The Touchy Topic Of Terror

India is still the safest country in the world, at least if we choose to view her through a Western lens, that, for its own convenience & simplicity often uses the hyphenated term "Islamic-terrorism" as a single entity.

Contrast that with the Indian narrative that terror haz no religion. So, our media rarely uses that term. 

The pseudo-secular pseudo-liberal West goes about its way with imposition of universal ban on burqa, restricting the height of Mosque structures, etc. 

The Indian Muslim, is patriotic & for the most part, not Arabized. It is for thiz reason that Pakistan must indulge in cross-border terrorism from its own soil, as it can't effectively recruit motivated fidayeen type fighters from India. 

However, considering the vast strength in number of Muslims in India, even if a tiny chunk of them were truly to be influenced by the terror marketers from outside of India, at best we would have a disaster on hand & at worst a mayhem.

So even when a giant nation like India is largely peaceful, the question before us should really be - can we then discount the ISIS type Islamist Muslims, as mere fringe & simply call it an aberration among just a handful of misguided youth and then ignore the issue?

No, a solid no. 

We should not ignore the phenomenon, no matter how small it impacts us today.

All & especially the Muslim elders themselves must first accept that there is a problem within their community. 

The terror attraction is a manifestation of their inability to reform with time & that can happen to persons of any faith, irrespective - if they remain frozen in some outdated ideology that proposes constant war & expansion.

For most Muslims, religion even today is not about a personal spiritual experience in solitude, but the faithful are expected to visibly practice the rituals in a manner that makes their religiosity a central life theme. 

That gets further rekindled at the almost mandatory weekly Friday mosque's mass congregations where sermons could get politically charged. As a result, when Muslims encounter many modern-day requirements that cannot be compatible with their daily mandated religious routines, they assume that the problem is outside. 

Being accommodative would attract scorn from the community peers or make them feel incomplete Muslims. Thus, most cannot convince the world at large that they are beyond & larger than their self imposing religion bearing identity. 

In a fast globalizing world where cultural assimilation is an expectation, interdependence a maturity, and gloss & glam a norm, their inflexibility to adapt to the order of the day renders them somewhat unemployable & their school of thought as obsolete.

Not willing to bow out as misfits in the fast-paced modern society, some staunch fellows have lately been instigating a retaliation rather than reform. 

These so called instigators don't seem to resonate with the likes of say Abdul Kalam the former president of India or the information technology billionaire Azim Premji or the Khan trio Bollywood superstars or A R Rehman the master music composer or Bismillah Khan the instrumental music ustad or Sania Mirza the tennis ace or Azharuddin the cricket captain or I H Latif the ex-air force chief or Ahmedi the ex-justice at Supreme Court - to just name a few of the Muslims, that have negotiated with their personal space to reach great heights & become entire India's favorite. 

It is not even in their reckoning that thiz makes India perhaps the most unique country in the world where a minority community has achieved so much & in so many spheres. 

For them, the heroes to emulate are perhaps foreigners like Osama Bin Laden or even Burhan Wani or Ishrat Jahan - all Pakistan declared "martyrs."

Some parents too get influenced by the cause if not the actions and so cover the issue with soft velvet blanket and fail to guide their children,  that there is solace in societal achievements and not in being a claimant of perpetual victim-hood by it.

At such a delicate time, the ISIS ideology had begun to seep into India and demanding that the faithful to Islam must not wait to be affected in order to retaliate. 

It wants the Muslim community to become aware & focus on the minutest ideological differences that exist between the Muslims and non-Muslims and eliminate all and any nonconformity, be they neutral or benign. Their call is against the liberal Muslims as well, who are deemed as traitors. 

They are in fact the echo-in-action, to the hollow war-on-terror cry made by Bush at the UN, who had reportedly thundered "Either you are with us or against us. 

To some, the ISIS brand of terror appears mesmerizingly attractive and an opportunity to subjugate the world to the puritanical Muslim way.

Now when a population with a particular belief - say, any explosive idea (affinity to the ISIS kind of terrorism being the case here) goes 'unopposed' from a very tiny fraction to about 3% of people, the tipping point may not be far. 

Studies show that the time taken for a radically different idea to take grip of even just that 3% of the population is very difficult in the beginning i.e. if it takes 90 % of the time to reach that threshold number; from there on however, to move to a higher critical mass % of population, it will take only 10 % of the time, after which that idea can no longer be ignored as it would become trend setting. 

So if it is going to take 9 years to radicalize 3% of the Muslims into motivated terror elements, it will take just 1 year to reach a higher damaging number, after which the entire society would have to deal with them on almost a daily basis. 

It would hurt all, non-Muslims and Muslims alike. 

Thiz should explain where the ISIS itself came about from, so suddenly & out of nowhere. 

In reality, it is not as sudden as it feels. For years, it was simmering in the back burner unnoticed, but after the forced departure of Saddam Hussein, there was a local leadership vacuum & that problem got compounded further by the American bombing. 

It then came out in full force to actually influence many, the ideology traveling through the world without a passport.  

It therefore becomes prudent for not only the government but also the wise Muslims to rein in the extreme elements and not remain mute spectators.

Be alert. 

Peace can only be maintained at the edge of an ever sharpened sword and mind. 

There's something about Modi !

Just after winning the historic mandate in 2014, Narendra Damodardas Modi said, "Mera samay ka har kshan kshan, aur sharir ka har kan kan - is desh ko samarpit hai."

He declared himself to be a "Pradhan Sevak" 101.

India was at once divided into believers and the non-believers.

