Anyone who is aware of the Hindutva project would have seen this picture (Commentators from outside India might not have seen this).
RSS and other Hindutvavadi organizations use this image or similar images for conveying the message of Akhand Bharat. As the extend of this image appear ludicrous, I would like to pose the question here – What would be the fair boundaries of “Akhand” Bharat from history?
What were the boundaries of Indian civilization? Where the Muslim kingdoms of medieval times part of this civilization? What qualifies a kingdom or area to be part of the Indian/Hindu civilization? or any other civilization for that matter.
@500 CE / 1000CE & 1500CE respectively?
Or to put it more correctively –
The post I am thinking of writing in the month of November will have a lot to do with this.
The issue i have with this thought is that due to its extravagant claim is that it can be refuted without much thought or effort like done here :
Disclaimer: As this post deals with an academic discussion on the Swastika symbol, I have included various images containing Swastika below. If you are repulsed by the symbol or do not like to look at it, please consider yourself warned. Also, for the same reason, this post is NSFW.
Growing up in India, I had developed this habit of drawing symbols of auspiciousness and good luck on my exam answer sheets. I have no recollection of who taught me to do that or when I started doing it but I can clearly remember even during my bachelor studies, I would collect the answer sheet from the invigilator and immediately proceed to draw an ‘à„’ (Om), a ‘à€¶à„à€°à„’ (Shree) and a ‘ć’ (Swastika, albeit with 4 dots in the middle as one would draw in India) at the top of the first sheet of the answer paper. This rather innocent practice wasn’t unique to me. Apparently many other students used to do this until the universities started cracking down on this ‘malpractice’ for ‘displaying symbols of faith on answer sheets’ and ’emotionally appealing to the evaluators’. In a religiously polarized India of the 2010’s, I don’t expect any less ham-handed response from our University VCs. But, personally, what prompted me to stop this practice was my move to Germany for my master’s.
In the first few weeks of the semester, all international students took part in an orientation program at the university. One of the most shocking things I learnt that day was that any public display of Swastika was BANNED in Germany. I was not ignorant of Germany’s sordid past. Watching ‘Schindler’s list’ beamed onto the wall of a dark classroom with my fellow drama club members in high school is one of the most vivid memories I have. I was just 15 then and the movie shocked me to my core. It was one of those instances of loss of innocence in my life when cruelty, inhumanity, Germany, Hitler, Jews and hate took on a whole other meaning in my psyche. In spite of that, discovering Swastika, an omnipresent sign in India that I had grown up seeing everywhere and that which is considered good and auspicious by everyone around me, could be a banned symbol of hate in the country I had just moved to, was another instance of loss of innocence.
Just like me, many Indians who have moved to the west have discovered this in their own way. The subreddit r/AITA (no connection with raitas đ ) has quite a few posts from hindus who have been mistaken for a white-supremacist (Oh! The irony!) for displaying Swastikas as a pendant gifted by grandmother, in the form of a rangoli/kolam in their frontyard, a tattoo on the arm they got while in India, having portraits of hindu gods at home, etc. All these instances happened in the US. From my personal experience, I have found the germans to have better awareness about Swastika; it’s use as the Nazi party symbol, a hate symbol of neo-Nazis and also as the auspicious symbol for many asian religions and cultures. This is because of two reasons:
1. The curriculum at schools explore all aspects of Germany’s sordid past with a level of frankness that I can only describe as ‘very German’. The curriculum makes the differentiation between the two symbols very clear as you can see from this children’s website that takes them on a german historical journey of the last 100 years.
2. The germans use two different words for this symbol. The symbol of hate used by Hitler and the neo-Nazis is called ‘Hakenkreuz’ while the auspicious symbol of the orient is called ‘Swastika’. Just the existence of two different words makes it easy to differentiate the meaning of the two symbols.
