#muslim population in india

[insightfultake]

Why Hindu-Muslim Tensions Persist in India: History, Politics, and the Battle for National Unity

In the din of daily headlines and the cacophony of televised debates, the question rarely asked is also the most urgent: Why do Hindu-Muslim tensions in India endure more than seventy-five years after Independence? For a nation aspiring to transform from a $3.5 trillion economy into a global superpower, such internal fissures are not merely cultural; they are structural handicaps.

To seek the origins of this fraught relationship, one must resist the temptation of modern political scapegoats and walk, instead, into the annals of Indian history—into palaces and prisons, courtrooms and battlefields.

[phdpegger]

so soo tempted to go intro religious studies and just study hinduism top to bottom

[peachiyyy]

ind*a’s h*nduv*ta issue needs to be addressed globally bc they essentially want to do the same thing isr*el is doing to non-hindu indians. They’re also one of isr*el’s biggest supporters + isr*el funds the indian occupation in kashmir. B*p and m*di are garbage and I pray for their downfall everyday. Considering the history of 🇮🇳 , being in favor for genocide should be anti-indian but they hate muslims so much that they don’t care. But when I talk about it some yt saviour on here wants to tell me, a DESI- not just south asian, a DESI person, that im ‘racist’ for calling majority of them garbage lmfao.

[lyknest]

it is almost comical & sad how years of government sponsored jingoistic mainstream news, bullying journalists, crackdown & ban on independent news media, and TIKTOK BAN, in the name "national security" is the downfall of our country's credibility globally (which according to our ruling party is that of "vishwa guru" aka world leader)

because all the entire world now only has as "reliable" source of information is mainstream media, ALL of which is nothing but Fox News but only a million times worse and sinister.

(and by ALL, i really do mean every. single. news. channel. the only somewhat non-agressive news channel - NDTV - was bought out by a billionaire which ofcourse favours the govt.)

and since ALL news-telling in india has been majoritarian brainwashing propaganda for over a decade, it has seeded an ethno-fascist hindutva ideology in the masses (very well cemented by bollywood) which results in people CHEERING ON FOR WAR LIKE IDIOTS & India's attacks on Pakistan

and due to a culmination of all this, as the attacks/shelling in civilian areas, especially in the border J&K and Punjab area, resulting in destruction & death, the narrative internationally is something entirely different, with India being painted as the sole aggressor, which these social media activists jump on, distorting ground reality. and when they see the mainstream coverage & people's comments out of india, it confirms their belief.

i would especially urge nations beyond our two, especially the western nations, to verify every information before sharing, and avoid sharing uncritical partisan takes. there is decades of history between these two countries, multiple wars, attacks, and proxy wars, in which only civilians & historically marginalized groups suffer, which makes this a lot more complicated rather than black & white as some would like it to be.

some fact-checkers & news organisations to follow (based out of india):

BOOM ; @/boomlive_in

The NEWS Minute ; @/thenewsminute

alt News ; @/altnews.in

Newslaundry : @/newslaundry

unfortunately, these news are not as LIVE & Real-Time, because that requires reporters on ground and numerous resources, for which these media houses often don't have enough capital. which leads the masses to mainstream media, which we have already established is jingoistic sensationalism & hysteria. please do not fall for it.

i would encourage everyone to watch/read this, especially desis:

Narratives at war: How fake news escalates India-Pakistan tensions

Operation Sindoor and the war at home

When News Anchors Bombed: the Truth | TV Makes a Joke of War

[rightnewshindi]

80 करोड़ मुसलमान होंगे तो हिंदू आवाज नहीं उठा पाएंगे; मौलाना साजिद रशीदी का वायरल बयान, क्या सच में भारत में मुस्लिम आबादी हिंदुओं को पीछे छोड़ देगी?

Muslim Population: सोशल मीडिया पर एक वीडियो तेजी से वायरल हो रहा है, जिसमें ऑल इंडिया इमाम एसोसिएशन के अध्यक्ष मौलाना साजिद रशीदी कथित तौर पर कह रहे हैं कि जिस दिन भारत में मुसलमानों की आबादी 80 करोड़ हो जाएगी, उस दिन हिंदू अपनी आवाज नहीं उठा पाएंगे। मौलाना ने यह भी कहा कि मुस्लिम समुदाय को “हम दो हमारे दो” का कॉन्सेप्ट नहीं अपनाना चाहिए, बल्कि अपनी आबादी बढ़ानी चाहिए। इस बयान ने सोशल मीडिया पर…

[cryptotheism]

I was watching the latest foodguessr vod and you said that an Indian dish with Muslim origins was “probably from the northwest.” HOWEVER the description itself said that the dish was from Kerala, which is in the far south, and due to its important historical position in regional trade actually has one of the oldest Muslim communities in all of India.

"Streamer FAILS the parsi cuisine gambit"

This type of shit is why I love foodguesser. I love when you're like "oh al pastor I love al pastor that's Mexican" and the game goes "Check out this IDIOT who doesn't know about Mexico's thriving Lebanese diasporic population"

[reasonsforhope]

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is, by some measures, the most popular leader in the world. Prior to the 2024 election, his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) held an outright majority in the Lok Sabha (India’s Parliament) — one that was widely projected to grow after the vote count. The party regularly boasted that it would win 400 Lok Sabha seats, easily enough to amend India’s constitution along the party's preferred Hindu nationalist lines.

