Celebrating the opening of the Ram Temple. (Indranil Aditya/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
India’s entry into the ranks of the world’s surviving theocracies — Iran, Afghanistan, the Vatican City — arrived bathetically. When the history of the nation’s descent from secularism to Hindu nationalism is written, it might end in Ayodhya. Just after noon yesterday, the Ram Temple was consecrated, a stone’s throw from the ruins of Babur’s Mosque, which was demolished three decades ago by a Hindu mob. The climax was supposed to be the moment an idol was placed in the sanctum sanctorum of the imposing pink sandstone construction — 75 years after a similar idol “magically” appeared in Babur’s Mosque, giving fodder to the feverish Hindu fantasy that the birthplace of Ram lies underneath its foundations.
Millions watched the spectacle. A 30-metre priapic incense stick made of 1,500kg of cow dung was lit for the occasion. Babies were prematurely induced so that they would be born on this holiest of days. Yet, for all the pomp, the pilgrims will doubtless be returning home disappointed. For the Ram Temple, which is supposed to be the third-largest in the world, isn’t even close to completion. Not even its first floor has been built: it is set to be inaugurated in December — too late for Narendra Modi, who is evidently a man in a terrific hurry. At the height of the pandemic, either conscious of his mortality or deliberately disregarding the convention of posthumous recognition, Modi had the Ahmedabad cricket stadium renamed after him. This time around, there’s an inconvenient event just around the corner: a spring general election.
And so, like the Italian umarell — the ubiquitous pensioners who have an inexplicable penchant for observing construction sites, and every so often proffering unwanted advice to workers — Modi’s fans have had to content themselves with what is essentially a work in progress. To the bhakts — diehards — of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), there was the consolation prize of seeing their ruler lather mascara on the idol’s eyes.
Indian liberals, by contrast, observed the proceedings with obituarial gloom. To them, this is the end of an era. The curtain has fallen on secularism — on the grand vision of the country’s founding fathers. The Fifties and Sixties, so the story goes, were a golden age of religious peace; the Congress Party that had ruled uninterruptedly since independence in 1947, we are told, not only protected minorities from the worst instincts of the Hindu majority but also gave them considerable constitutional concessions. Muslims, for instance, were allowed to conserve such folksy and innocent practices as polygamy, unilateral divorce without alimony (a male prerogative only, of course), and discriminatory inheritance (sons being entitled to twice the share of daughters). The meddlesome state was kept at bay.
This arrangement was proof, apparently, of the genius of “Indian secularism”, which liberals saw as superior to French laïcité, with its unedifying principle of separating church and state. Such a severance would have resulted in monstrous godlessness, argued Indian liberals. Worse, the very idea stank of foreignness. Fortunately, though, India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, had no truck with such heresies. As the Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen has argued in The Argumentative Indian: he understood that only by making concessions to religion can religious passions be controlled.
The political theorist Rajeev Bhargava, doyen of Delhi’s liberal intellectual aristocracy, made a similar case. Nehru had cracked the formula. His secularism did not disregard Hinduism and Islam; rather, it maintained a “principled distance” between the two. Stanley Tambiah, anthropologist, also praised Nehru’s “large-hearted and genuinely accommodative” secularism, which — unlike laïcité — won over minorities. Or so he claimed.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI was waiting for a Marxist “historian” from Oxford to again spout lies and Anil doesn’t fail to disappoint.
This entire article is a vicious rant of a fantasist who does great injustice to history by calling himself a “historian” when all he is is a rabid propaganda polemicist of the Tamanny Hall variety, who only deserved an empty slot at Hyde Park Speakers Corner on a dull day.
Does he deny that the so called structure destroyed in 1992 was built by Babur in violent destruction of a Hindu temple in the 1550s – considered a birthplace of an important Hindu deity?
That Islamic conquest of India was violent, brutal and entirely one of trying to smash ” kefirs” through butchery and forced killings and conversions?
That Nehru was guilty of building a structure of State sponsored appeasement of a Sunni Muslim fanatical orthodoxy through not introducing ” la icite” style French constitutional morality in India post 1947?
That Sharia Law, and every form of Muslim appeasement was a trademark of Congress Party votebank politics since 1947?
That KK Muhammed and several Muslims themselves were involved in the archaeological excavations proving the veracity of the Hindu temple which stood at the site of the disputed structure; that KK Nair, who Nehru tried to force in 1948 to allow the Muezzin to call from a derelict structure, resigned his job as an honest ICS officer to prevent the deliberate and twisted minorityism of Nehru?
That the entire history of the Islamic rule of a 1000 years in India was of brutal suppression of a Hindu way of life- of which destroying approximately thousands of temples was a regular feature?
That the so called mosque was a derelict disputed structure till a band of Marxist historians decided to fight for the Islamist cause since the early 90s?
A gross and false rendition of facts from a dubious writer who UH should not entertain.
I hoped to hear a comment from you on this article. When I saw the title, I thought it sounded biased and Indian citizens might be justifiably offended to hear their country compared to the likes of Iran and the Taliban. I suspected the article was, to be charitable, a bit one sided, but as someone unfamiliar with the issues, I am woefully unqualified to judge who is spouting nonsense about the subject of India. I’m not surprised the article is yet another apology for the bad behavior of Muslims throughout history. For whatever reason, the sins of every religion other than Islam is grounds for condemnation, but Islam, which has been destroying ancient religious sites as recently as the 1990’s is excused. This is a fascination with western media and academics that makes no sense to me. It isn’t as if radical Islam is friendly towards secularism. I’m quite sure I’m more likely to be murdered or jailed for making an anti-Islam comment in Pakistan than making a similar anti-Hindu statement in India, but nobody ever wants to point out the double standard being applied. I don’t get it. At any rate, thanks for confirming what I already suspected about this author.
Incidentally, thanks for clarifying the situation with this particular site. Taking over and/or demolishing the sites of other religions then building over them is typical of Islam, but nobody mentions that. The Hagia Sofia was the center of Eastern Orthodox Christianity before it was, yep you guessed it, turned into a mosque. There’s a similar argument about the Temple Mount in Jerusalem where they also built a mosque on top of the spot where the original temple of Solomon was. It’s a recurring pattern.
