Last updateSat, 16 Jun 2018 7am


Jauhar – Beyond The Notion Of Bodily Honour

Hindutva discourse on women resistance to Islamist aggression on Kafir women during historical period

When the movie about Padmavati came, suddenly there erupted a diatribe against 'Jauhar'. The so-called progressive circles started denouncing the movie for glorifying 'Jauhar' or mass self-immolation by Hindu women of India in general and in Rajasthan in particular - the border state of India that mainly bore the brunt of Islamist invasions. Whenever Hindus faced definite defeat in the battle against Islamists their women and children committed self-immolation in fire. Interestingly throughout Indian history up until the Islamist invasion (with the sole exception of an instance during the invasion of Alexander the terrible), such mass self-immolation was not done by Hindu women during intra-Hindu wars. We do not have such instances of mass women self-immolation during the expansionist conquests of Samudra Gupta or Rajaraja Chozha.

The mass suicide of women has also been reported during the pre-partition and partition riots - particularly Hindu and Sikh women. It was again reported during 1971 Bengal holocaust. The Yazidi women in Iraq committing suicide to escape sex slavery at the hands of Islamic State (ISIS) is also well documented in recent years (2014-2017).


Was The 'Two Nation Theory' Savarkar's Original Thought?

For many who are uninitiated into Indian poltical history apart from cherry-picking anecdotes according to their convenience, blaming Veer Savarkar came as a natural consequence to absolving Jinnah residing at the other extreme end of the spectrum, for the crime of partition. 

To even suggest that Savarkar was responsible for such a tragedy of mammoth proportion shows abject ignorance if not hypocrisy that probably only Mani Shankar Aiyar is capable of. Though I believe he at least is extracting some kind of monetary or political benefits for uttering such a colossal nonsense publicly. 

Veer Savarkar to me and to those who have really read him instead of quoting him from online sites, will know and understand that the man had a keen understanding of facts which were analysed and inferred with practicality and reasonableness.

In his manifesto of "Hindurashtra", course this should be dealt with after knowing whom he meant as "Hindus" before jumping to premature conclusions, he has clearly stated that he is against minority appeasement, but that doesn't mean he had ever professed infringement upon the rights of minorities to practice their religion.

Since he has always advocated for equality of rights for all communities, I do not know how exactly did he ever ask for partition like Jinnah did who later in every conference or meeting was championing exclusively for Muslim rights. 


Fashion of India and Hinduism Bashing in Foreign Land

Fashion of India  Hinduism bashing in foreign land


Right in the middle of busy a work day (Wednesday, Oct 21st, 2015), I received an email from a friend about an India related event happening in my neighborhood. The event titled Shattering the Silence: India's Authors Protest Recent Murders”- An Evening with Ashok Vajpeyi, was hosted by Centre for South Asian Civilizations at University of Toronto. Simply knowing that most of the Centers of South Asian Studies are typically Anti-India/Anti-Hindu, it peeked my curiosity. I knew from the news headlines, that there is an anti-Modi campaign of intellectuals in India to return literary awards. Knowing about the Indian media’s bias against Hinduism, it made me wonder: How come someone is invited to University of Toronto, with such good timing. Who paid for travel expenses? Who are the anti-India, anti-Hinduism players in my town? With these thoughts, I moved around some items on my schedule to participate in the event.

While driving to the event I called my wife to do quick internet search on the speaker, Shri Ashok Vajpeyi. She gave me a 2-minute gist on his profile and the local organization hosting the event. I learned that he was one of the initial people who returned his Sahitya Akademi Award and he is an activist who’s linking Dadri lynching incident to suppression of freedom of speech of intellectuals in the country. He’s connected to leftist & Nehruvian-secularist mindset people and was close to Congress politician, Late Sh. Arjun Singh. I also called Shri Rajiv Malhotra, who has been my advisor in understanding the intellectual Kurukshetra. Rajiv Ji encouraged me to speak up my mind and be comfortable with the confrontation.

Although I expected it to be another anti-India/ Anti-Hindu event,


Indianize Education

indianize education

As a lover of Indian culture and spirtuality, I am sometimes appalled at how westernized education is in India. I can only hope that a future Human Ressources Minister will take-up the job to « Indianise, nationalise and spiritualise » education in India. Of course, he or she will be criticized by the secular media and intellectuals who will call it « a hidden Hindu agenda ». So What ?