But when the results were announced on Tuesday, the BJP held just 240 seats. They not only underperformed expectations, they actually lost their parliamentary majority. While Modi will remain prime minister, he will do so at the helm of a coalition government — meaning that he will depend on other parties to stay in office, making it harder to continue his ongoing assault on Indian democracy.

So what happened? Why did Indian voters deal a devastating blow to a prime minister who, by all measures, they mostly seem to like?

India is a massive country — the most populous in the world — and one of the most diverse, making its internal politics exceedingly complicated. A definitive assessment of the election would require granular data on voter breakdown across caste, class, linguistic, religious, age, and gender divides. At present, those numbers don’t exist in sufficient detail. 

But after looking at the information that is available and speaking with several leading experts on Indian politics, there are at least three conclusions that I’m comfortable drawing.

First, voters punished Modi for putting his Hindu nationalist agenda ahead of fixing India’s unequal economy. Second, Indian voters had some real concerns about the decline of liberal democracy under BJP rule. Third, the opposition parties waged a smart campaign that took advantage of Modi’s vulnerabilities on the economy and democracy.

Understanding these factors isn’t just important for Indians. The country’s election has some universal lessons for how to beat a would-be authoritarian — ones that Americans especially might want to heed heading into its election in November.

-via Vox, June 7, 2024. Article continues below.

A new (and unequal) economy

Modi’s biggest and most surprising losses came in India’s two most populous states: Uttar Pradesh in the north and Maharashtra in the west. Both states had previously been BJP strongholds — places where the party’s core tactic of pitting the Hindu majority against the Muslim minority had seemingly cemented Hindu support for Modi and his allies.

One prominent Indian analyst, Yogendra Yadav, saw the cracks in advance. Swimming against the tide of Indian media, he correctly predicted that the BJP would fall short of a governing majority.

Traveling through the country, but especially rural Uttar Pradesh, he prophesied “the return of normal politics”: that Indian voters were no longer held spellbound by Modi’s charismatic nationalist appeals and were instead starting to worry about the way politics was affecting their lives.

Yadav’s conclusions derived in no small part from hearing voters’ concerns about the economy. The issue wasn’t GDP growth — India’s is the fastest-growing economy in the world — but rather the distribution of growth’s fruits. While some of Modi’s top allies struck it rich, many ordinary Indians suffered. Nearly half of all Indians between 20 and 24 are unemployed; Indian farmers have repeatedly protested Modi policies that they felt hurt their livelihoods.

“Everyone was talking about price rise, unemployment, the state of public services, the plight of farmers, [and] the struggles of labor,” Yadav wrote...

“We know for sure that Modi’s strongman image and brassy self-confidence were not as popular with voters as the BJP assumed,” says Sadanand Dhume, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who studies India. 

The lesson here isn’t that the pocketbook concerns trump identity-based appeals everywhere; recent evidence in wealthier democracies suggests the opposite is true. Rather, it’s that even entrenched reputations of populist leaders are not unshakeable. When they make errors, even some time ago, it’s possible to get voters to remember these mistakes and prioritize them over whatever culture war the populist is peddling at the moment.

Liberalism strikes back

The Indian constitution is a liberal document: It guarantees equality of all citizens and enshrines measures designed to enshrine said equality into law. The signature goal of Modi’s time in power has been to rip this liberal edifice down and replace it with a Hindu nationalist model that pushes non-Hindus to the social margins. In pursuit of this agenda, the BJP has concentrated power in Modi’s hands and undermined key pillars of Indian democracy (like a free press and independent judiciary).

Prior to the election, there was a sense that Indian voters either didn’t much care about the assault on liberal democracy or mostly agreed with it. But the BJP’s surprising underperformance suggests otherwise.

The Hindu, a leading Indian newspaper, published an essential post-election data analysis breaking down what we know about the results. One of the more striking findings is that the opposition parties surged in parliamentary seats reserved for members of “scheduled castes” — the legal term for Dalits, the lowest caste grouping in the Hindu hierarchy.

Caste has long been an essential cleavage in Indian politics, with Dalits typically favoring the left-wing Congress party over the BJP (long seen as an upper-caste party). Under Modi, the BJP had seemingly tamped down on the salience of class by elevating all Hindus — including Dalits — over Muslims. Yet now it’s looking like Dalits were flocking back to Congress and its allies. Why?

According to experts, Dalit voters feared the consequences of a BJP landslide. If Modi’s party achieved its 400-seat target, they’d have more than enough votes to amend India’s constitution. Since the constitution contains several protections designed to promote Dalit equality — including a first-in-the-world affirmative action system — that seemed like a serious threat to the community. It seems, at least based on preliminary data, that they voted accordingly.

The Dalit vote is but one example of the ways in which Modi’s brazen willingness to assail Indian institutions likely alienated voters.

Uttar Pradesh (UP), India’s largest and most electorally important state, was the site of a major BJP anti-Muslim campaign. It unofficially kicked off its campaign in the UP city of Ayodhya earlier this year, during a ceremony celebrating one of Modi’s crowning achievements: the construction of a Hindu temple on the site of a former mosque that had been torn down by Hindu nationalists in 1992. 