For his supporters, Modi is more of a metaphor for 'transformation' than a person. 

Any observer of leaders, would agree with conviction that Mr. Modi has made himself the national agenda, and a person of global interest.

The entire government has been personified by & rechristened after him, i.e. now dubbed as the power packed 'Modi Sarkar.'

After over a decade in power, he still attracts the Indian diaspora crowds in different corners of the world, inspiring & energizing them to not only receive him with an unprecedented pomp but also on spotting him, they spontaneously erupt into a ‘Modi-Modi’ chant in chorus. 

And he still manages to enrol the world leaders, all seeking an appointment with him. 

All this, even when he belongs to supposedly the "lowest pedigree" i.e. is a politician vs. being a star in the field of sports, cinema, or music.

Mr. Modi is a rock star !

His rise is half the story. Where he started from & where he reached politically, gives the true picture. We are not even talking of the fact that he is the son of road-side tea seller.

Within weeks of him taking office, the incessant vilification of him by the Indian media, including by the supposedly reputed international dailies & magazines, due to the unfortunate Gujarat riots, had been unprecedented. 

These so-called elite thinkers continue to invoke that incident & feed each other, reference one another, and when that is not enough, quote editorials from Western "liberal" newspapers or criticism of his governance by NRI's living in distant land.

What they all collectively fail to comprehend is, that their scale for measurement of the 'Moditva doctrine' are outdated and their methods are long due for recalibration.

They are always found several steps behind him. And those who attempt to bracket him into one or other rigid image, are proven wrong even before they start.

They don't know if he can be labelled as a nationalist or an internationalist.

He confuses them as he oscillates among his peers by being an absolute traditionalist, and then easily transforming into a future ready techno-geek.

He practices & advocates yoga and demonstrates serenity by sitting still in meditation and then demonstrates himself as the jet-set man on the go, crisscrossing across the Indian sub-continent, the globe included.

He can easily be classified as a capitalist, a suit-boot sarkari-man, and yet be a poor man's favorite, peddling socialism & guardian of the jan-dhan.

Is he a leader of the party known to represent the upper caste or a champion of those like him, who are born in backward class?

For a moment you can win a bet by proving that he's an indulgent megalomaniac and the next moment lose the wager to one who says he's an avowed simpleton.

And is he that celebrity that basks in self-adulation or one that stays away from the daily riff raff of prime time T.V. and practices austerity, "maun" and "upwas." 

He looks kings, prime ministers & presidents in the eye & hugs them, but unabashedly bows low to touch the feet of sanitation workers. 

Is he that powerful leader that ensures the Modi stamp in every decision & policy that comes from above, or the humble people's person that enjoys the Modi-Modi chant from below?

A municipality school educated Modi is a thought leader and his vision so vast and deep, that they fail to grasp it, even when it's unfolding right before their eyes.

His razor-sharp focus on both distinct entities i.e. India and Bharat simultaneously, is simply not understood by the media fellows, all who are too distracted and soaked by their own preconceived notions of what an Indian PM must be focusing on.

After all, only strength recognizes strength, and it's an uneven match between the giant and the myopic media.

They continue to paint Mr. Modi as an Islamophobic individual & that once even influenced America - who wrongly banned an elected representative, not found guilty in any court, the Chief Minister of an important state of India from entering America, only to unilaterally withdraw it later. 

As PM, Modi proved how wrong they were by collecting the highest civilian awards from more Islamic republics than any other leader. 

He's received with warmth in Washington & Moscow; in Riyadh & Tehran, and in Tel Aviv & Ramallah, all pairs at cross with each other. 

His spell is not just on the common people of India but even on national leaders across the world. He has been praised publicly even in his absence by world leaders and is a recipient of about 30 high ranking civilian & international awards from various nations. 

He enjoys deep friendship with Russia's Putin, and the American presidents' from either side of the political divide, all who have engaged with him as intimate buddies. 

They have even shared newspaper op-ed, radio talk show, including inviting him twice to address joint session of the US congress at one end & at the other a personal dinner at the White House, and have accompanied him at the Indian diaspora event in the US. 

His magic is so mystical that he resolved a 500 year old dispute to build the Ram Temple at Ayodhya and managed to secure another Hindu temple in the midst of the Islamic world at Abu Dhabi. 

The national & regional parties that were traditionally opposed to each other are facing existential threat because  of him. For survival, they continue to single him out and have launched a united front against the man.

Notwithstanding, the man marches on the beat of his own heart's band. His efforts have paid off. 

Bypassing the negative press, the bottom-line assessment shows that India has certainly arrived on the world stage, the IMF & World Bank endorse India's progress under him, and now every world leader is found to be either making way for him or accommodating to his agenda.

So, what is the mental make up of the this Modi-man? 

It is said that you are - what you were. And what was Modi-boy like? 

He was a child, born in poverty and nurtured by nature. Before Modi rose up the political ladder through sheer kinetic energy, he was marinated in unconventional childhood.

Let's look at what forces might have worked on him.

While helping his father to make ends meet, he sold tea to passengers from a fragile shop at a railway station. In that, he once experienced serving tea to the jawans heading to the border, some to maybe not return. 

Maybe, that experience nurtured his love for India. 

It is believed that one can defeat the nature's forces that constantly act on you, by subduing and controlling your own personal nature. To do that, for centuries ascetics of the eastern faith often indulge in penance or self pain, by denying themselves even the basic needs. A teenaged Modi had for months given up salt - the basic ingredient of food. 