Thanks, I normally don’t get outraged, but history is nuanced.
When you see this kind of distortion you begin to suspect agendas.
Anil fails to mention that the case was heard by a distinguished panel of Supreme Court Judges including Muslim judges.
Also that the biggest mosque in Ayodhya is coming up shortly and is being sponsored by the Indian state.
One of my close relatives was involved in an inter faith harmony movement to build both a temple and a mosque at the site in the 1980s.
He was repeatedly defeated in his endeavours – which included Muslims- by the Babri masjid Action Committee and the Waqf Board- two extreme Islamist Congress- Left sponsored entities.
Incidentally I am researching a book on the Partition too, and while I have miles to go, I can confirm two trends- the unfortunate tendency of Congress to cavort with Islamic extremism went back to 1921 and the Non Coperation Movement where there was a tie up with the Khilafatists – who wanted to restore the Caliphate.
And the pre partition riots in Calcutta in 1946 were horrific- a genocide in itself of Bengali Hindus triggered by HS Suhrawardy of the Muslim League.
Nehru only worsened matters after 1947 treating extreme Islamist fanatics as his natural votebank, to the dismay of Congress Moderates like Maulana Azad.
The author’s disingenuous twisting of facts is dangerous in the kind of students he is tutoring at Oxford.
Nice try Sanghi, there were no Muslim judges. ONLY 1 judge.
To add more Chief Justice became an MP nominated by ruling fascist party.
Another one who is now the Chairman of NCLT or whatever attended the LEGALLY built Ram Temple today.
Now just accept we became a Hindu Taliban.
Good manners and etiquette are obviously as alien to you as factual history (which is not troll propaganda) is.
Improve your” little grey cells” before trying to counter me.
And do recall the eternal wisdom of Alexander Pope ” A little learning is a dangerous thing” next time you agit- propaganda on behalf of Razakars and other assorted Islamo-Marxist idols.
Islamo-Marxist? This is an absolutely meaningless contradictory term, cooked up as a pejorative word. You will notice the Iranian Mullahs (for example) didn’t have much time for “Marxists” in 1979.
Please note that we are discussing South Asia of where politics since the 1950s in particular but starting in the 1940s very much falls in the trope.
Yup, so are we. Nul points.
Exactly. Tack on ‘Marxist’ to any half-witted rant and bam! Instant pseudo-academic points.
They did when they were both aligned against the Shah: after he fled the Mullahs turned on the Marxists and killed them.
‘Good manners’ being in your book, ‘arguments that agree with mine. I found nothing rude in George Babu’s comment. ‘Hindu taliban’ is a pretty good analogy of the crystal-clear dangers of this emerging theocracy.
‘They’re comparing this to 9/11. Don’t be taken alive. Kill all the hostages… and keep your phone switched on so we can hear the gunfire’. Minute by heart-stopping minute, JONATHAN MAYO recreates the horror of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks | Daily Mail Online
2008 Mumbai attacks – Wikipedia
Lashkar-e-Taiba – Wikipedia
The BJP are a long way from LET and the various killings in Kashmir which have been going on since 1985.
Actually 1947-48 and the first Indo Pak War when Pathan irregulars beheaded Sikh and Hindu villagers
Name one law that disadvantages religious minorities. Name one civil liberty withdrawn.
TBF the Christians regularly built upon British pagan ritual sites, MesoAmerican pyramids and holy sites. Pretty standard fare for any conquering religion. That said, Islam’s example may be the most egregious, building a mosque on the Temple Mount comes to mind…
I can’t recall a single instance when the Brits build a church after destroying a Hindu temple.
Likewise, after the Hindu Maratha empire became the strongest power in large parts of India for a century, they didn’t follow the “standard fare” for a conquering religion.
The British Empire was very fair in never destroying any Hindu temples.
That is why most Hindus welcomed it in Bengal where Siraj was a marauder and rapist cum looter.
The only European power which behaved somewhat similar to Islamic rule were the Portuguese in Goa.
I was giving historical context of Christianity IN ENGLAND and the Americas. Obviously Christianity has nit been a “conquering” religion for hundreds of years. Nuance.
It varied a lot from culture to culture and among religions in the ancient world. The Persians tolerated and in some cases supported native religions. The Romans tended to tolerate native religions to a point, but weren’t consistent. They were less tolerant during the Imperial period, particularly the middle to late imperial period. It was dependent on the circumstances, who was emperor, who was the conquering general, and so forth. The Mongols were indifferent to native religions and didn’t much care so long as their vassals were obedient and paid regular tribute.
Actually the Romans were notably consistent: they’d pretty much tolerate any religion insofar as it did not threaten the state. Anything ‘seditious’ in that sense, and they came down like a ton of bricks. Imperial Rome demanded as least lip service to the recognition of the Emperor as a God. Deny that openly (Christians, Jews for example) and the response was ruthless.
The difference is that there are no longer any British pagans (other than trendy middle-class fakes) or MesoAmerican pagans. Paganism has died out. To a large extent, it did when Christianity first arrived.
Hinduism hasn’t.
You’re missing my point. I was making a general statement concerning conquering religions. All those pagan were converted, forced to convert, or killed, Of course paganism died out. Not picking a side. If anything, I’m with the Hindus.
Wrong. Christianity has rarely used forced conversion. And when it’s happened, it’s been the work of tetchy rulers or fanatical city mobs.
The conversion of the Roman Empire, then of pagan Europe, was slow and voluntary. And very incomplete.
Even the Spanish in Mexico went slowly regarding conversion.
CEO, if you are also making the attempt to tar Christianity with the brush of “conquering religions” then I think the brush is too broad, my friend. The whole essence of Christ is one identifying with and uplifting the lowest of humanity, the Dalit, if you will, since the Son of God identified with a criminal by being crucified. This message of the Cross is so antithetical to “a god conquering by force”, that it’s literally impossible to preach Christianity by force. Not that some haven’t tried it, but to their own glory, not Christ’s.