Yet not only did the BJP lose UP, it specifically lost the constituency — the city of Faizabad — in which the Ayodhya temple is located. It’s as direct an electoral rebuke to BJP ideology as one can imagine.

In Maharashtra, the second largest state, the BJP made a tactical alliance with a local politician, Ajit Pawar, facing serious corruption charges. Voters seemingly punished Modi’s party for turning a blind eye to Pawar’s offenses against the public trust. Across the country, Muslim voters turned out for the opposition to defend their rights against Modi’s attacks.

The global lesson here is clear: Even popular authoritarians can overreach.

By turning “400 seats” into a campaign slogan, an all-but-open signal that he intended to remake the Indian state in his illiberal image, Modi practically rang an alarm bell for constituencies worried about the consequences. So they turned out to stop him en masse.

The BJP’s electoral underperformance is, in no small part, the direct result of their leader’s zealotry going too far.

Return of the Gandhis? 

Of course, Modi’s mistakes might not have mattered had his rivals failed to capitalize. The Indian opposition, however, was far more effective than most observers anticipated.

Perhaps most importantly, the many opposition parties coordinated with each other. Forming a united bloc called INDIA (Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance), they worked to make sure they weren’t stealing votes from each other in critical constituencies, positioning INDIA coalition candidates to win straight fights against BJP rivals.

The leading party in the opposition bloc — Congress — was also more put together than people thought. Its most prominent leader, Rahul Gandhi, was widely dismissed as a dilettante nepo baby: a pale imitation of his father Rajiv and grandmother Indira, both former Congress prime ministers. Now his critics are rethinking things.

“I owe Rahul Gandhi an apology because I seriously underestimated him,” says Manjari Miller, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Miller singled out Gandhi’s yatras (marches) across India as a particularly canny tactic. These physically grueling voyages across the length and breadth of India showed that he wasn’t just a privileged son of Indian political royalty, but a politician willing to take risks and meet ordinary Indians where they were. During the yatras, he would meet directly with voters from marginalized groups and rail against Modi’s politics of hate.

“The persona he’s developed — as somebody kind, caring, inclusive, [and] resolute in the face of bullying — has really worked and captured the imagination of younger India,” says Suryanarayan. “If you’ve spent any time on Instagram Reels, [you’ll see] an entire generation now waking up to Rahul Gandhi’s very appealing videos.”

This, too, has a lesson for the rest of the world: Tactical innovation from the opposition matters even in an unfair electoral context.

There is no doubt that, in the past 10 years, the BJP stacked the political deck against its opponents. They consolidated control over large chunks of the national media, changed campaign finance law to favor themselves, suborned the famously independent Indian Electoral Commission, and even intimidated the Supreme Court into letting them get away with it. 

The opposition, though, managed to find ways to compete even under unfair circumstances. Strategic coordination between them helped consolidate resources and ameliorate the BJP cash advantage. Direct voter outreach like the yatra helped circumvent BJP dominance in the national media.

To be clear, the opposition still did not win a majority. Modi will have a third term in office, likely thanks in large part to the ways he rigged the system in his favor.

Yet there is no doubt that the opposition deserves to celebrate. Modi’s power has been constrained and the myth of his invincibility wounded, perhaps mortally. Indian voters, like those in Brazil and Poland before them, have dealt a major blow to their homegrown authoritarian faction.

And that is something worth celebrating.

-via Vox, June 7, 2024.

[bobemajses]

Two Baghdadi Jewish men near the synagogue in Kolkata, India, 1979.

Jewish migration to Kolkata is said to date back to King Solomon’s spice trade. The Baghdadi Jewish community came from Syria and Iraq during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Shalom Ha-Cohen from Aleppo, the first registered Jew in Kolkata, docked in 1798 to become the court jeweler of the the Muslim ruler Ghāzī al-Dīn Haydar. The once thriving Jewish population, which included some of the wealthiest merchants in the city during the British Raj, is now down to 20-odd people but their architectural legacy - ornate buildings, mansions, hospitals, schools and synagogues - is testimony to the grandeur of the community.

[cenvast]

Rin, Kabru, & Toshiro: On Asian Identity

I have a lot of thoughts about Rin's identity as a second-generation Asian refugee and how it impacts her relationships with other characters, especially Kabru.

I see Rin as being Indonesian specifically. The name "Rinsha" is of Muslim Arabic origin. In real life, Indonesia has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world, so what might seem like a geographically incompatible name works if Rin is the Dungeon Meshi equivalent of Indonesian.

Rin also says that her parents came from an island that isn't Wa, and Indonesia is a series of islands.

In her Adventurer's Bible entry, she's described as having "no real knowledge or attachment to the East" because "she's second-generation." She also clarifies to Mickbell that she was "born here." From this character description and her dialogue, we get the sense that Rin doesn't really identify with being Asian.

As noted in this Rin masterpost, a large part of this is because she was denied her parents' cultural identity by the elves. They likely suppressed any cultural markers she had and denied her information about her heritage. Since she wasn't born in the Eastern Archipelago and her parents died when she was young, she understandably hasn't inherited a lot of cultural knowledge.