Maybe, this taught him will power i.e. to act against urge, an endowment available only to the highest order of life.

In his quest to learn the 'truth', hardly an adolescent, he left home in pursuit of a guru who can show him the way. He adapted the monks life for a while. 

Maybe, that taught him to connect with his soul and understand that it's all just a "moh-maya" out there, keeping him in a state of equanimity even in the face of biggest disappointments.

Then as a young man, he traveled the length and breadth of India, meeting different people for very long months. At the time, he never once did sleep under the same roof and ate whatever was handed to him. 

Maybe, that gave him the cutting edge insights into the human thinking & behavior.

As a young RSS recruit, he was handed the first task of cleaning the place, every room, serving food and making arrangements for visitors. He used to wake up early and the drill of simple daily chores went on till the end of the day. He was well appreciated. 

Maybe, that taught him that to rule the world, one must serve it.

Notwithstanding the fact that there is no requirement of nationality in the Indian constitution, there was great hue and cry when Sonia Gandhi was likely to make a claim to be India's prime minister. People could not accept her as she was not born in India & that could be measurable viz evidence of her childhood passport.

What makes Narendra Damodardas Modi so unique, is that though he is acceptable for being born on this soil - this Indian prime minister, the first one to be born in independent India, is not the typical Indian that any Indian has ever met before. 

He may have been fated to be born in India but he is destined to be a global player. He is as much his mother's boy, as he is a nature's child. 

Most of us simply go about leading a purpose-less life. At least we can take heart in the fact that we're led by a man, who has truly found his.

Today, the Modi-man is on the top of the world & holds more Guinness World Records and social media followership than any contemporary world leader. 

And what's he doing with all that love, adulation and power?

He's screaming aloud - Bharat Mata Ki Jai!

All Indians too must echo back the same in chorus. 

It is time, it is time.

Apna time aa gaya hai!

Civil Code & Civil Society must be aligned with the Civilization

Notwithstanding the fact that it is much maligned by certain political parties, the Left-leaning media & the so called Liberals - the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the political mentor of BJP, haz time & again proven that while the other side just talks on social reforms, it does actually walk the talk !

Fundamentally, there is a huge difference in understanding of what is considered ‘modern’ by the RSS, it's protégé the BJP & their sympathizers, and the other Left-Liberal groups. 

For the RSS plus group, the rediscovery of some of the all-encompassing evolved values that existed in the ancient Bharatiya Civilizational context are timeless & so, adherence to them, can still be deemed as modern. 

They don't believe that only because the British made lines on paper and because a written Constitution was framed in 1950, that India was born. 

That may be true from the modern physical landmass that defines a country & the mass of people ruled by a government, but in itself, it is a severely incomplete definition. 

The line drawings & borders thereof are compromised understanding at worst & a quick fix convenience at best. 

A nation is also a common identity of people, united by common descent, history, culture, social practices or language, etc, inhabiting a particular territory.

And so India, simply because it was "born" on paper as a Republic on that fateful day, does not mean that it didn't exist before that. 

For them, the indigenous Civilizational culture & values, which give a nation its collective mindset & conscience, lie beyond the ambit of any legislation. It too governs lifestyle at the conscious and unconscious level, all of which existed for several millennia before the written Constitution & continues to do so.

Further, they best serve the Indian way of life & so should take precedence over & above the many of the Western, including the coloniser's influences, especially while interpreting the Indian Constitution. 

For the Left-Liberal groups, it's the other way around. They believe that the Civilizational values are a misfit in the 21st century & a nation can only function if it follows the written code, namely the Constitution. 

To make it abundantly clear, it does not mean that the Civilizational Values that are dear to the RSS plus group & the Constitutional Rights guaranteed in the Constitution are necessarily at conflict — but, according to them, some of the absolute interpretations & applications that flow from the Constitution, need a deeper Indic reflection. They believe that there is scope for considerations that are found as much in the spirit behind the words, rather than just in the narrow absolute meaning of the words. 

It might serve well to recall, that the original Indian Constitution, unlike any in the world, is very unique, in that, it is not just a written manuscript alone, but is adorned with paintings of Lord Ram & Vedic way of life, etc. 

Among the most basic value-driven differences between the said Civilizationalists and mentioned Constitutionalists, is that the former are entrenched in the belief that Human Dignity is fundamental to one's being, while the latter are insistent that Human Rights are the key to preserving one's individuality. 

For Civilizationalist, there's merit in accommodating faiths & is in favor of enhancing the all-encompassing value system found in the ancient scriptures, traditions, customs, or practices that were collectively inherent to our ancient Civilization.

On the other hand, the Constitutionalist, draw their interpretations from the dictionary meaning of the literary words in the said English manuscript. They seem to also be taking inspiration from the activist movement of the West, including their attitudes & methods. 

One may recall, in the West, there have always been a lot of struggles against some or other entity or practice like - the Monarchy, the Church, the Morality Code, Slavery, Woman's Subjugation, etc. 

If we include the Islamic world, then there too, there have been constant civil or sectarian wars. But unlike the Western world, in the Islamic theocratic regions, for the most part, the expectations of the protestors have been unmet & the religious authority continues to rein supreme as they're backed by the monarchies that ruthlessly suppress any dissent.  

In order to figure out how all that impacts public life in India, let's first explore a bit of background with respect to the Indian Civilizational Pluralism vs. Constitutional Secularism. 

In theory, both should be compatible with each other. In practice, they rarely are.

The former is about acceptance & accommodation of every faith, if its practice is to seek salvation, including no faith at all. So the essence is about letting each of the different practitioners of faith be left to their ways & methods. 