To use the word ‘conquering religion’ to describe the arrival of Christianity in Britain is entirely mistaken.
How does any of your vague examples justify destroying a mosque or slaughtering Muslims? This article was a critique of a supposedly secular state which allowed for the massacre of religious minorities and the destruction of mosques. Btw, Islam is not a political entity nor an organization. Islam doesn’t act political and religious organizations do. Saying Islam did this or that makes no sense.
Politically ambitious mullahs have turned Islam into a political entity. Hamas is one such an entity fighting for the cause of Islam! Historically, Islam was used by Muslim leaders to justify wars and invasions. They believed that it was their God given duty to spread Islam – by sword or otherwise.
As the Koran recommends – “Convert by the Sword.”
.
The Caliphate is not a political entity ?
Caliphate – Wikipedia
I never said it justified slaughtering Muslims, only that both sides have engaged in a historical cycle of violence that began with Muslim conquests and that this pattern has been seen in many places up through the present. Neither side can be completely absolved. The issue is not as black and white as it seems. Conflicts that go back hundreds of years are complex and nuanced. Outsiders should refrain from moral judgement of either side, IMHO. I consider moral judgements against groups to be invalid entirely. Morality applies to individuals, not groups. I wasn’t making a moral judgement but pointing out the double standard of singling out Modi and Hinduism as a theocracy without considering the historical background or applying the same standards to Muslim states, which never seems to happen.
Further, Islam isn’t a political entity now, but it was during some of the time in question. There was no distinction between the Caliphate and the Islamic religion. They were considered one and the same. Saying that Islam conquered much of the middle east during the period of the caliphate is historically accurate. With later groups like the Mamluks and Ottomans who simply adopted Islam, a distinction can be drawn but they were still theocracies and Islam was their religion. Using the term to refer to current events is admittedly a generalization. Yes, not all Islam is violent and destructive, but a substantial portion of it is, and through history always has been. This continues to be the case. That isn’t to say Christianity hasn’t had violent periods and doesn’t have violent individuals. It has had plenty of both. So has every other religion. In the modern world, however, examples of religious violence, repression, and intolerance are far more common in Islam than other religions. To declare otherwise is, to my mind, a denial of the basic facts and, as I said, an apology for Islam. Ironically, the next greatest offender is probably secularism, at least if one includes the examples of Soviet and Chinese communism.
The Muslims were certainly not unique in destroying the religious sites of conquered peoples but it cannot be said that there weren’t some conquerors who tolerated or ignored native religions. The Persians, for example, rarely interfered with native religions, even allowing the Hebrews to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem. The Hellenic rulers who divided up the conquests of Alexander the Great made a point in many cases to openly and outwardly adopt the customs, religions, and even modes of dress of the lands they ruled in order to legitimize their rule and ensure their descendants would not still be regarded as foreign conquerors. The Romans were inconsistent, rarely engaging in that sort of thing during the republic and the early empire but far more often during the middle to late imperial period. The left the Jewish Temple when they conquered the Levant but destroyed it later on. It depended on who was emperor at the time and/or who the conquering general was. The Mongols didn’t much care about religion as long as their subject states paid regular tribute and obeyed their overlords. It is not accurate to say that it was ‘standard practice’ in the ancient world. It is fair to say that the practice was common and certainly not unique to Islam.
Religious tensions were largely in decline until 1973 and the post 1979. After Yom Kippur War The Muslim Bretheren increased their influence and post 1979 The Saudis funded Salaafis. The Afghan War post 1979 increased Salaafi Influence in part by pushing out the Sufi Influence in Pakistan. Pre 1979 Hindus and Sufis Muslims would sometimes go on pilgramage to Pirs( Saints ) tombs as a sort of holiday.
The Formation of LET in 1985 , killings in Kashmir and Mumbai Terrorist attacks showed Congress was weak in dealing with violence and encouraged support fro BJP.
Lashkar-e-Taiba – Wikipedia
In general unless moderate liberal secular democratic parties do not defeat violent minorities then people will support those parties who can. The inability of the Social Democrats to defeat the Marxists in Berlin in 1919 and Munich led to the support of the Frei Corp and eventually the Nazis.
Between 1000 and 1750 there were 26 Muslim invasions of India with a death toll of 88 million ( K S Lal ).
The LET have rubbed dirt into a wound which was healing combined with the incompetence of Congress and the result is votes for the BJP.
If the Congress was to be genuinely secular,competent and free from corruption it could win elections again. If one looks at the poor state England was in when Elizabeth I came to power and with the assistance of Burghley, Walsingham, Hawkins and Gresham, etc then great improvements can occur.
Let peoples hard earned money fructify in their pockets rather than lose it through taxationwhere government waste it through incompetence and corruption.
Appreciate your inputs.
Many in India have noted that the Western MSM in general is projecting a completely distorted picture of the Ram Janambhoomi.
Congress ” secularism” since Nehru has always been skewered by depriving Hindus of control of their own shrines, encouraging minorities not to assimilate etc
If you are interested look up the history of the Swatantra Party. It was nationalist, Westernised, pro education and market economy and anti Communist.
Here is a link-
https://indianliberals.in/hi/content/swatantra-party-indias-first-liberal-party/
Most Westerners donot realise that Modi is essentially remoulding the Swatantra Party message, albeit in more civilizational terms, due to the harm done by Congress in its dynastic democracy rule.
Today Congress and the Communists are in close alliance with Salafist Islamists such as the Muslim League in Kerala and Islamist parties in Bengal and Assam. They have condoned and tacitly supported the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Kashmir.
The fact that many moderate Muslims are voting BJP is making them lose their mojo even more.
It doesn’t help that such trashy Woke nonsense is being taught on Western campuses by persons like this article’s author that an entire generation in the West is being fed disinformation.
