RSS – Brown Pundits

This is Not the India We Joined in 1947: MP Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi

In this in-depth conversation, Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi, current Member of Parliament hailing from National Conference in Jammu Kashmir. He was also the former Cabinet Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. He shares his unfiltered thoughts on the abrogation of Article 370, the political transformation of India, and the struggles faced by the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Ruhullah Mehdi discusses the foundation of Kashmir’s accession to India, emphasizing how Article 370 served as a unique bond that granted Jammu and Kashmir protections similar to those provided to regions like Himachal Pradesh, Lakshadweep, and the North-East. He passionately criticises the BJP-led government for reneging on the promises made in 1947, accusing them of steering the country toward becoming a “Hindu Pakistan.” Drawing from his personal and political experiences, Mehdi reflects on his journey in public life. He raises critical questions about the cultural and political invasion of Kashmir under the guise of tourism, the targeted killings that have devastated both Kashmiri Pandits and Muslims, and the ongoing challenges to preserving Kashmiri identity amidst the RSS’s ideological agenda.

Thomas Blom Hansen, Qurban Ali & Harsh Mander on the RSS’s role in communal violence

Note: Whoever keeps deleting this post must know that I will keep re-posting it. Non-interference in other people’s threads is a sacred principle on BP.

In this episode of Saffron Siege, the anthropologist Thomas Blom Hansen and journalist Qurban Ali join Harsh Mander to examine how the RSS has triggered, enabled and executed riots, targeted communal attacks and other forms of communal violence in India over the 100 years of its existence. Qurban Ali who has reported on many of these incidents on the ground documents how many commissions have found the RSS culpable in riots dating back to Sholapur in 1967. Hansen talks about how violence is a central thesis of the RSS not only as a physical act but as a state of mind.

TM Krishna & Harsh Mander on Tamil Nadu’s resistance of the RSS

This podcast is part of Season 2 of “Partitions of the Heart”. “Saffron Siege” runs from 17 September to 3 December 2025, with a new episode releasing every Wednesday.

In this episode, musician and political commentator T M Krishna speaks to Harsh Mander about Tamil Nadu’s long history of social movements that has led to this resistance. They examine how the state’s linguistic and language-based faith traditions have stood as a bulwark against the RSS’s attempts at homogenisation under a Hindutva umbrella. Krishna points out the multiple streams of religious influence on arts in India, especially in music, and how the RSS has tried to deny this past in service of the ideological project. “Carnatic music is symbolic of something for the RSS. It is symbolic of that puritanical and cultural superiority… Homogenisation, or rather a linearisation, of that is convenient for them.”

Was Kabir Right?

A week ago, I imposed an interdiction on Kabir ; a move I felt was necessary at the time, not because of his views, but because of the manner in which they were expressed. His tone, his dismissal of this platform, and his tendency to escalate rather than de-escalate all contributed to that decision. But now, I find myself wondering: was Kabir right about Brown Pundits?

Since his departure, the commentariat has gone unusually quiet. Threads that once sparked with disagreement, energy, and engagement have gone still. There is a strange calm but it feels like the calm of a museum, not a marketplace of ideas. And what’s become increasingly clear is that the “peace” has come at a cost. That cost is vibrancy. That cost is friction. That cost is participation. Kabir, for all his faults, drew fire, and fire draws people.

This raises a more fundamental question: am I overestimating the commentariat’s interest in the core mission of Brown Pundits? Were people here for civilizational dialogue, or were they here for the masala of Indo-Pak antagonism? It’s disheartening to admit, but the numbers speak for themselves. Kabir had been blocked years before (not by me), and when I released Loki from his cage, well on his return, so did the attention. Continue reading Was Kabir Right?

Did the Muslim League and RSS Want the Same Thing?

Let’s just ask it plainly: if the Muslim League got what it wanted—a Muslim-majority Pakistan—then what, exactly, is the problem with the RSS wanting a Hindu-majority India? This isn’t a provocation. It’s a genuine question.

The Muslim League, by the end, wasn’t fighting for shared rule. It wanted partition. It wanted sovereignty. It wanted to exit the Hindu-majority consensus that the Congress represented. And it succeeded—through law, politics, and eventually blood.

The RSS, for its part, never pretended to want pluralism. It’s been consistent for nearly a century: it wants India to have a Hindu character, spine, and center. If the League could ask for a state that reflects Muslim political interests, why is it unthinkable for the RSS to want the same, flipped?

This is where I struggle with a certain kind of liberal-istan logic—found across both India and Pakistan. You’ll hear:

“India must stay secular! Modi is destroying Nehru’s dream!”

But what was Q.E.A-Jinnah’s dream? Was Pakistan built as a pluralist utopia? Or was it built—openly, unapologetically—as a Muslim homeland?

If Pakistan’s existence is predicated on Muslim majoritarianism, then India’s tilt toward Hindu majoritarianism isn’t an anomaly. It’s symmetry. Maybe even inevitability.

So either we all agree that majoritarianism won in the subcontinent—and everyone adjusts accordingly. Or we all agree that the Congress secular ideal was the better one—and try, equally, to hold both India and Pakistan to it.

But it can’t be:

Muslim nationalism is liberation
Hindu nationalism is fascism

That math doesn’t work. And yes, the Muslim League had more polish. Jinnah smoked, drank, defended pork eaters in court. The RSS wore khaki and read Manu Smriti. But don’t be fooled by aesthetics. At the core, both movements rejected the idea of a shared national project. They just took different exits off the same imperial highway.

So pick one: Either Nehru and Gandhi were right—and so was Maulana Azad. Or everyone else was right—and we all now live in our chosen majorities. But don’t demand secularism from Delhi while praying for Muslim unity in Lahore. That’s not secularism. That’s selective memory.