Further, because there was no final claim or authority, there was no religious conflict.

In fact, in ancient India, the State heads took guidance from the religious scholars, offering them a social pedestal, higher than the rulers themselves. 

That was the order. 

However & on the contrary, the Western Constitutional Secularism came into being out of a conflict - that between the State & Church and order gave way to the law, which mandated a gap between the State & the Church. 

As a consequence, over time, religion became subservient to the State in much of the Christian world or what then became the Western world. There are no real Christian theocratic nations anymore. 

Having said that, the law did allow religious conversion from one faith to the other, sowing a recipe for future interfaith conflicts. 

Now let's look at how the said differences manifest themselves in the public discourse & debate, especially when one talks of carrying on social reforms:

Several Indian states have now passed laws that stop religious conversion. The matter being challenged, there have been protests by the religious minority groups, asserting their rights to convert the other, including the majority faiths as enshrined by the Constitution, no matter how alien to the Indian Civilizational context. 

The Supreme Court haz flagged it off as a serious matter, and now the word "propagate" for religious purposes is under intense scrutiny. At some level, it is a battle of denotation vis-a-vis connotation. 

Take another example of offering women their true place in society. 

In the Civilizational context, women in ancient India have always had an equal space in our society with many Goddesses & deities found in the scriptures. Their position waz only compromised with the advent of the thousand years of Mughal regime. 

However, in the post independence context, the most basic duty in a democracy, like voting, waz easily accessible to women here to exercise. 

In the Western world, however, inequality of women vis-a-vis men had found religious justifications. 

And so, women there had to fight through what became known as the Woman's Suffrage Movement to claim such rights. 

Further, social reforms that gave daughters an equal say as sons on matters of inheritance waz also easily accepted by the Civilizationalist. 

However, the cost of not embracing some of the basic all-encompassing values is that we have a Constitution so uniquely shameful that it does not offer a Uniform Civil Code. 

Today, not just a ban on face covering for young school girls, or the ban on instant Triple Talaq or ensuring a fair alimony to Muslim women that is strongly contested by the said Constitutionalist, but even what is the biologically safe marriageable age of a girl is under question before the courts  

Moving on, let us focus on the issue of LGBTQ community's acceptance into society. 

It waz with the blessing of the RSS & in the era of the first ever fully BJP-controlled government of India, that the British colonial penal code Section 377, which criminalized all sexual acts "against the order of nature", that it waz nullified. 

So, while the RSS found references in ancient cultural traditions to accept & assimilate the LGBTQ community, in Western countries, the often disruptive & in-your-face LGBTQ rights activists had to resort to parades or other such aggressive postures to enact such a legislation. 

It is clear that for the Constitutionalist, the law book is more of a weapon than a guide, one that is exploited to disrupt the order, in the name of upholding the law. 

To the keen observer, it would become obvious that all social reforms are passing through the camp of the supposedly conservative RSS pluz group rather peacefully. The gap between what their stereotype seems & what their action shows, is growing. 

By contrast, social reforms are met with street protests, including violence by the Constitutionalist. That's because their genesis is not in interpreting the Indian Constitution to run Indian society in the Indic context but is in the blind application of the Western model of protest. 

It is time we recognize & expose the hyper-Constitutionalists & their supposed Human Rights fellows as Anti Human Dignity activists.

What do we-the-people want from the government?

Do people really want the government to govern them?

People can't seem to govern themselves but have disproportionately high expectations from the government to govern over them. But ... when they do, we-the-people don't like it.

If the adage 'freedom comes with responsibility' was ever true, it is now - as freedom is seen to be running amok. 

We really need to build a Statue of Responsibility next. 

Why do people have so many grievances against the government? 

One wouldn't have dared to utter a word against the kings but ever since we have replaced them with government, somehow we feel that it is our job to keep showing them their bad side in the mirror. 

However, those who have attempted governance on Self or at their own residential society, work place, community gatherings, industry association, etc. may view other's governance from the lens of empathy. 

They know, and deeply so, how difficult it is to maintain integrity in the immediate circle of influence while still having somewhat alignment with those outside in the circle of concern. 

In governance, there are so many interest groups, some opposing the other & pleasing all is a Herculean task. 

Development in a poor democracy is indeed a slow process. 

At a level, it is like solving a Rubik's Cube, requiring patience. 

A bystander could easily mistake the guy working on the Rubik's Cube, for someone who is just fiddling away - if one face of the cube is sorted, the other looks defaced. 

Those who have not attempted serious governance on any entity themselves, simply vent - blame, moan or whine ... the "poor me" / "bad them" syndrome. 

Notice their language, it is always locked in morals for others, like "They should" / "They must" ... in which government is the best punching bag. 

As if government employees aren't members of we-the-people community & ministers haven't been voted in by us. 

But blaming the government employees is a national pass time. 

And so the government is forced to focus only on the poor who are a larger vote bank, bribing them with freebies. Those who blame, moan, & whine don't even vote. 

In such a scenario, is it any surprise if development takes a backseat? 

In the final reckoning, the buck stops, where it begins ... me !

Let's talk Kashmir Files?

There are so many movies - watch Gestapo's Last Orgy; you'll get a sense of repugnancy, i promise.

There are both stationary & moving museums (they go city to city) on the atrocities on Jews arising from antisemitism across Europe & America. 

Go to Detroit and see the museums on atrocities on Blacks by Whites. You'll cry like a baby.  I did, along with other visitors Black & White alike. 