Interesting you mentioned Kerala. Spoke to a person from Kerala a few years ago and he was concerned in the growth of the Muslim population and their economic power. He considered the Muslims of Kerala were receiving money from Middle East. What is worth watching is Hizb ut Tahir and Tablighi Jamaat
Hizb ut-Tahrir – Wikipedia
Tablighi Jamaat – Wikipedia
HT has been banned in many Muslim countries. TJ tends to isolate Muslims from non- Muslims and though does not preach violence, makes some members more susceptible to recruitment to violent causes.
Someone described the journey to Al Quaeda is like a train journey with many stations. Only the last one is violence . What various preachers can achieve is to turn Muslims who are against violence to being indifferent to providing moral support for violence to providing money and/or logistics to finally actual violence.
AQ and HT include very intelligent people who use various front organisations the same way the USSR/KGB used front organisations. Someone from congress may dealing with a Muslim organisationa and think it is just part of the democratic process but not realise some members may be AQ. Even other Muslim members of the organisation may not realise that those influencing policy are AQ.
In the UK from the late 1960s many Trotskyist organisations took over trade unions, local government in inner city areas ( Socialist Action in London being a good example), teacher training colleges and humanities departments of universities, some parts of civil service, some legal firms being paid by Legal aid.
Kerala has very rabid Islamist parties aligned with both Congress and the Left.
Search “Sar Tan Se Juda” and see the horrific Islamic violence unleashed in 2022 by the PFI.
Also see how Hamas leaders held Press Conferences justifying 7th October in conjunction with the Marxist Kerala Chief Minister PN Vijayan.
An interesting new trend in Kerala is the emerging consensus among many about Turkey and CCP funding many Islamist parties.
Er, which bit exactly is ‘trashy woke nonsense’ (amusing coming from the bloke harping on about etiquette)? You seem entirely obsessed with Hindus being the victims of Muslim violence, but wholly unconcerned about the reverse. Which, to be honest, doesn’t strike me as particularly balanced, or incline me to trust your information.
Ms Palmer I don’t think you know much about Indian history or politics as evidenced by your short counters steeped in ignorant keyboard provocations.
Kindly read the Supreme Court judgements and Iqbal Ansaris deposition on the issue before you trot out silly remarks.
I presume you are part of the usual suspects on UH who like to dash off comments X style for engaging in similar meaningless chatter of which abuse and a-historical remarks and assertions without facts predominate.
Since you find Anil ” calmly balanced” I see your own unique sense of “balance” too steeped in Hinduphobic Modi Derangement Syndrome.
Arrividerci.
This is a great, concise summary of a lot of things generally discussed in isolation.
Most conquerors in the Ancient World couldn’t care less about religion of the conquered, since their Gods were plural anyway. The Persians, being Zoroastrian, were an exception but were likewise not bothered. The real problems started with the Abrahamic monotheistic faiths.
“supposedly secular state which allowed for the massacre of religious minorities and the destruction of mosques”
Oh, just quit the melodrama.
Muslims enjoy special religious rights in India (Hindus don’t), no govt control over mosques (unlike Hindu temples), their population has INCREASED since 1947 to 14% from 10%.
And that’s despite “Indian” muslims voting en Massey for partition and Pakistan. If they were not in a minority, they would behave against other religions EXACTLY like their brothers do in Pakistan.
The mosque that was “destroyed” was built by a mass murderer and religious bigot, by destroying a Hindu temple on a Hindu religious site.
And right now, not far from the Ram temple, a brand new mosque is being built. Right now!
I fly absolutely no flag for Islam, but your determination to paint Hindus as victims of Muslims in present-day India is frankly absurd.
I agree about the lack of justification for murderous anti-Muslim mobs. But I wholly disagree with ‘Islam is not a political entity’. Sorry to disrupt your happy delusion, but we’ve been living with a crisis of violent Islamist terrorism active on three continents for the last twenty years. All of them want a worldwide caliphate. Welcome to political Islam.
Gupta’s comment above which you seem to think represents a balanced position on the issue – totally ignored the many anti Muslim pogroms that have happened in India I.have no idea what you mean by excusing Muslim bad behaviour. Standards histories clearly attest to the Muslim conquest of Northern India, including the destruction of Hindu temples. And the terrible destruction carried of ISIS and other Islamist groups are scarcely “ignored”. However, two wrings don’t actually make a right….
Spot on. It was a weirdly frantic and partial post and the poster’s continual playing of the victim card is just irritating.
Muslims are full on haters of the West . That’s the thing leftist academics have in common with Muslims . And Muslims too seem to recognise the language of post -colonialist chit chat can be used as a tool , despite Islam itself being one of the world’s biggest colonisers ,
Do you have a Twitter Handle?
No, but I may just get one, seeing how populated by trolls and authors of Wokery UH is descending to.
A fantasist who doesn’t know the difference between “lather” and slather.
I don’t believe English is his native language. Further this is the Internet and trying to correct spelling and grammar is an exercise in futility. I know I make errors in my posts and in most cases nobody feels compelled to point them out. Comments like yours are almost invariably a form of subtle insult implying stupidity on the part of the commenter in question, a tactic worthy of a third grade schoolyard, not a serious discussion.
SAYANTANI is feminine!
Know your Raj sir.
Apologies. The use of ‘his’ is technically correct when the gender of the subject is indeterminate, or at least it was when I was taught grammar in school in the 80s. This sort of thing crops up because English lacks a gender neutral singular pronoun that indicates a person. Using it and its is considered rude or offensive as the word ‘it’ has evolved to specifically refer to inanimate objects and sometimes non-human animals, though I tend not to do that as pet owners can be sensitive about such things. I suppose I should just default to the plural they/their as so many others do no matter how wrong it sounds to the ear.
So, what is your rebuttal other than ad hominen attacks, whataboutism and attempts to justify destroying centuries old mosque?
The central argument is that supposedly secular government historically failed to protect religious my minorities and was still biased towards the Hindu minority. Do have an actual rebuttal against that argument?
Bringing up the actions of past Muslim rules, who were monarchs with not pretense to secularism, does nothing to challenge his point.