Funnily enough, even though I lived in Germany for 5+ years, I was not aware of the existence of ‘Hakenkreuz’. I only came to know about it in the past year or so through twitter! It was probably through a thread by True Indology (lost when his account was suspended) that I became aware of the german word ‘Hakenkreuz’ that when translated to english means hooked cross and not Swastika. The problem lies with the current mistranslation of Hakenkreuz in English.
Google translate translates Swastika as Hekenkreuz in German. Notice the possible translations of the word – das Hakenkreuz and die Swastika. Also notice the definition of Swastika in english. It only defines the Hakenkreuz, the symbol used by Hitler.
Instead of translating into hooked cross, it is translated as Swastika, which is clearly wrong. So, why IS it mistranslated to Swastika? Who first translated Hakenkreuz to English as Swastika and how did that translation stick? More importantly, did Hitler adopt the eastern symbol Swastika as the anti-semitic symbol of his political party or did the inspiration come from elsewhere? These were some of the questions that recently led me to write a thread on twitter (you could also read it on the thread reader app here). I will summarize my findings below.
Colonialism and imperialism in the 18th and 19th century CE brought about a great deal of interest in the eastern cultures by the west which gave rise to the field of oriental studies and orientalism. All things east were considered exotic and the ‘popular’ phenomenon of cultural appropriation led to the adoption of various eastern symbols in the west. One among those was the Swastika. It shot up in popularity among the western academicians in the 1880’s and pretty soon entered the pop culture scene as a symbol of good luck, akin to today’s good luck charms like Maneki-neko (Japanese beckoning cat), Chinese fortune cookies or the Irish shamrock.
A report by Thomas Wilson titled ‘THE SWASTIKA, The earliest known symbol, and its migrations; with observations on the migration of certain industries in prehistoric times” for the US National museums in 1894 wonderfully compiled the then existing knowledge of Swastika. It is meticulous and very clearly written with almost no bias from Mr. Wilson. This also happens to be the first recorded instance where an English speaker tried to compile all the crooked cross like symbols and used the umbrella term of Swastika in English. Until then, the word Swastika did not exist in any english dictionary or encyclopedia. He writes in the preface:
An English gentleman, versed in prehistoric archĂŠology, visited me in the summer of 1894, and during our conversation asked if we had the Swastika in America. I answered, âYes,â and showed him two or three specimens of it. He demanded if we had any literature on the subject. I cited him De Mortillet, De Morgan, and Zmigrodzki, and he said, âNo, I mean English or American.â I began a search which proved almost futile, as even the word Swastika did not appear in such works as Worcesterâs or Websterâs dictionaries, the EncyclopĂŠdic Dictionary, the EncyclopĂŠdia Britannica, Johnsonâs Universal CyclopĂŠdia, the Peopleâs CyclopĂŠdia, nor Smithâs Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, his Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, or his Classical Dictionary. I also searched, with the same results, Mollettâs Dictionary of Art and ArchĂŠology, Fairholtâs Dictionary of Terms in Art, âLâArt Gothique,â by Gonza, Perrot and Chipiezâs extensive histories of Art in Egypt, in Chaldea and Assyria, and in Phenicia; also âThe Cross, Ancient and Modern,â by W. W. Blake, âThe History of the Cross,â by John Ashton; and a reprint of a Dutch work by Wildener. In the American EncyclopĂŠdia the description is erroneous, while all the Century Dictionary says is, âSame as fylfot,â and âCompare Crux Ansata and Gammadion.â I thereupon concluded that this would be a good subject for presentation to the Smithsonian Institution for âdiffusion of knowledge among men.â
In this report, Wilson examined different forms of crosses that had been found all around the world and concluded that Swastika is the most ancient one of them all.