Rin seems to have internalized ethnic self-hatred. Her disconnect from the East and her unwillingness to remedy that disconnect suggests that she has shame surrounding her Asian identity.

Again, she doesn't have many opportunities to interact with people from her parents' homeland, and her trauma also impacts her behavior. Remembering her parents is probably painful, considering the horrible way they died, and since they're her main connection to her cultural heritage, it makes sense that she wouldn't broach the topic.

You could also argue that Rin identifies more with her Northern identity than her Eastern identity since she was born and raised in the North for the first eleven years of her life, and as a result, she doesn't feel the need to connect with her parents' culture. But considering her home was presumptively still steeped in her parents' culture and her main association with the North is probably her parents' murders, this seems unlikely.

It's important to note how different her experiences are from the story's other Asian characters', like Toshiro's, for example. Toshiro travels to the Island as an adult of his own volition (technically, his father's). He's completely culturally Eastern. In comparison, Rin's parents fled from the East. Her family had to assimilate into an unfamiliar Northern culture, and later, she was "raised" by western elves, who are coded as colonizers in text. She seems to have internalized the elves' suppression of her culture and the way assimilating to the North required them to discard parts of their heritage. Her lack of interest in her culture seems learned.

Her strong attachment to Kabru further complicates her relationship with her Asian identity. I see Kabru as Indian or Nepalese; his name derives from a mountain on the border between India and Nepal. On top of being the only person who treats her like a human being during her childhood, Kabru is the only other significant Asian person in her life. They share the trauma of their parents having been brutally murdered and being raised imperfectly (much more severely in her case) by elves. While in the elf's care, they're both othered as tallmen— this aspect is strongly emphasized in the text — and in the main story, they're othered as Asian people in its European-inspired setting. Their shared experiences as Asian refugees are the foundation of their close bond.

It's not a stretch to assume that Rin consequently views Kabru as her main connection to being Asian. While they're from very different parts of fantasy Asia, their experiences as Asian refugees still overlap significantly as seen above, and the way she clings to Kabru suggests she wants to connect more with her culture, but for the previously stated reasons, she doesn't prioritize it. Besides, she doesn't have good models for what embracing one's cultural identity as a refugee/immigrant looks like. Just like her, Kabru doesn't seem to have many cultural ties, similarly because of his upbringing with the elves.

Toshiro could completely topple Rin and Kabru's original dynamic. Rin doesn't seem to like Toshiro. Their personalities would probably clash at first, because just like him, she's prone to judgment, out of self-preservation, and she's quiet. One of their canonical interactions is being captured by the orcs together; they don't even speak to each other in this scene.

Kabru and Toshiro become friends by the story's conclusion. Deep down, Rin might feel threatened by this. She's been Kabru's closest Asian friend up until this point. Toshiro, as an Asian person who was born and raised in his culture, might seem like a "better Asian" and thus, Kabru's replacement for her. This would be the worst projection of her buried insecurity over her disconnect from being Asian and how it potentially separates her from other Asian people. Given her personality, I doubt she would express this beyond acting wary around Toshiro.

With time, Rin, Kabru, and Toshiro could resolve her fears and the deeper issues they point to by all becoming friends. Interacting with other Asian people would heal her. She appears unphased by Mickbell's microaggression, implying it isn't an uncommon occurrence; she seems to only hang out with Kabru and their party. Being around other people of color would lessen the amount of othering she experiences and grant her a break from defending her identity.

Beyond the potential for cultural exchange and bonding over being Asian in fantasy Europe, Rin and Toshiro are also very similar in character. They're both anxious, quiet, and caring. If they made a little effort, they'd relate to each other and get along well.

Ideally, Rin would also befriend Hien, Benichidori, and the other girls in Toshiro's party. Kabru and Toshiro have their own issues with their treatment of women, so without positive Asian female friendships, she'd have another issue on her hands. Still, Kabru could be the bridge to a friendship with Toshiro, and Toshiro could be the bridge to friendships with his retainers. And with mutual growth, they could all enjoy each other's friendships.

Rin herself points out the vast cultural differences and language barriers between different parts of the East. The Asian characters of DunMeshi might not always share culture, but because of the story's setting in fantasy Europe, many of them experience being nonwhite in a mostly white locale. A support system of other people of color could allow Rin the space to explore her identity and culture and begin healing from her childhood trauma.

[tomorrowwithme]

What does Pakistan's propaganda look like?

Let's take a look!

This is an interview from the Expo Pavillion Japan where the Pakistani side got an interview. The Pakistani explains that "the root cause (of the problems between India and Pakistan) is Britain"

Did Britain create Ghazni, Ghori or Aurangzeb? Pakistanis claim that their civilisation starts from those figures?

Did Britain create Shah Waliullah Dehlawi, Shariatullah, Ahl-e-Hadith / Ahl-e-Quran / Deobandi /Barelvi, Tablighi, Faraizi?

Did Britain create the "two-nation theory" that advocated for separate Islamic nation for the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent because the Muslim elite refused to share democracy with the Hindus?

It's time to stop blaming Britain for partitioning India. The seeds were sowed before the British East India Company even set a foot on Indian soil. You can, however, say that British policies favoured Islamist elements.