Nelson Mandela's illegal detention cell at Robben Island prison of 27 years is a tourist attraction.  

Recall, he was confined to a small cell without a bed or plumbing, forced to do hard labor in a quarry. He could write and receive a letter only once every six months, and once a year he was allowed to meet with one visitor for 30 minutes.

The atrocities are well documented. The truth was revealed in Mandela's life time by the Whites, he became the country's leader. But to South Africans, he's God.

The erstwhile White supremacist regime have agreed to what they did to Blacks in South Africa. 

No riots have happened in any of these countries due to movies or museums or truth revealed openly. 

Had those countries kept hiding it all and if people keep learning from the WhatsApp University, it would be worse - a mayhem. 

Few years ago, there was a debate - if Ram Mandir should be built or not. 

Because the Indian population had then decided to dumb down their critical mind, that debate had the least attendance. 

The 2 of 3 speakers opposing the Mandir said something to the effect of - even if Ram Mandir should be built, it shouldn't; else the day the judgement comes, the whole country will witness riots and killing. 

Nothing happened, only the judgment did become - they found a hidden temple below the mosque. No riots. 

Dear Liberals, you have got it all wrong. 

The psychology of the Bharatia people is intrinsically plural.

There's not a single example in the world's longest history, where the people of this great land have attacked another, just because of difference in faith.

On the contrary, there are examples of the people of the land who have gone out of their way to offer comfort to the other faiths. 

It is this Indic philosophy's different & distinct "Cultural Secularism", which allowed for the Hindus to accept the Jews, fleeing from religious persecution & to provide them shelter; it allowed for making of one of the earliest mosque in the world i.e. Cheraman Masjid by a Hindu king for the convenience of his Muslim visitors; it allowed for the Ezharappallikal Churches in the first century itself within the Brahmin community at Malabar Coast, it allowed for a Hindu king to resettle the Parsis who were displaced from Persia including building a fire temple for them - one in which the builder king himself or his subjects agreed to not enter as requested by the Parsi immigrants.

If the movie Kashmir Files shakes up our population from it's warped morality induced stupor and ensures that it is becomes an alerted principled democracy, it would have served it's purpose. 

It is very important to forgive but it is imperative to not forget what happened. 

Those who don't learn from history are condemned to be taught a lesson by it again.

India is awakening by learning real history. 

Either we call ourselves as Liberal and celebrate the movie's freedom of speech or call ourselves as hypocrites. 

The unidirectional approach to freedom must end. Has to be multi-dimensional.

Just because fact is stranger than fiction, it can't be erased. Period.

All political & religious leaders must unabashedly call for an introspection on the Kashmir Files & deliver justice, so that it doesn't happen again.

The Tatva Of Hindutva

Lord Krishna holds a soothing flute in one hand and the sharp Sudarshan Chakra in the other.

That contrast is worth pausing and pondering over.

After the brutal Battle of Kalinga, Ashoka won a title but not the experience of triumph. His victory was absolute, the enemy was crushed, but the cost was devastating.

Looking at the ruins and piled corpses, he cried out in grief, “If this is victory, what is defeat?”

In that instant, he thought understood the full cycle of life.

His life traced a dramatic arc: from the least-favoured son, dismissed as an unlikely heir, to ruler of a vast empire bearing the title of Samrat. Yet the aftermath of Kalinga left him repulsed by the very power he had wielded. Overwhelmed, he began to give it away. In shedding arms and ambition, the Kshatriya in him betrayed his other duty - to protect his people.

He must have missed the Lord's message to Arjuna. 

In elevating conscience while lowering vigilance, he abdicated the principled responsibility of a Kshatriya: defence.

Consequences for that action were inevitable - that was the karmic law!

His armies followed his lead, and the shrinking of his realm became a reality. Over time, Akhand Bharat was truncated to what we have today - just Bharat.

The echoes of that decline still surface today in territorial disputes.

That is why our men in uniform stand vigilant along one of the longest hostile border in the world facing Pakistan, China, and Bangladesh.

Utopian fantasies that assume “if you don’t attack anyone, no one will attack you” are naive. 

You may be a vegetarian, but the jungle is not.

Great epics may be dismissed by sceptics as myth, but they contain practical lessons. 

Rama bore no personal hatred for Ravana; the Pandavas did not desire the ruin of the Kauravas. In both cases, the other side did not reciprocate that restraint. 

Likewise, the Jains who shun even a potato peeler in devotion to ahimsa, yet revere defenders like Ghantakarna Mahavir who took up arms to protect the innocent - because nonviolence itself must be defended.

Which is why a pious Sikh carries a visible kirpan as a symbol of protective strength.

The Cold War stayed cold largely because mutual nuclear deterrence created a protective barrier.

Strength respects strength.

India’s civilization is among the oldest. Through the ages, people of this land have rarely initiated religiously motivated invasions, yet they have faced repeated malevolent proselytization and even been attacked by religious zealots.

Spread love. But there is wisdom in respecting the soldiers who protect you at the borders and the those organizations who protect you on the streets.

Hindutva has been distorted in public debate. At its core, it is not an ideology of exclusion but a sociocultural and political protective moat against tangible invasion.

There is also a civilizational truth many Indians share: regardless of personal faith, we belong to the subcontinent’s civilizational fabric. Stay alert, stay committed to protecting what matters.

Mature reasoning accepts that peace is often maintained at the edge of a sword.

Bolo: Main Bhi Chowkidar! 🇮🇳

Sorry Shashi, it’s actually the battle for longing

Dr. Shashi Tharoor in his book, 'The Battle of Belonging' makes a case for both Patriotism and Nationalism, and to whom they should belong.