Different cross-like symbols examined by Thomas Wilson in THE SWASTIKA
He complied various definitions of Swastika as recorded by different researchers and it was commonly understood to mean ‘good being’ or ‘good fortune’ in Sanskrit. The symbology was interpreted by different academicians differently. Although mostly everyone agreed that it is an auspicious symbol for the hindus and buddhists, there was no consensus on how to interpret the symbology. He writes,
Many theories have been presented concerning the symbolism of the Swastika, its relation to ancient deities and its representation of certain qualities. In the estimation of certain writers it has been respectively the emblem of Zeus, of Baal, of the sun, of the sun-god, of the sun-chariot of Agni the fire-god, of Indra the rain-god, of the sky, the sky-god, and finally the deity of all deities, the great God, the Maker and Ruler of the Universe. It has also been held to symbolize light or the god of light, of the forked lightning, and of water. It is believed by some to have been the oldest Aryan symbol. In the estimation of others it represents Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, Creator, Preserver, Destroyer. It appears in the footprints of Buddha, engraved upon the solid rock on the mountains of India. It stood for the Jupiter Tonans and Pluvius of the Latins, and the Thor of the Scandinavians. In the latter case it has been consideredâerroneously, howeverâa variety of the Thor hammer. In the opinion of at least one author it had an intimate relation to the Lotus sign of Egypt and Persia. Some authors have attributed a phallic meaning to it. Others have recognized it as representing the generative principle of mankind, making it the symbol of the female. Its appearance on the person of certain goddesses, Artemis, Hera, Demeter, Astarte, and the Chaldean Nana, the leaden goddess from Hissarlik, has caused it to be claimed as a sign of fecundity.
Until then, Swastika, as a symbol was known by different names in different languages because the symbol existed almost everywhere in the world, in Asia, Europe, northern Africa and the Americas. Also in Great Britain. So, what did the English call the symbol? Fylfot. Wilson writes,
In Great Britain the common name given to the Swastika, from Anglo-Saxon times by those who apparently had no knowledge whence it came, or that it came from any other than their own country, was Fylfot, said to have been derived from the Anglo-Saxon fower fot, meaning four-footed, or many-footed.
So, there existed a word for the ć(crooked cross) symbol in english but only for the ć found in and around great britain. Instead of using this word for all crooked crosses in English, Mr. Wilson instead chose to use the word Swastika since he found it to be the most ancient of them all. This was a ham-fisted move because the Indic name swastika corresponded to the ć that symbolized auspiciousness which the other crooked crosses did not. Even Wilson admits that by quoting a letter by the famous Indologist Prof. Max MĂŒller,
I do not like the use of the word svastika outside of India. It is a word of Indian origin and has its history and definite meaning in India. * * * The occurrence of such crosses in different parts of the world may or may not point to a common origin, but if they are once called Svastika the vulgus profanum will at once jump to the conclusion that they all come from India, and it will take some time to weed out such prejudice.
So, in 1894, the word Swastika was proposed by Mr. Wilson to denote all crooked crosses in english language and we see that the practice stuck since the use of the word in english language increased since then. So, is this when the German word ‘Hakenkreuz’ started being called as Swastika? Interestingly, no! In fact, the report mentions finding variants of swastika in Germany but mentions no name in German. ‘Hakenkreuz’ was barely used until then and was relegated to 19th century vocabulary books like the Bailey-FahrenkrĂŒger’s Wörterbuch der englischen Sprache and the Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob Grimm und Wilhelm Grimm (yes, they are the Brothers Grimm of Grimm’s fairy tales). So, to answer one of the questions posed above, ‘Hakenkreuz’ wasn’t actually translated into English. By the time germans started using Hakenkreuz as the word for the infamous anti-semitic symbol, the English speaking world had already picked up on the word Swastika and called any crooked cross symbol as such.
So, when and why did the Nazis adopt the Hakenkreuz as their anti-semitic symbol? The reason goes all the way back to Troy, the location of the fabled trojan war (it’s an interesting story, you can read a detailed article here). When a german businessman and amateur archeologist Heinrich Schliemann found the remains of the mythical city of Troy in modern day Turkey in 1871, along with the ruins, he found the ć symbol on everything – pieces of pottery, ruins of buildings, marble carvings, etc. Being an amateur archaeologist he did not understand the significance of his find. So, he consulted his orientalist friends – Max Mueller(yes, the same guy who didn’t want to call ‘Swastika’ found outside India as Swastika) and Ămile-Louis Burnouf, a leading expert of Sanskrit. Fun fact: Bernouf was also an anti-semite and a propounder of Aryan master race.