A fairer summary might be that Congress tried to keep some kind of balance between the faith groups, with something for each – and gave lower castes and religious minorities special favours in return for serving as vote banks. BJP pushed back against that and instead got its votes from the Hindu majority (it is a majority, not a minority as you say), favouring a nation that more reflected the majority (which is not unheard of, exactly). The author favours laïcité, redistribution and revolution, which is another way of saying an explicitly atheist society that openly rejects the religious traditions of everybody and the community spirit that goes with them (good luck with getting that to work). India is an extremely complex divided, multicultural (and multi-caste) society with a long and not unviolent history, and I know of no good models for making such a society function harmoniously. We could at least be humble enough to listen to the people who live there and not blindly apply the ideas of revolutionary France as the ideal.
A very enlightening comment. From your comment and others, it seems this author is simply applying his own values to everything, which explains the almost sermon-like tone the article takes. I’m all for hearing from all sides but I’d rather have intellectually honest, thoughtful, and well-written opinions from all sides, not sermons from the church of secularism pronouncing judgement upon other nations and cultures that offend its sacred precepts.
Er, ‘the ideas of revolutionary France’ have been been pretty significant in developing that awful Western concept of democracy. Which is supposed to be the governing principle of India as, you know, a democracy.
If you have either the knowledge or the capacity respond point by point to the issues I speak on.
Are you suffering ” transference” disorder? What you accuse me of is something you do yourself.
And the tenor of Anil’s article is not exactly in polite language – it is reductionist, rapidly twisting of facts and a rant.
Perhaps you ought to point out that Islam has become more extreme since the growth of Salaafis post 1979, the violence in Kashmir and 2008 Mumbai Terrorist attacks by
Lashkar-e-Taiba
It has adopted maximalist agenda of global jihad. The group justifies its ideology on verse 2:216 of the Quran.
LET was founded in 1985.
How much of the support for the BJP is a reaction against Salaafi Terrorism and the inability of Congress to supress it?
Babri Masjid – Wikipedia
It also ordered the government to give an alternative 2-hectare (5-acre) plot to the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board to replace the Babri Masjid that was demolished in 1992.[21] The government allotted a site in the village of Dhannipur, 18 kilometres (11 mi) from Ayodhya and 30 kilometres (19 mi) by road from the site of the original Babri Masjid.[22][23] The construction of the mosque started on 26 January 2021.[24][2
How would Pakistan react if Hindus had killed the same number of Muslims in their country as have Hindus been killed by Muslims in India, since 1985 ?
I have already stated that in my series of remarks.Those who have attacked me here have only spouted abuse without being able to counter any facts.
It shows their ignorance, prejudice or both.
In fact that mosque is being built by the Indian government.
I gave a reply to you above to show why Congress is mostly to blame for the failure to check Islamic extremism.
If you are interested look up the Supreme Court of India judgement of 2019, not from Wikipedia ( which is Leftist) but through the Court site.
Also read the Open Magazine.
I say, well done for not answering his question.
Absolutely right. I was at first irritated that Unherd would give space to such poisonous nonsense, but occasionally it is useful to be reminded of what is being injected into our brightest students.
It isn’t nonsense, and it’s considerably less poisonous than the political Hinduism it attacks.
Do explain the poisonous tenets of political hinduism.
That the religion of Indian citizens is overwhelmingly their most important quality, that those who are not Hindu are intrinsically less Indian and not entitled to the same rights, and that violent abuse of citizens of a different religion is acceptable. See any Modi speech.
You win a prize for the highest amount of ignorance displayed on India. Congratulations.
This is a grotesquely one sided and biased “rebuttal” of the article. I notice that you totally ignore the points about anti Muslim pogroms, which is pretty extraordinary! No one knows where Ram, an entirely mythical character, was “born”. Whatever, allowing a mob to tear down a historic – or indeed any – building because they think it is justified – and then post facto essentially validating this, was sectarian and disgraceful.
The Muslims did indeed destroy many Indian temples, but this occurred hundreds of years ago and Muslims essentially became part of India. The Mughal Empire was at most periods actually quite religiously tolerant. What you seem to be advocating is a long period of discrimination and hostility towards Muslims, as if to “compensate” for historical unequal treatment of Hindus.
Ah, you find Anil an epitome of balance and my response ” grotesquely one-sided”. Curious indeed.
You go on to use words like ” pogroms” etc which only shows which mould you are in.( Pamphleteer for Corbyn or McDonnel perhaps?)
You show staggering ignorance of most of Indian history including the judicial process of 30 plus years led by the Supreme Court which finally led to a Court verdict by which the temple has been built.
This wasn’t an easy decision and there was a Muslim judge who too voted in favour of the temple.
What do you mean ” myth”?
That is an extremely Hinduphobic comment and shows your prejudice against my faith. Faith is about belief and to dismiss Hindu gods as ” myths” shows you to be a bigot.
Given your intellectual ignorance of Indian history and that you have attacked me on other threads too, in a similarly exaggerated manner, it seems you obviously have some preconceived biases for whatever reasons.
Possibly an extreme Corbynist like you can never get nuance or history right, so trapped are you in your blinkers.
I won’t be bothering to respond to such diatribes unless you show some courtesy and also some knowledge of subjects you shoot off on; but appear ill- informed about
Hinduphobic? Brilliant – next you’ll be talking of misgendering.
Why are you so offended by Indian Hindu women? Fishing fleet syndrome of the 21st century? Calm down and get yourself a new partner in case my suspicions above are correct.
I agree with you entirely. This writer is so selective with the truth. The waves of islamic conquest of the indian subcontinent have created a trauma that lasts till today though they have have never been addressed or even acknowledged. 80-100 million hindus/ buddhists/jains were massacred and scores of the holiest hindu shrines in north India razed with mosques built over some of them. There has been a continuous recorded dispute over the mosque – long abandoned with no worshippers- since the mid 19th century. There is archeological evidence of a the remains of a temple under the mosque and the hindus won their case in court with evidence. The muslim waqf board has been given an alternative site to build a new mosque. India’s leftoid liberals never bother to mention the deeply unequal treatment of hindu places of worship under Nehruvian ‘secularism’. Do they ever mention that all the major hindu temples in the southern states – some of which are very wealthy- are administered by the state governments who redirect revenue from these temples to non-hindu uses? The haj pilgrimage used to be subsidised until 2018. The new temple in Ayodhya (this place is so sacred that even places with same name in other countries are sacred, like in Ayutthaya, Thailand) was built with private donations from Hindus.