"There are still few Muslims in India and few Hindus in Pakistan" is the understatement of the year. Islam is the second largest religion in India and they constitute over 14% of the Indian population. this is over 200 million Muslims in India. according to census data the Hindu percentage of Pakistan is just 2%. That is less than 4 million Hindus in Pakistan. this brings me to the second part of the interview. 

"If a Hindu becomes a politician in Pakistan there is a danger that he or she will engage in political activities that are in the interest of India"

-> Pakistani is directly stating that the native Hindu minority of Pakistan have absolutely no political representation, and that they do not have equal rights as citizens of Pakistan!! 

"Muslims are persecuted in India by Hindus. They are falsely accused of eating beef and subjected to abuse."

-> How dare this Pakistani equate some cow herders trying to protect their cows, their only livelihood, from cattle smugglers with the Pakistani government systematically persecuting Hindus by not giving them equal legal rights ?

All this Pakistani can do is invoke the "Muslims are oppressed in India" – card, even after stating that Hindu minority in Pakistan does not have equal rights as citizens of Pakistan. The fact that this Pakistani can say this so brazenly is because this Pakistani does not believe that Hindus are equal human beings with him. Let us look more closely at the Indus water treaty (IWT). according to the treaty, India would have had received control of 20% (Beas, Ravi, Sutlej) of the water of the Indus while Pakistan would have had received 80% (Chenab, Jhelum, Sindhu). Northern India has water shortages. India feeds not only its population but also the world. A 20-80 was never fair to Indians. Yet, Pakistan still couldn't help but sponsor terrorist attacks against Indians. As the Indian PM Modi stated after the Uri attack in 2016, "blood and water cannot flow together".

Now, the second point. Pakistan is a two-faced liar. Pakistan, in fact, does not want to be friends with India. Pakistan government sends terrorists to Indian territory to murder Indian citizens, especially Hindus. 

Thank gods that there were sensible Japanese people refuting Pakistani propaganda.

Indians, take a good look at these plants in the international media and think tanks, sent by the Pakistani establishment. This is how Pakistan has been shaping the narrative in the international stage which in turn has gotten them American support, world bank support, international monetary fund support, etc. On the other hand, reporters with Indian sounding names in the international media have been participating in writing hit jobs against India. How lost are you, India?

[ambidextrousarcher]

Nearly ten days after the Pahalgam attack, watching the various responses to said attack...part of me is shocked, and another confused. Yet another thinks that something like this is inevitable.

Too many people reacted to what is undoubtedly a terrorist attack by channelling their rage and grief into persecuting innocent people because the terrorists asked those they killed to recite the kalma, undoubtedly being Islamic in their origin.

Yes, they were Muslim. Does that mean there should be violence against innocent Kashmiri students because 'Hindu khatre mein hain"? No. Do you know why? Because a large part of why such Islamic organisations sway local sympathies towards them is by the catchphrase "Islamiyat khatre mein hain." Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Why wouldn't it? We've heard an alternate religion version of it over TV channels and so-called "news" and "leaders of the free world" screaming Hindu khatre mein hain, khatre mein hain, after all.

So many of us believe it, too.

Why, some of us may ask, shouldn't we believe so? We are Hindus, and we aren't safe even in our own land, our own country. Perhaps we should look deeper into the 'why' of it. So much of violence against us is by ourselves, for daring to be different. Lynching, beating, far more for far too less. So what if someone eats meat? They aren't stopping you from living your life. Why should you put an end to theirs?

But, then, as people who hold power today ask, what about the invaders who invaded India 1000 years ago, 1200 years ago? People whose descendants divide the country today, covet its assets for themselves? Including Kashmir, the jewel of India?

To that is my answer: If that is what you believe, then we should all leave this land. Most of us, at least. None of us are indigenous to the land we live in, except perhaps the tribes in Sentinel island. Other than that, all of us, except for the populations that are tribal/adivasis, probably migrated from somewhere else, simply some time longer ago than 1200 years.

But then, argue some, what about religious texts that speak to tens and thousands of years of ancestry? The Mahabharata, the Itihasas, the Puranas?

In that case, well, might I remind you that Sanskrit is not the single sole classical language that speaks of thousands of years of history? There is the matter of at least one other culture and language that exists alongside. The Sangam literature too speaks of thousands of years. Three whole Sangams, might I mention.

Almost every single ancient culture claims grandiose descent. We do not know how much credence should be given to any of these claims, but, if we are giving credence to one claim, why leave the others behind? Give equal credence, why don't you?

Coming back to 1200 years of "slave mentality" and "coveting territory" I will be paraphrasing words written nearly a 100 years ago by a man who identified as Kashmiri, if not perhaps Hindu, though he rather did admire the title Pandit. He very famously preferred to be known for his scientific temper, possibly a reason why today's rulers loathe this man.

He said, and I paraphrase, that those rulers are not considered foreign rule because there was marital intermixing of races and blood relations, because whatever money was made was spent inside India, because it did not go to another country (Ghori and Ghazni aside, the temple was rebuilt within 50 years, though the 'collective trauma' was first heard of in the British parliament sometime in the 19th century)

People have a beautiful tendency to syncretise, to meld with each other, to form cultures of harmony. Look at each state of India, the cultural plurality (that a homogenous overarching 'desi' identity cannot and will not encapsulate, but this discussion is for another post) especially Kashmir. There is amazing cultural syncretism in their literature, art, architecture, even notions of Kashmiri identity.