Burnouf made a bunch of dubious claims (debunked by Wilson in his monumental report on Swastika) which was covered in Schliemann’s book ‘Troy and its remains‘ and concluded that Suastika (that was the spelling he went with) is an essential symbol of the Aryan race. The popularization of this flawed idea led to its appropriation as the symbol by the German ‘Völkisch‘ national movement gaining steam at the juncture of 19th and 20th century. It was a nationalistic movement which propounded that Germans belong to the Aryan ‘master race’ and hence need to dominate the world. Poetically, the year Burnouf breathed his last, 1907, was also the year when the Swastika was first used as a symbol of Aryan dominance by a secret society called ‘Order of the New Templars’ (Ordo Novi Templi, or ONT) in Austria by Lanz von Liebenfels, an Austrian racialist. So, in early 20th century, as most of the west started embracing Swastika as a ‘cool’ motif, it was also being appropriated secretly by an anti-semitic and racist underground movement becoming a symbol of racial supremacy for various organizations until it was mainstreamed by Hitler in the Nazi flag in 1920.
Flag of the ‘Order of the new Templars’. This was the first instance of Swastika used as a symbol of Aryan dominance in 1907.
What inspired Hitler to choose this symbol for his political party? Was it just the connection to Aryan race or did the inspiration come from elsewhere? The anti-semitism displayed by the Nazis did not arise from a vacuum. Anti-semitism or anti-Judaism has existed in Europe since pre-Christian times but morphed into ‘religious anti-semitism’ due to the early christian belief that jews were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. This sentiment and the associated conflict intensified after Christianity spread as a state religion in Europe. However, the pseudo-scientific racial theories that became widespread in 19th century Europe threw up an additional strain of ‘racial anti-semitism’ where the basis of discrimination and persecution was the ‘scientific evidence’ that jews belongs to a separate lower ‘non-Aryan’ race. The combination of these two strains of anti-semitism, one historic and one modern, manifested politically in the form of Hitler’s Nazi party.
Professor William Brustein’s book, Roots of hate delves deep into pre-Holocaust anti-semitism in Europe
Adolf Hitler was a complicated man to understand. Forests have been felled to publish books speculating his inspirations and motives. Most scholars however agree that although Hitler distanced himself away from Christianity in his later years, he leaned heavily towards christianity in his early years. His catholic upbringing, his admiration for
Seethapuram is a small, squalid village home largely to Telugu-speaking Naickers, at the foot of the Western Ghats, some 50km northwest of Madurai. Overnight showers, unseasonal in late March, make it hard to see puddles from open sewers in the darkness of 3am. The village is not just stirring; its people are out and about. Chinnaraman, 54, and his wife Murugayi, 48, are both dressed in sky-blue full-sleeved shirts. She wears hers over a sari, and he adds a grey flannel jacket on top. They are ready to leave for their farm, a ten-minute ride over undulating terrain on a grunting 100cc bike. Continue reading Jasmineâs journey: From the fields of Madurai to French luxury perfume
It is somewhat understood that the Christians of Lebanon and Kerala, though separated by 4,000 miles of land & sea, belong to the same ancient linguistic and theological world. Both descend from the Syriac-speaking Christianity that once stretched from Antioch to the Malabar Coast, and both have wrestled with what it means to be indigenous after centuries of empire, conversion, and cultural layering.
1. The Syriac World
Before Latin or Arabic ruled their respective shores, both Lebanon and south western India were part of an Aramaic Christian zone. The language of Christ, Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, became the scriptural and liturgical medium for Christians from Edessa to Mylapore. From this matrix emerged:
The Maronites of Lebanon; Chalcedonian Syriac Christians who accepted the Christology of Constantinople but maintained their own monastic independence in the mountains.