With 800 millions souls, Hindus constitute the majority of this country. Why should Hindus then be ashamed of a « Hindu » education ? Traditionally and historically, Hinduism has always been the most tolerant of all religions, allowing persecuted minorities from all over the world, whether the Jerusalem Jews, the Parsis from Persia, Christians from Syria, or even Arab merchants, to settle in India over the centuries and practice their religion in peace. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of India's invaders, be it the Muslims, who ruthlessly tried for ten centuries to stamp out this most peaceful of all religions; or the Christians missionaries, who used every means at their disposal to convert Hindus to the « true » religion (and are still trying today).

But Hinduism, never tried to convert anybody, never sent its armies or missionaries to neighbouring countries,


How Irfan Habib tried to highjack Indian history

How Irfan Habib tried to

According to Prof M. G. S. Narayanan, Prof Irfan Habib  has poisoned not just history, but culture and social life by his narrow groupism, nepotism and treachery. – Jayakrishnan Nair

Few decades back, at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Prof. Irfan Habib  summoned his former student and now faculty member K K Muhammed to his office.  Muhammed had discovered Ibādat Khāna in Fatepur Sikri. Built by Akbar in 1575 CE, the  Ibādat Khāna was the place where various religious scholars held discussions. A major discovery, this was reported in various newspapers, something which Prof. Habib was not too happy about. The conversation went as follows:

Irfan Habib: “This is not Ibādat Khāna”

Muhammed: “No? This is not Ibādat Khāna?”

IH: “What you gave in Times of India is not Ibādat Khāna”

M: “How can you say that? Are you an archaeologist?”

IH: “I may not be as good an archaeologist like you”

M: “Sorry, you are not an archaeologist.” Irfan Habib was speechless.

Habib pushed a paper to Muhammed and said, “write what you discovered is not Ibādat Khāna”. Muhammed refused and walked away.


12 Reasons why there is chilling media silence over crime against Hindus

12 Reasons why there is chilling  1

In the course of recent years and particularly in the previous couple of months, there can be seen a pattern of highlighting Hindu violations against Muslims. Slaughtering of peaceful Hindus in Pakistan, Bangladesh or even in India is not considered important by the media, by government or by different political gatherings or by Human Rights industry in India.

In a case where the wrongdoing is against the Muslim community or a minority gathering, there is bound to be a heated television debate on the topic but should it be something against the Hindu community, the silence on those very television channels is deafening. It unmistakably demonstrates that the media is not unbiased and is actively playing a partisan role.

Why the double standards? Why this discrimination?

Let us try and comprehend the reasons why this has been going on for a while now:

1). Television media is upon intent inculcating a feeling of victimhood among Muslims


Aurangzeb as a ‘tolerant tyrant’: the case against ‘secular’ historiography

Aurangzeb as a tolerant tyrant

Aurangzeb was the last of the ‘great’ Mughals whose policies set into motion those forces, which would pave the way for the disintegration of the empire. Until the mid-20th century, there was scholarly consensus that Aurangzeb’s religious policy animated by his zeal for application of orthodox and fundamentalist Islamic law gravely undermined the logic of the Mughal state, which under Akbar while retaining its overarching Islamic character compromised by permitting the peaceful albeit subjugated co-existence for its majority Hindu subjects. Jadunath Sarkar who was arguably the greatest historian in colonial India in his meticulously researched five volume biography of the emperor made the dismal observation that “Schools of Hindu learning were broken up by him, Hindu places of worship were demolished, Hindu fairs were forbidden, the Hindu population was subjected to special fiscal burdens in additional to being made to bear a public badge of inferiority; and the services of the state were closed to them…the effect of Aurangzeb’s reign was not only good to goad the Hindus into constant revolt and disturbances, but also to make them deteriorate in intellect, organization and economic resources.”

Post-independence, the Nehruvian state apparatus understood historical interpretation as a mechanism for, among other things, creating a ‘secular’ society in which religious persecution of Hindus in medieval India were problematic facts incompatible with their ‘idea of India’ in which ‘communal’ historical consciousness had to be eradicated in order to legitimize the present and crush the emergence of alternative ‘Hindu majoritarian’ ‘right wing’ movements, which could potentially upset the hegemony of the Congress and its dominant narrative. The ‘secular’ state thus sponsored this pious act of historical revisionism by patronizing historians of a decisive Marxist or “secularist” persuasion with an implicit understanding for creating new narratives of ‘magnificent’, ‘progressive’ and ‘tolerant’ Mughal ages with minimal emphasis on the excesses against its Hindu subjects and institutions. Hence, the ultimate objective of this new historiography was to overturn the historical conviction of Aurangzeb as the fundamentalist tyrant and persecutor of Hindus,