There are festering wounds in places that faced the worst of islamist imperialism like the Balkans and the subcontinent.The west may not want to deal with them but not all history can remain buried for ever.
Thanks, as you can see this is a common problem here too of ignorance, prejudiced lead writers and a-historical comments from an agenda driven troll mob.
You may find this link interesting from the British District Head and First Gazetteer of Fyzabad District in the 1860s- Patrick Carnegy.
Also search the writing of AF Cunningham, the first Director General of the Archaeological survey of India in the 1860s.
On the issue of the Hindu temple existing on the site.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Patrick_Carnegy
On the broader issue of Islamic violence in India, both civilizational and recent, it’s a complex issue not helped by the distortions and twisting of facts by Marxist historiography.
I have given links and threads in other posts.
Your comment is, unsurprisingly, obsessed with the thousand years of Muslim rule in India. The writer is – shock horror – actually concerned with the modern history of Indian democracy since independence. The writer himself describes a mistaken policy of appeasing Muslim religious demands. The only splinter of difference I can find between his more calmly expressed views, and your own palpable rage, is the disputed nature of the Ayodhya temple. Which obsession clearly indicates that secular democracy in India has an awfully long way to go.
I wonder where Anil gets his ” facts” from? The politburo of CPB, or some entity more sinister?
He justifies the massacres of the Razakars in Hyderabad in 1948? As I am sure he must now be espousing the cause of Hamas etc too
https://www.opindia.com/2020/10/hindu-genocide-nizam-of-hyderabad-razakars/
He also overlooks the fact that the Indian Constitution was drafted after two years of deliberations by an impressive Constituent Assembly presided by Dr BR Ambedkar and that “secularism” was not in the original document.
Instead there was an impressive enshrining of minority rights through Directive principles.
This “secular’ spiel which Marxists love to spout was official Nehruvian tactics to distort the majority rights by constant pandering to every extreme demand of ultra orthodox Sunni clerics.
The term ” secular” was introduced by Indira Gandhi in 1972 in a Constitutional amendment along with the word “Socialist”; as she burnished her cynical credentials of ruling with Communist support.
What a grossly offensive writer, weaving a tissue of ” lies, lies and lies” all through.
I was headed to Oxford University in the 90s myself- didn’t ultimately join- but to see the University producing fantasists of Marxist history as this writer, now convinces me that Fate did the right thing from saving me from Oxford!
Opindia is a far right-wing Hindutwa leaning platform where this fellow is getting his “facts” in addition to the what’s app university.
Please don’t misgender. And I presume you are part of the same gang as the writer.
You can read history to start with.
Unless you are Communist of course where you have a wide menu choice to get your favourite flavour of propaganda
No offence, but the average westerner has no idea whether Sayantani Gupta is a male or a female name. I certainly did not. ‘Misgender’ is kind of aggressive where simple information would suffice.
The person who made the comment above pretends to be Indian.
And yes, if the same person goes aggressive on describing websites in aggressive terms it deserves ” an equal reaction”.
Not to mention the despicable language of lies used by the writer of the article.
Fair enough
.
Oh come on, I’m sure you can be a bit more hysterically melodramatic than that.
Apologies for misgendering.
I am against political Islam and Hindutwa. Wherever that put me in am fine. Not a communist though.
South Asians’s religious temperament is very funny.
Anyway Indians had many buses we missed all that.
My point is we are either or can be an aspiring America or an upcoming Iran( a bigger one).Sadly India is choosing or second.
Now finally OpIndia, Swarajya, and Organiser, goes in to same category to which I am Immune.
You are wrong in that assessment. Have you heard of Pakistan where actual theocratic violence has reduced Hindus from 35 per cent to barely 2 per cent of population?
Where Hindu temples are burnt everyday?
Your dismissal of any world view which is contrary to Leftism is unnecessary.
Indians have suffered due to dynastic Nehruvian democracy and not what you say.
And most Indians don’t want to be an ” aspiring America” but a strong and self sufficient civilization state moored in our own ethos.
First your 35% is probably from pre partition census. Even if that’s true a state sponsored carnage on Indian Muslims is not justified.
Second, I never understood a typical right wing moron’s obsession with Pakistan and their insistence on doing t*t for tat for all atrocities that state sponsor and commit to its religious minorities.
Indian Muslims’s ancestors had a choice either to stay in a secular India or to run to Pakistan during partition and my understanding is that they preferred the secular India. It is brutally unfair to ask their descendants to go to Pakistan which is a war cry being uttered by all those typical Hindutwa terrorists.
Again, I am not a fan of political Islam obviously am critical of Hindutwa terrorism.
Don’t tell me your answer to Nehruvian dynasty is majoritarian fanatic fascism. I am not buying it.
As of the civilisational ethos being discharged by Hindutwa terrorism- those were at full display at Gujart riots, cow vigilantes, Graham Staynes burning case, Kandhmal, Manipur ( just most recent nevertheless not the last sadly ) and etc.
A terrorist ( acquitted of charges since this Govt came to power) Sadhvi is stilk in Parliament after hailing Godse.
One doesn’t need to be any leftie or neutral just to see the plain atrocities committed on powerless. That’s it.
You are either simple in swallowing any bilge thrown by Marxists or have a deep ingrained bias towards factual history.
The fact that you liberally abuse- ” moron”, “Fascist” etc shows you to be the brainwashed bigot you are.
Kandhmal occured 8 years ago. Has never been repeated.
You are also ignorant as proved by your comments on Manipur whose geopolitical dimensions you are unaware of.
You have used the usual techniques of Wokery like Anil and issued sweeping invective instead of understanding either Indian constitutional history, how it evolved or what the landmark Supreme Court judgements on the Ayodhya issue and India’s court procedures analysed before delivering the judgement.