Patriotism, he says, is less thought out and more instinctive — as a child would naturally love its mother, notwithstanding her flaws and faults. The mother belongs to the child and vice versa.

One would then, similarly, love the country for what it is — naturally, without qualifications but with integrity intact, despite the defects and differences that may exist within. To him, this is what patriotism is all about.

Nationalism, on the other hand, is respect for the country's Constitution and all that flows from it — the national flag, democracy, social justice, secularism, and the many institutions. That too can belong to the individual.

So far so good, and one cannot but appreciate what Dr. Tharoor has offered.

However, he then puts on his political cap.

In his inimitably eloquent manner, he further dissects nationalism into two types, perhaps to justify the dwindling returns of his party's long investments in Indian politics and yet its diminishing prospects.

He labels the above as "Civic Nationalism," which he wholeheartedly endorses.

But he calls out the supposed rise of a second kind — "Majoritarian Nationalism" — which he laments as exclusivist, anchored in the ethno-religio-linguistic identity of the state.

According to him, this majoritarian nationalism has given rise to a peculiar narrative where a large section of the citizenry has begun to subscribe to an idea where the Prime Minister linearly equates to the ruling party, the ruling party to the government, and the government to the state itself. So, to disagree with any entity in this chain is to be opposed to the Indian state itself.

He alleges that this has been skillfully crafted by the BJP-led dispensation at the centre, giving rise to a zero-sum game: either one sacrifices individuality to fit into this majoritarian nationalist paradigm, or is automatically deemed anti-national. He reminisces about the days when conventional wisdom meant that one must always love their country but love their government only when it deserves it. He bemoans that the distinction between country and government has dissolved.

His longing is for the good old civic nationalism that supposedly existed when his party was in power.

One can understand why Dr. Tharoor is very popular with the young. It is easy to fall for him if one is ignorant of his party's long and chequered background.

Any person not politically astute enough to search for the true intent behind eloquent words will begin to subscribe to the beautifully narrated idealistic images that people like him project.

The youngsters haven't yet discovered that in theory, there is not much difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is.

It is rather smug of Dr. Tharoor to portray that when his party, the Indian National Congress, was in power, such civic nationalism existed.

For starters, the supposed majoritarian nationalism wrapped in what he calls ethno-religio-linguistic ideology was not some surreptitious agenda to be triggered later once the BJP won. It was an open clarion call during the hotly contested 2014 election. The idea of a future 'New India' was spelled out with specifics at election rallies. The exact intent was also printed in the BJP's manifesto for all to see.

Led by none other than Narendra Modi himself, the BJP ran a brilliant campaign on every platform, allowing the people to choose. The BJP eventually beat the Congress-led opposition, and how!

It is worth pondering why, as Modi-led BJP once again won a second term in 2019 with an even higher margin of victory, unprecedented in India.

It means that people wholeheartedly subscribed to the BJP's vision of India at one end, and the BJP too delivered on its promises and was truly appreciated by the people.

In the final reckoning, realpolitik comes to the fore at the ballot box. And PM Modi's "India First" type of nationalism did indeed capture the imagination of the Indian masses, which Dr. Tharoor contemptuously dismisses as a majoritarian nationalistic machination.

At its very core, Dr. Tharoor continues to remain a bad loser.

His assessment of the prevalent zeitgeist is at best satire without humour, and at worst a poor understanding of the changed winds that the multi-polar world order has thrown up, including the Indian imperative.

So let us understand why Dr. Tharoor is so inappropriate in his criticism of what the Modi Sarkar has dismantled and replaced:

Nationalism as Defence, Not Aggression

Dr. Tharoor implies that the BJP's version of nationalism, taking the shape of a "freedom movement," may be justified when people are unjustly ruled by an imperialistic power, as during the British Raj, but has no role in a free, independent India.

For starters, we can wonder how history would have unfolded if today's version of nationalism had existed on the day the very first boat from the East India Company docked on Indian shores.

Had that been the case, the British — or for that matter any colonial power like the Danes, Portuguese, or French — would not have been able to rule over even an inch of ground here.

Let us be clear, the East India Company didn't come with guns, cannons and an army to conquer. They came for commercial reasons but eventually crept in with evil intentions. They took unsuspecting people by surprise and later most of the Indian sub-continent got swallowed by the British Empire. That lasted for approximately 200 years, in which what started as small pilferage eventually became so blatant that the word 'loot' was unabashedly added to the Oxford dictionary. The British Raj reduced the people here from one of the most prosperous in the world to one of the poorest.

Thus, to trigger nationalism only after you are conquered is for people who are not visionaries and are poor students of history. The current nationalism is not aggression against any entity nor an expression of revenge. It is a strong defensive moat and an experientially evolved mindset that protects and preserves India's people, her vast land mass, her resources, and her ancient civilizational values from direct adversaries and indirect parasites.

Today's East India Company has taken many avatars — one-sided free trade agreements, tax-dodging transnational companies, mega corporate houses and sovereign wealth funds acting as fronts for others, opinion-altering media houses, unfair trade-practicing e-commerce platforms, hawala transacting entities, foreign NGOs bringing funds for anti-India activities, predatory foreign loans for projects of national importance, donations used for religious conversions or for arranging project-stalling protests, organizations protecting terrorists in the name of human rights, spyware-embedded cell phone apps — all attempting to influence or capture India's tangible or intangible assets.