There is a unity in diversity. When is this threatened? When a section of the population felt trampled on by the 'high-handed' handling of things (in their own words) by the 'elected' powers (there is widespread allegation of electoral rigging over the years in Kashmir)

In the '80's and '90's it comes in the form of 'Islamiyat khatre mein hain' because at that point, they felt they weren't given the opportunities they should by the Indian Government. There was liberal support from external organisations, and insurgency flourished. The Kashmiri Hindu exodus takes place in these decades, and there is an element of "Hindu khatre mein hain" which is fanned by the government. The following two to three passages are from a report by Human Rights Watch in 1992, during said exodus.

A number of Hindu refugees from Kashmir have subsequently denounced the government for encouraging them to leave under false pretenses. In a letter to the editor of Alsafa in October 1990, some 20 Pandit refugees alleged that: There can be no dispute about the fact the Kashmiri Pandit community was made a scapegoat by Jagmohan, some self-styled leaders of our community and other vested interests ... [T]he plan was to make the K.P.'s [Kashmiri Pandits] migrate from the valley so that the mass uprising against occupation forces could be painted as a communal flare up.... Some self-styled leaders of the Pandit community... begged the Pandits to migrate from the valley. We were told that our migration was very vital for preserving and protecting 'Dharm' [religious integrity] and the unity and the integrity of India. We were told that our migration would pave the way for realizing the dream of Akhand Bharat [undivided India].... We were made to believe that our migration was very important for Hinduism and for keeping India together.... We were fooled and we were more than willing to become fools.205

At the same time, it is clear that many Hindus were made the targets of threats and acts of violence by militant organizations and that this wave of killing and harassment motivated many to leave the valley. Such threats and violence constitute violations of the laws of war, and Asia Watch was able to document many specific cases. • On September 20, 1989, O.N. Sharma, a 47-year-old travel agent from Srinagar found a letter written in Urdu in his mailbox, signed by the JKLF. Sharma told Asia Watch that the letter was addressed to him by name and it referred to him as an "Indian dog." The letter told Sharma to leave the valley by September 27, or he and his family would be killed. At the time, Sharma was living with his wife, two children and his mother.

Again paraphrasing words written very soon after Indian independence. "Minority communities should feel secure in their rights as Indian citizens and that is the part of the majority to ensure. Communalism in all forms is the greatest danger to Indian sovereignty as a whole."

Even today, Kashmiri rights are not ensured. The Indian Army and militant/terrorist bodies have both behaved horribly with Kashmiri women over the years with multiple documented cases of rape still pending action (Human Rights Watch has multiple reports on such cases) and so...such boiling over feels inevitable, on some counts.

The Kashmiri people deserve a voice in their own fate.

@scribblesbyavi bhaiyya, you may like to read this.

[rightnewshindi]

2050 तक सबसे अधिक मुस्लिम आबादी वाला देश बन जाएगा भारत, जानें किस रिपोर्ट में हुआ खुलासा

2050 तक सबसे अधिक मुस्लिम आबादी वाला देश बन जाएगा भारत, जानें किस रिपोर्ट में हुआ खुलासा #News #RightNewsIndia

India News: यह दुनिया हिंदू, इस्लाम, ईसाई, बौद्ध, जैन, सिख जैसे विभिन्न धर्मों के लोगों का निवास स्थान है। कुछ देशों में केवल कुछ धर्मों के लोगों को ही देखा जा सकता है। लेकिन 2050 तक भारत सबसे अधिक मुस्लिम आबादी वाला देश बन जाएगा। प्यू रिसर्च सेंटर द्वारा जारी एक रिपोर्ट के अनुसार, 2050 तक भारत (311 मिलियन) सबसे अधिक मुस्लिम आबादी वाला देश बन जाएगा। भारत विविधता में एकता का उदाहरण है। यहां…

[myauditionfordrphil]

Dude people acting like Pakistan is Palestine and India is Israel is just pissing me off. "India is killing innocent civilians!" And when Pakistani terrorists kill Indian civilians it's crickets. When Pakistan tries to bomb densely populated Indian cities it's crickets. But India retaliating is "genocide" apparently. And Pakistan funding terrorists with tax money from civilians while so many people live in crippling poverty isn't genocide? Just because Islamophobia exists doesn't mean religious extremists who kill innocent people are in the right. Istg they were trying to blame their failure of their own people on others and this situation has given them a golden opportunity to get sympathy from the other Muslim countries and paint India as their villain.