You are also a-historical in not understanding the civilizational issues involved – where again, like the usual Woke brigade you trade insult, call names, ignore nuance and claim moral high ground.
I have wasted my time on trying to engage with you and your ilk.
Good bye.
Troll brigade – word of advice – you can stew in your juices by down voting me, but if you ever get a twinge of conscience, think of what I said in terms of facts.
An ethos that includes the horror of the caste system. (And would burn widows, if it could).
And the worst horror of all – worshipping false gods.
Are you a missionary or suffer from being trapped in syndromes which don’t exist?
Are you aware that the affirmative policies of Indian governments reserve almost 50 per cent jobs for the disadvantaged caste groups?
That PM Modi and President Murmu are Backward Class and Scheduled Tribes respectively?
Start getting real by dealing with India circa 2023 and not 1835
I note that the caste system still exists, though slow progress has been made.
Also, that the horror of polytheism is still general. Hindus can’t be blamed for it, but it’s appalling nevertheless.
” the horror of polytheism” is my faith. Please don’t debunk my faith. I respect Christian belief, pray in churches and attended a Christian school. Still observe Xmas.
And I don’t find you to be Christian in making such sweeping assertions on my faith.
Or mouthing falsified notions of casteism.
You are obviously outdated or prejudiced and Hindu phobic.
Wake up Tony. Stop taking 19th century English fiction as Gospel. Its 2024 not 1824.
What an utterly dishonest argument.
Since you equate Islam and “Hindutva”, would you be fine if muslims in “Hindu” India were treated exactly as Hindus are treated in Pakistan?
Yes or No?
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
That wasn’t the question.
I asked you, since you equate Hindus and muslims, should you be happy with muslim minorities in India being treated like Hindus are in Pakistan?
If no, then you should have the courtesy to
A. Accept that Indian muslims are treated far better than they would behave if they were the majority.
B. Accept that your false equivalence of the two groups was malicious and far from reality.
.
‘misgender’. BINGO!
Opindia and “far right Hindutva” followers do not call for genocide of minorities, do not call for non Hindus minorities to be legally classed as second class citizens, for forced conversions to Hinduism, blasphemy laws, forbidding building of mosques….
All of these are fairly standard treatment of minorities in islamic majority states such as Pakistan, Saudi, Qatar, Iran…
So, just curious, so you classify Islam as a “far far right” movement?
.
The man is an aberration. What is your take on ” Sar Tan Ke Juda”. You must be supportive of such slogans since you sing praises of Qasim Razvi of the Razakars
That’s a precise and accurate description of that dismal rag. Extraordinary there are so many Hindutva fans of the hysterical type on Unherd. Who knew?
.
Wikipedia is known to be disingenuous in its treatment of anyone not Woke.
Hi, I regret the time I wasted. Bye
If you wish to declutter your mind and engage in constructive discussion based on actual facts revert.
Why have you deleted most of your posts BABU old chap? Embarrassed perhaps?
Thank you.
You wasted a lot of other people’s time as well
He is merely a product of the Marxist takeover of academia – it has been a continuous process over the past century. I’m not sure when Marxism merged with the cause of Islam or why. I have my theory but I would love to truly understand why. That point foxes a great many.
Gramsci wrote this in 1915, “Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. … In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.”
Illuminating article – though as so often rather light on solutions. One objection, though. Ayodha as Rams birthplace is hardly a ‘feverish Hindu fantasy’, unless you count all religion as such. Surely this is a centuries-old tradition – and surely that is why Babur built his mosque there in the first place?
Exactly.
And it isn’t just the only place where this happened. There are hundreds of old sites where temples were demolished and mosques built on the ruins.
Hindus are essentially demanding just 2-3 sites which are of religious significance – and even agreed to building replacement mosques, with government funding of needed, at nearby alternative sites.
While in muslim majority Pakistan, Hindus have been reduced to 1% and subject to constant harassment, where hundreds of Hindu women are kidnapped and forcibly “converted” and the state religion is islam..
And I will request those making sweeping statements on “theocracy” to visit any Indian city where-
Muezzins calls blared on loudspeakers give everyone a full blast of Islamic prayer whether you like it or not 5 times a day starting at 3.30 am
Hindus are beheaded and chants of ” Sar Tan Se Juda” by Muslim mobs rent the air when any Hindu quotes from the Quran Hadith anything which the ” lobby” finds offensive
Sharia Law and Waqf Law gives Muslims a right to behead, murder and claim any land as their own.
Which ” theocracy” are we talking of?
Not Hindu I think.
I can go on and on but won’t as UH needs to revisit it’s policies on fact checking what it prints from featured writers. For myself I find in utter disbelief to be reading this on UH and not the Guardian or hearing the BBC.
The only solution – in India, as everywhere else – is Jesus Christ.
No.
The next few years of world history are likely to prove my case.
Unlikely, I would put my money on SOL INVICTUS.
WHO?
What a great idea Tony.
Let me think about it.
Author Just missed ( or intentionally omitted) the inglorious British Empire’s contribution in the matter. Apart from that fine piece. Empire tried and succeeded to ” divide and rule”. The local grown fascists inspired from their German dads are interested in only – divide and destroy.
Not a single week passes with out new ban on a book or movie. Last week passed with a movie taken out from Netflix for hurting the sentiments of Vegitarians( for the uninitiated a typical upper-caste diet ie plant based plus milk). The lead actress apologised to the Hindutwa goons. These are no more news and a new Talibani normalcy is set in.
What a fall from largest democracy to largest theocracy/ authoritarian elected autocracy.
our muslim brothers and sisters aren’t liked in India; never will be either
The author conveniently left out the fact that most mosques on Hindu holy sites are built on destroyed Hindu temples. Similar to any other culture, India is just attempting to reclaim its past after centuries of rule by outsiders. It will take time. Hinduism is ingrained in the DNA of Indian culture. India has the largest number of minorities compared to any other country because Hindus are in the majority. Hinduism is secularism!
Hinduism is secularism ?
Not according to the BJP – or to any religious Hindu.