The current version of Alert Nationalism is not soaked in naive morality. It welcomes all the above in the form of trade of goods, exchange of services and barter of ideas for mutual benefit, but at the same time ensures it is not one-sided.

Today's nationalism is a longing for authentic independence.

From Transfer of Power to True Independence

Throughout their long rule, the British tirelessly and cunningly worked to erase the good and exploit the bad in our history and cultural heritage, to keep people ignorant and divided. On one hand they dismantled the glory of ancient India's achievements, and on the other they manipulated various castes and communities to achieve their famous 'divide and rule' policy. As a result, people's cognition of their own past remained stunted, rendering them unconfident in the present and doubtful of the future.

Dr. Tharoor needs to acknowledge that the same oppressor's legacy was shamelessly continued by the 'Indian National' Congress.

Nehru's "Tryst with Destiny" remained a speech-writer's speech.

Vision-less policies, instead of dismantling the caste system, cemented it further in all government-owned institutions. By not making a uniform civil code, the earliest government ensured scant respect for meritocracy and paved the way for perpetual appeasement of the Muslim community.

While not neutralizing that evil in the present, they also stunted future development through a warped educational syllabus. They did not wish to resurrect the indigenous school of thought or language and thus pride in one's very being. Besides expanding the scope of Mughal rule in history textbooks through a Saudi-born education minister to appease Muslim pride, they largely continued the British legacy of the infamous Macaulay education system — a system where English-ness was the only ticket for escaping poverty, no matter how alien it was to over 99% of the rural and vernacular population.

Ironically, in the words of none other than Mr. Rahul Gandhi, escape from poverty in India became more difficult than 'the escape velocity of Jupiter'.

Full-time lip service and little action for six long decades kept India behind on most parameters, making it a poster child for poverty. While many nations moved on, it was proving beyond doubt that we got not independence but a neat transfer of power from the imperialistic British to the self-serving multi-generational dynasts. It was in such a system that the narrative of family-equals-the-state became entrenched.

The current version of Inclusive Nationalism is about a 'Congress-mukt Bharat' — not a mere slogan or a call for alienation, but a metaphor against sham democracy created by self-serving private limited enterprises.

Civic Nationalism and Reciprocity

Dr. Tharoor says that while patriotism is natural, civic nationalism, even if not, can be adopted — as when an immigrant would in a different country, if the host culture is accommodating. He gives credit to the West and cites Europe and America.

Sure, the larger group or majority must make the first move to show it is accommodative. But does that alone complete the cycle without equal reciprocation by the other side? Shouldn't the smaller group also bear the same responsibility in conscience, speech and action? Should the minority not overtly volunteer in society as a rule, not an exception? Should its leaders not make a visibly demonstrative and vociferously loud proclamation guiding their youth to assimilate with the mainstream, swearing respect for institutions, values, emblems and symbols representative of the host's pride? And be the first to scold, correct, counsel or disown any member from its own community found in deviance?

Dr. Tharoor must answer these questions by citing specific overwhelming examples.

If he can't, he must take cognizance of what is unfolding in the same Western world he cites as representative of civic nationalism. There, the immigration experiment is failing.

Brexit happening out of fear of incompatible immigrant inflow, France banning burqa veils, America passing laws to extra-scrutinize immigrants from select Muslim countries, the rethink of immigrant-friendly policy in the EU, the rise of right-wing parties in Europe, Switzerland capping minaret heights, Poland openly denying entry to Muslim migrants — these are worthy examples of why a one-size-fits-all universality was wrong to begin with. India has not done anything even remotely similar, yet gets a lot of bad press.

Having learned through experience, the champions of the free world are themselves rethinking and stopping those non-indigenous elements that were wedded only to the fruits and not the roots of the host's offerings.

With this context, let's come to the issue of Muslim Rohingyas fleeing Myanmar and wanting refuge in India, which the BJP is not willing to grant, versus those who qualify under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. Both are flagged as majoritarianism at work.

Unlike the wealthy West, we have since inception been financially stressed and burdened with Hindu-Muslim fault lines perpetuated during 60 years of misrule.

With that background, we must assess whom we let in without aggravating existing problems. Like every nation, it would be fair that we accept those communities having higher cultural affinity, like those mentioned under CAA, so that they turn into contributing assets at the earliest. This is distinctly different from those simply running away from another country with no cultural connect.

At best, we can offer Rohingyas temporary refuge and then pressure Myanmar to take them back or ask one of the 50-plus Islamic republics to adopt them.

The current version of Defensive Nationalism is not unique to India but seen across the world. In India, it arises from pragmatic considerations that keep altruism alive while serving the Indian state first. Evaluated selection is very different from blatant discrimination. The clarion call by candidate Modi was "Peace to all and appeasement to none."

The Core Ideological Difference

Dr. Tharoor is very critical of the ethno-religio-linguistic majority not giving adequate space to minorities. He talks of cow vigilantism and lynching by fringe elements as sending a message of fear. It is time he engages in honest dialogue, away from exceptions and euphemisms.

He should stop quoting fringe exceptions and assigning those attributes to the whole Hindu community as a "majoritarian" group. PM Modi himself has spoken out against such miscreants. He should also address whom he speaks for as they are: Muslims — a 200 million-plus group, the largest among minorities but perpetually posturing as victims.

Let us assess what the Hindustani-Hindu-Hindi core ideology is and benchmark it with the core ideology of Muslims.