So trueee like having the audacity to compare India's actions to the inhumane, unspeakable atrocities that Israel has commited is preposterous. The double standards are really getting to me now. Some really popular pages whose content is based upon Palestine and raising awareness are supporting Pakistan (and before anyone even gets the idea that I am against pro-Palestinian content, check my page for once, I will advocate for a free Palestine till the end of my life) because innocents are dying - and as much sympathy I have for any innocent dying on either side of the border - where were all these concerns when Indian citizens were dying in a similar way? Are their lives not as valuable? But then it's the India's fault because apparently these people are dying because of the actions of the country completely ignoring the fact that the very reason terrorism has reached such a peak is the corruption and extremism in the Pakistani military and the incapability of the government. Their people are suffering because their leaders have decided to make their land a breeding ground for terrorism, because their leaders decided to be the lapdog of big world governments and do their dirty work. As for trying to paint Pakistan as a victim to get support from Islamic states, I'll be very honest, I have no belief in these Islamic states. They never stood up for Palestine, they never helped Syria, or Lebanon, or Sudan, or Congo and god knows how many Muslim countries - hell Saudi is itself bombing Yemen. They are a bunch of spineless cowards who can only speak false sugar coated words. Religion has been twisted by man, it has been turned into a source of politics, of manipulation, of spreading communal hate. These terrorists who claim to operate in the name of Islam can be anything but a Muslim because I - and a million other Muslims who actively practice Islam and have deep rooted faith in our religion - have clearly been following a different religion than them. We haven't read the same Quran (with both linguistic and social context not only translation) or follow the same moral values that our teaches teaches us. I am a Muslim and I have faced islamophobia more times than I can count. Living in India - especially in recent years - as a muslim is not easy, Islamophobia is very prevalent and if you raise your voice against it you're suddenly anti-national, an invader and have to listen to "agar itni hi problem hai toh yaha pe reh hi kyu rahe ho, go to Pakistan" - just because you condemn the very obvious prejudice and discrimination. It's not easy having to constantly give the proof of your loyalty and love to your country, to have your patriotism be questioned at every step, to be viewed either as a Muslim or as an Indian but never both. But no amount of suffering validates wishing the same atrocities on someone else. It is the same thing as saying that the genocide that Israel is committing is justified because jews faced antisemitism and the holocaust. I have been advocating for peace since day one, wanting the war to be stopped. But that step cannot be taken by one side. You cannot expect India to remain silent when Pakistan continues to instigate violence. War has never bought any good to anyone. It only brings destruction, it is never the answer. Only those who don't face the adversity of war wishes for one to be started. And it's about time that Pakistan realizes this.

[timetravellingkitty]

hello ive been lurking around your blog these past few days and have found your posts.....intresting. I have a few questions for you I hope you answer. 1. Are you indian indian? Like born and a bred indian( race and nationality both)

I saw you mentioned you are Punjabi I come from a Punjabi background as well though I've grown up mainly in the south

2. I agree with some of your takes on kashmir like the heavy presence of military in kashmir only encourages alienation and radical thinking among people. But some of your takes seem.... stupid for a lack of a better word. I Mean if you are a tax paying adult living in a 3rd world country surrounded by neighbouring countries much worse than your who would happily like to subjugate you and your fellow citizens and take away even the most basic rights we have. You should be able to see plain as day that giving kashmir would be political suicide for india. We can argue about the semantics of how the place should be governed appropriately all day but you should also be able to see that pakistan will not give up claim to any part of kashmir ever. Especially because it's a mainly Muslim dominated state. In an ideal world kasmiris are free to govern themselves but we don't live in an ideal world . We live in a fycked up system where some things are harsh but necessary that's the way of life. To make it clear I'm not condoning any human rights abuses faced by the both the hindus and Muslims of the region my point is solely regarding your India's "forceful" occupation of kashmir. ( which is a whole other can of worms regarding their Hindu king and Muslim population in 1947) the point is when the partitioning happened this land came to us by hook or by crook . I will the first to admit that the Indian government both under congress and bjp has largely failed to govern the state properly and adress the concerns of the people.

3. Onto my point of you saying people fetishize kashmir I can see your point somewhat. But to say that tourism in the state is not good is just.....no that's just dumb. Kashmir lacks proper infrastructure and revenues to boost it's economy and sustain itself on its own. Tourism is the livelihood of many original indigenous kashmir people whose lives you seem to care alot about. So yeah I think tourism in the state is a great initiative by the government one of the few good things bjp has done tbh.

This helps people earn money and keep a roof over their heads whats wrong with that? Seeing kashmir as Hindu homeland is weird and very hindutva which I don't support but kashmiris should be tolerant of other people living there. Migration within states ks very common in india I don't see the problem with people coming there for vacation or purchasing property there. The only thing they are right to be concerned about is how it can uproot their language and culture.

4. India as country has many problems and we are largely governed by a fascist central government that's slowly taking our fundamental rights and freedome away. But (it's a huge but so I can see if you won't take this leap with me) we are still on paper a democracy with equal rights for all. That's better than most countries in the middle east (for now atleast) we have done a better job administrating kashmir than pakistan. I think that's true because let's be honest there is no way I'm ever trusting a word out the mouth of failed terrorist state. That curtails the rights of women in the name of religion

5. In an ideal world I am pasificst bit right now after the pointless death of civilians in kashmir there terrorist have achieved what they wanted most to break the last semblance of tolerance between hindus and Muslims over the past few days I've openly seen may friends be very Islamophobic which is saddening. But to say that the military operation carried out by Indian is wrong is a dumb ass take if someone slaps you you won't turn your other cheek and ask hin to slap you again? And this idea that indian pins the blame on pakistan is pure nonsense ( edit: there was a huge misstep and failure of the indian intelligence to not be able to identify this attack prior and stop it yes I agree with that) but pakistan is a nation that is internationally know for harboring know terrorist and giving them shelter. They've been known to interfere with Indian politics and cause disruptions in our country you really think it's that out of reach that they've been involved in this attack? Ofcourse pakistan denies any wrong doing any criminal does that in court as well. I don't justify the civilian death on any side of the border but they've killed our civilians too I don't see you posting about that. Or see you expressing sympathy with the victims in the latest attack on our side the border.