The NasrÄnÄ«s (Saint Thomas Christians) of Kerala; East Syriac Christians under the Church of the East in Persia, who never knew Byzantium but shared the same liturgical ancestry.
In both regions, Syriac liturgy defined the faith long before Latin, Greek, or Malayalam translations appeared. To this day, Maronite and Keralite priests still whisper âQadishÄt AlohĆâ, Holy God, in the same ancestral tongue.
Iâve made a decision: Kabir will no longer be allowed to comment on Brown Pundits.
This isnât about silencing the only active Pakistani Muslim voice here. Nor is it about shutting down disagreement. Itâs about something more basic: respect; for this space, for conversation, and for the people who show up in good faith.
Earlier today, I had to invoke the five-comment deletion rule after one of Sbarrkumâs replies crossed a line. He impliedgrotesque accusations. Iâve said it before: all life is sacred. That kind of slander wonât stand. Ever.
The admins have asked me for some time to be firmer. Iâve held back. I value openness. But Brown Pundits is not a free-for-all. We care about how people argue, not just what they argue.
Iâd meant to write something calmer after yoga. Because I care about this project. I believe in it. BP must be a place of respect. That comes from a deeper idea; dharma, a commitment to plurality and balance. Even when we fall short, thatâs the standard we aim for.
Iâm not saying India, or the BP commentariat, always gets it right. Sometimes, on topics like caste, we speak from a place of blind privilege. And as the founder, I know my voice carries weight. Thatâs not always fair.
But this is the key: we must disagree with grace. And Kabir doesnât. His tone is often scornful. He treats this space as beneath him.
Over the years, Iâve seen something: for many Pakistanis, the deepest value is ‘Izzat; honour and status. It often matters more than truth. But that ‘Izzat seems to vanish in the face of powerâespecially when that power is Western or Arab. Kabir speaks glowingly of âthe West.â But when it comes to Dharma Asia, he sneers.
That sneer has been aimed at Brown Pundits. And I wonât allow that anymore. Kabir may see BP as âlesser,â unworthy of his respect. You donât get to sneer and stay.
This isnât a permanent ban. But it is an interdiction. Kabir is welcome to focus on his Substack. I wish him well. If he ever wants to return, he can contact me directly. But that will require real contrition; not performance.
Let me end with this: this is not about politics. People here hold strong views; on India, on Palestine, on religion. Thatâs not the problem. The problem is contempt. Mockery. Scorn. Brown Pundits will always welcome hard conversations. But only if theyâre honest. And only if theyâre respectful.
Brown Pundits has always thrived on debate, commentary, and detail. Our compact teamâthree co-founders, two editors (Nivedita & Indosaurus), and three authors (sbarrkum, Gaurav Lele, Saiarav and Manav); keeps the conversation alive.
Weâd like to expand. If youâve been a regular voice in the comments or simply feel you have something to add, please apply to write for BP. Sharp observations, whether about Modi Jiâs birthday celebrations or broader cricketing analogies, are exactly what we value.
The word Pundit comes from Sanskrit, meaning âlearned manâ or Brahmin. It reminds us that Brown intellectual life is rooted in centuries of plural, complex traditions of debate. This is our inheritance, and BP stands on those terms; not reducible to any ideology.
Iâd especially encourage regulars like brown,Daves,Hoju, Pandit Brown, and BB to consider joining the author list.
Can We Hear God? (BahĂĄâĂ Teachings) â A reflection on divine communication and perception.
The Dawn of the Post-Literate Society: (James Marriott, Substack) â On how screens and AI are reshaping reading and writing itself. Thanks Kabir for the suggestion.
Reflections
On the Ummah: Muslims have often failed to concede ground in internal debates, which has left them politically boxed in. One reform across all denominations would be to return directly to the Quran as the primary authority. That alone would dissolve many cultural accretions, halal (animals should be stunned before slaughter), hijab (a Sassaniantrait), and other practices, into something more adaptive.