For starters, the ancient Indic philosophy later named Hinduism is innate to India and has existed for thousands of years, even before the Indian state was born. It is not because of the Constitution but through civilizational values that Indic practices have been far more open to other ideas than any other ideology. The West's modern discovery of pluralism as a virtue has existed here as an innate core value for centuries. We have no examples of crusades or mass conversion movements originating from here.

Thus, narrow concepts like The God, The Holy Place, The Holy Book, The Holy Day do not exist among Hindus. There are no religious authorities; each is a seeker based on one's understanding. It is the Arabs who recognized believers of such open philosophy and gave the land the name "Hindustan."

Obviously, concepts like blasphemy, heresy, apostasy and punishment thereof are alien to India. One can be a Muslim and a Hindustani simultaneously.

It is this Indic philosophy which gives rise to "Cultural Secularism" — which allowed Hindus to shelter Jews fleeing persecution; a Hindu king to build one of the earliest mosques, the Cheraman Masjid, for Muslim visitors; early Christians to build churches on the Malabar Coast; a Hindu king to resettle Parsis displaced from Persia and build a fire temple for them.

Post-partition, as a response to breakaway Islamic Pakistan, the majority-controlled constituent assembly did not make India a Hindu state nor Hindi its national language. That is because the core Indic value system itself was culturally secular.

By contrast, in most Muslim-majority countries, there is no democracy or secularism and little space for minorities or even Muslim women.

Under Modi, not a single new law has been passed that can be considered against any minority. Decriminalization of homosexuality and 10% reservation for economically backward sections in the general category happened during his era.

Cow protection is enshrined in our Constitution and beef ban laws were passed by Congress; BJP merely implemented them by stopping illegal slaughter. The ban on triple talaq, long banned in Pakistan itself, is a pro-women measure. The Ram Mandir dispute was settled not by parliamentary majority but by the Supreme Court.

Dr. Tharoor should expend energy educating Muslims on the virtues of democracy and secularism.

But he won't, because his conscience is not free of guilt.

It was his party that came out with a biased version of secularism at the expense of the Hindu majority. While keeping all mosques and churches free of government control and allowing them to be influenced by ideologies from Mecca and Vatican, Congress perpetuated government control over thousands of temples. Most major Hindu places of worship became dilapidated, idols were stolen, and their premises turned into land banks.

On one hand they took away from Hindus, on the other they introduced Haj subsidy, using state resources including diverting Air India flights.

After losing an election, his party declared Emergency in the mid-70s, shut down the press, attempted forced sterilization, imprisoned opponents and replaced cultural secularism with constitutional secularism when technically the Constitution itself was abrogated. That was under President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, ushering in overt state-sponsored Muslim appeasement.

Congress inculcated a feeling of entitlement among Muslim religious leaders and used them as campaign mouthpieces to create vote banks. The stature of orthodox clergymen rose while the larger Muslim population's dignity diminished.

The most glaring example was overturning the Supreme Court's judgement in favour of Shah Bano, depriving her and all future divorced Muslim women of alimony.

In their last term, a Sachar Committee was established to study only Muslims and no other minorities — a clear signal to a 200-million-strong community that without government intervention they are incapable.

Adding insult, Dr. Manmohan Singh, himself from the minority Sikh community, declared that minorities and particularly Muslims have the first right to India's resources. After defeat, it took A.K. Antony to wonder if Congress had become a "Muslim Party."

Thus, courtesy Congress, Muslims, despite being the second-largest majority, have remained backward on most parameters.

Soft Power and Results

Let us assume Congress was indeed subscribing to civic nationalism and reasonably successful at it.

After ruling for most of the first 60 years, what was the bottom-line result?

Dr. Joseph Nye, former Dean of Harvard's Kennedy School, observes what makes a nation's soft power — the power that raises its stature and naturally attracts others.

It happens when:

a) Its dominant culture is aligned to global trends — democracy, open trade, fair judiciary, women's empowerment, pluralism.

b) Its grand culture is effectively communicated — not opaque.

c) It shows results — uplifting its citizens.

There is a parallel between what Dr. Tharoor says about civic nationalism and what Dr. Nye says, the only difference being that Nye completes the loop — effective communication and demonstrative outcome.

Under Congress rule, India remained a soft state and kept losing soft power. Today, the Indian flag is flying high.

Notwithstanding the global pandemic, from lagging on all counts, we are witnessing a vibrant India on the move.

Our soft power is a manifestation of newfound internal confidence — JAM-linked direct benefit transfer becoming a global case study; unprecedented UN endorsement of Yoga; renewed connect of the Indian diaspora and now their contribution back to the motherland; visa-free travel to many more countries; rising acceptability of software and hardware exports; invitation to the OIC meeting; beeline of business trade agreements and world leaders visiting India; removal from the "Fragile Five" list and inclusion among preferred FDI destinations; swelling forex reserves; rating upgrades and improvements in World Bank's Ease of Doing Business; rise of startups and unicorns; leadership in the Global Solar Alliance; contribution in providing vaccines to the world; inclusion in the Quad, BRICS G 20, SCO & G7 as an invitee; exponential rise in Olympic winners; Gati Shakti's speed of implementation; highest national awards conferred on PM Modi.

The current version of Evolved Nationalism recognizes that we have indeed progressed and arrived on the world stage. 

We march to our own beat and yet get the world to move in tandem with us.

In conclusion, before exhorting the Modi Sarkar on what not to do, Dr. Tharoor needs to reconsider his position. 

Instead of appealing through rhetoric on why the Modi-initiated Hindustani-Hindu-Hindi movement is bad, he should look in the mirror and guide those within his own party on how to authentically engage the hearts of all Indians.