing this can be found here with which I profoundly disagree – but that argument is for some other time.