And hereâs a more speculative question: if the âSatanic Versesâ were reconsidered if Al-Lat, Al-Uzzah, and Al-Manat were understood as sacred divinities at the threshold of the Lote Tree, would that make Islam more fluid, especially for minority-majority dynamics?
On Kabir: Iâm not moderating him out, but readers should be aware that he frames everything through Muslim-rights activism. Engage, but donât get gaslit into endless provocations. Everyone is entitled to their nationalisms â but they canât claim liberalism at the same time. That tension makes it worth examining how plurality is treated within the Hindu fold itself. Dharma, unlike the Abrahamic Faiths, tends to all for multiple truths co-existing with each other (Buddhism and indigenous East Asian religions).
đ Over to you. Iâm retreating from heavy moderation â I see BPâs strength in letting the commentariat lead. Biases are fine. Gratuitous abuse is not.
âIn March 1998 the Indian PM Gujral, told ⊠âPakistan was not capable of making atomic bombs.â he had been convinced by Indian Intelligence and Dr Raja Raman, the head of Indian Atomic Energy Commission, who had publicly claimed that nuclear weapon were beyond Pakistanâs reach.â
The traditional Mercator worldview slices our imagination. It distorts the unity of the Indo-Iranian zone; a civilizational belt that has resisted rupture, even across millennia of empire, religion, and state.
I was riffling through the comments and my jaw dropped when Kabir claimed Hinduphobia doesnât exist. It struck me as both historically and emotionally tone-deaf. I didnât respond at the time, but Iâve been reflecting on it since.
Let me say upfront: Hinduphobia does exist. It may not always manifest in overt violence or systemic persecution (at least not today, and not in most places globally), but it does appear in more insidious, ideological forms; especially in academic and diasporic discourse.
Take, for instance, the backlash against H1B visa recipients. Much of that criticism is coded; targeting upper-caste Indians, especially Hindus, who are the primary beneficiaries of this brain-drain dynamic. Itâs not just about class or meritocracy; thereâs an unspoken discomfort with their presence and success, often couched in progressive rhetoric.
On the intellectual front, academics like Audrey Truschke and others within the left-liberal Western consensus have regularly challenged or dismissed Hindu identity altogether; reducing it to political nationalism or caste oppression. This refusal to acknowledge Hinduism as a living, plural, and spiritual tradition creates an environment where Hindu self-articulation is delegitimized. That too is a form of Hinduphobia.
Now, is this Hinduphobia the same as the systemic anti-Muslim, anti-Black, or anti-immigrant hatred we see elsewhere? No. Hinduphobia today is more dismissive than violent, more erasure than exclusion, but it is real and it needs to be acknowledged.
In the name of Pakistan, which is a beautiful poetic name, âLand of the Pureâ, lies the tragedy of pathological purity. It is an addendum to the desire to stay pure. To remain untainted. But purity, when pursued absolutely, becomes brittle.
Madhuri Mahadevi
The Ambanis recently relocated Elephant Madhuri from Kolhapurâs Jain Math to the Vantara rehab centre, citing health concerns. But the move, though framed as rescue, triggered emotional protests, political pushback, and a national debate over animal welfare vs. sacred tradition.
Why did it explode? Because Madhuri wasnât just a creature in need of savin; she was a living deity to those who loved her. Her departure wasnât a routine animal welfare decision. It was a rupture in Indiaâs civilizational relationship to the divine in nature. One of the most remarkable aspects of Hinduism is its seamless veneration of the natural world. The river is a mother. The cow, a guardian. The elephant, divine.
Few religions integrate reverence for nature into daily life with such tenderness and theological consistency. This story, of an elephant, a corporate empire, and a temple, speaks to a larger tension in India today: Who gets to define care? And when does ârescueâ become removal? Continue reading Madhuri is stronger than the Ambanis