There is a childlike quality to Anil’s writing here alongside his otherwise sneering take on Indian politics. The statue of Ramalala appears ‘magically’ for instance.
He picks out the death toll during the 50-year rule of the Nehru family and Congress as proof of evil as if it bears any resemblance to the numbers who died in the one year of partition. He offers no suggestion as to what other options were ever available if not statist secularism or Modi’s patriotic Hinduism.
The line about the statue is obviously meant satirically.
Yes it did appear “magically” as in it was put there by some priests with the very intention of claiming it.
The Qu’ran is a manual for world conquest. No other religion aspires to this.
Fortunately they abjectly failed and the way things are going they will shortly be history.
Will anyone weep?
Christianity tried quite hard, and it is not ‘religion’ it is greedy, evil megalomaniac men, religion is an excuse for power and evil.
If you wish to understand India you should make an excursion to the Qutub Minbar, not far from Delhi airport.
Boasting the second tallest medieval minaret in Islam the whole complex is triumphantly built on the ruins of a Hindu temple(s) in the most offensive manner possible! Some sins can never be forgiven or indeed forgotten.
It rather reminds one of the hypocritical barbarism of Charles V when he in his turn desecrated the Alhambra.
Even we ‘sainted’ Britons were regrettably capable of such barbarism, as for example when we destroyed the Mahdi’s tomb in Omdurman, or the somewhat later destruction of Euston Station.
The Qutab Minar was built after destroying 27 Hindu temples. It has a mosque next to it called ” Quwattul Islam” i.e the Might of Islam.
Thank you, I couldn’t quite recall how much destruction there had been but the overall impression was one of cultural obliteration on a simply epic scale.
I am of the opinion that Islam must GO, it is simply incompatible with the modern world, and is primitive, nouveau cult that has nothing of value to offer.
Surprised to hear you say that Charles…! 🙂
Should not ALL religion go? (Including social media).
Some are more deserving of destruction than others.
Isn’t it the case that some “religions” are no longer religions in any historical sense? The CofE springs to mind.
Brilliant article Pratinav. You are right, India as we know it is dead. Secularism is dead. I fear what the future holds under this fascist regime of Modi.
Oh dear, you used the F word. Automatic loss of argument. Do try to keep up.
All those trolling me here please read about Iqbal Ansari – one of the main petitioners in the Ayodhya case, and why he supports a temple in Ayodhya.
It isn’t a theocracy – it is merely a classic ethno nationalist regime where ethnicity is defined by religion. Iran and the Vatican City are theocracies, as was Tibet.
Those who hold literal religious beliefs are psychotic. It amuses me to read the opinions of those who attempt to understand the actions of psychotics through the lens of sanity.
Whether or not Anil overstates the problem, Muslims are second class citizens in India as Hindus are in Pakistan. If they could get along there would have been no partition.
The more interesting question and I wish Anil had spent more time discussing the possibility is how the complete separation of church and state could make life better for India’s and Pakistan’s religious minorities. It would be a more interesting debate than who is worse Congress or BJP.
I don’t see it happening in either case. Unfortunately hate is more powerful than reason.
Good essay. Obviously it will offend religious Hindu Indians, which in my experience is very easy to do. Certainly different groups mistreat others at different times, depending on who has the power. The onus is on those with the power to be fair. Currently, that’s Hindus in India. The author’s point seems to be that Indian society has a fatal flaw which is causing it to tend toward theocracy. I agree with them. In the west Hinduism is often thought of as a benign and peaceful religion with a live and let live ethis. The author is suggesting that this is a misconception. Like any religion, it can provide impetus to our base instincts and lead to persecution of others.
Hindu Indians need to grow up and take responsibility for themselves. You cannot blame the Mughals and the British for your problems today.
Also, I have never heard of anyone converting to Hinduism. What does that tell you?
You are obviously as ignorant as you are biased. Ever heard of Muslims committing genocide for a 1000 years? In India? Against Hindus.
Start by reading a bit of history instead of talking through several elbows.
Islam spreads joy wherever it goes.
The major problem is the fact that the distinction between the religious and secular was only necessary in the West because of the specific problems with a dogmatic centralised church.
This distinction was however exported when we created the concept of world religions in the seventeenth century and forced the application across the colonised world.
This has had the consequence of a toxic bleeding of autocratic theocracy and authoritarian government which are both really Western beasts that were also exported to colonised countries were it was adopted by local powers after independence.
Hence the BJP party mixing a European concept of ethno nationalism with a Christian fundamentalist influenced understanding of their own cultural beliefs in a weird parody of right-wing Christianity in Europe and white settler colonies.
Really the comparison that fits the most is Israel and Sri Lanka where religion intersects ethnicity and a concept of a holy land.
It is also for this reason that secularism actually continues the Christian missionary program in the new guise of “development” what began in the colonial period as the civilising mission that itself developed from the more missionary conquistadors epoch. It is not for nothing that the new atheists jumped upon the new crusade against Islam… As such any “secularism” in post colonial countries will also be tied to a post religious sacralisation of political institutions. Hence the “body politic” of secular India was always tied to a cultural and territorial concept that was both ethnic and religious. A knowledge of Hindu history points to a very different concept that had absolutely no relation to these exclusionary and divisive conceptual mechanisms that came from Europe.
As with the Middle East, religions only became mutually exclusive after European colonialism had infected them with its poisonous epistemology of emnity.
Quite correct.
Yeah Europeans are evil and ruined everything. Nothing good ever came out of those people. Indians are clearly the superior race. Anyone that doesn’t poop in the street and blame all their problems on others is inferior.
That middle east sure has always been a peaceful place. No problems there before white people came around.
Good sir.
An article unworthy of Unherd. Unhinged rants from a Marxist historian who has neither the will nor intention to discern facts, spouts fake news and regurgitates Orientalist tropes. I have noticed a curious thing for long. The rationality of western conservatism breaks down when it comes to India. I interpret this as otherisation of a subaltern culture. Disappointing to see my favourite British magazine give space to this trash.
Very true. Do you write for HT India btw?