5. If you've seen the news you know they've tried attacking our citizens yesterday so you clearly have to know pakistan is a security threat to india and it's citizen and the terrorist state needs to be punished. No one claims to have a moral high ground in this it's a fucking war no one is right. But india is justified to defend itself and it's sovereign territory against militants and terrorist attacks.

Tbh all of this is why I questions if you've truly lived in india and are of tax paying age because if you live here you've got your head in the sand . Or you're a western alt left wing person who has no idea what the ground reality is over here.

Sincerely an Indian centrist

I like being on the internet as a true urban naxal anti-national because I will always get lodus like you calling me a westernised cunt detached from reality. you preach all this blather to me when you don't even realise india is ruining kashmir's infrastructure? that the occupation forces kashmiris to sustain on tourism? you want me to dignify your softcore islamophobia with a response? why should anyone give a disclaimer that they don't agree with islamic theocracies or like pakistan everytime they criticise india? sorry you don't see every single thing I've said on this stupid blog when I know that pakistan killing civilians on the other side of the LOC is terrible. since you're so hellbent on making assumptions about me, why don't I make one on you? you sound like a privileged savarna cunt with the way you're doing all this apologia for a fuckass liberal democracy like india and no amount of posturing about how pakistan is a gajillion times worse will hide the fact that the indian state has always been shitty and is only getting worse

and you want me to take this seriously when you're so proudly sincerely a centrist? keda teer maarya hai tu jamm ke ess duniya de vich? for your so-called nuance? like seriously I love being reminded that the people of my ethnic group are some of the dumbest bitches you'll ever find in the world, you wanna ignore the fact that civilians on both sides of the border dividing punjab will be caught in the crossfire because of the circlejerk contest india started by airstriking civilian areas?

I recommend not shitting all over my inbox again

[ishaaron-ishaaron-me]

I was aware of the 1990s Kashmiri Pandit exodus, the Raliv Galiv Tsaliv shit. But I recently learnt that there have been SEVEN major exoduses, for generations.

We aren't taught this history. Maybe rightly so to maintain 'peace' in a secular nation, which doesn't stay peaceful anyway. There are so many ancient heritage sites in Kashmir that has already been destroyed.

Displacing indigenous people, systematically changing the demographic, turning historical records and places into ruins is essentially what colonization is yet the irory is the global audience is told a different story.

Indian Kashmiri Muslims have given interviews about how they were brainwashed to allow 1990s exodus to happen, how they would be called traitors and killed too for defending their Hindu neighbors. Only a small portion of Muslims committed atrocities.

Kashmiri people should be given a plebiscite to decide their fate. But then who are the Kashmiri people? Only those who still live in Kashmir after driving out a chunk of population? This issue is way too complicated for ever reaching a solution .

Also to just add on, the UN charter for the plebiscite is also complicated,

“A. Restoration of peace and order

1. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours :

(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of

Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani na-tionals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the

State ;

(b) To make known to all concerned that the measures indicated in this and the following paragraphs provide full freedom to all subjects of the State, regardless of creed, caste, or party, to express their views and to vote on the question of the accession of the Cate, and that therefore they should co-operate in the maintenance of peace and order.”

Also, for the plebiscite to happen Pakistan needs to demilitarize POK, which they have not, and only after the UN confirms the demilitarization is adequate, India has to demilitarize.

So Pakistan, who always urges a plebiscite in Kashmir, itself did not fulfill the first condition for a plebiscite!

And yeah, there is also the question like you said, “Who are the real Kashmiris?” Because many people do not consider the Kashmiri pandits as real Kashmiris for some reason.

[frithwontdie]

the average immigrant is smarter and harder working than you and your crowd of inbred entitled conspiracy theorist crackers<3

Not even close. Very few are, most no. I've worked with immigrats. Some of them were really hard working. Like the Asians I actually enjoyed working with. Who were hard working and smart. And some Hispanics. But most of the others, were incompetent, entitled, arrogant, rude idiots. Most mooch off of our welfare programs, are a net loss to the economy. Claiming they're smart when we had to lower our standards, test scores and things too easy for them. Each proved to be a failure. Oh, and you really need to see who's truly inbred in this scenario. Don't like it? Chimp out about it.

Although rare in the Americas and modern Europe, consanguineous marriage is notably common in North Africa and the Middle East, where it is a traditional and respected aspect of many Arab and Muslim cultures.

Today, 70 percent of all Pakistanis are inbred and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30 percent (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 “More stillbirths among immigrants”). A rough estimate reveals that close to half of everybody living in the Arab world is inbred. A large percentage of the parents that are blood related come from families where intermarriage has been a tradition for generations.

A BBC investigation in Britain several years ago revealed that at least 55% of the Pakistani community in Britain was married to a first cousin. The Times of India affirmed that “this is thought to be linked to the probability that a British Pakistani family is at least 13 times more likely than the general population to have children with recessive genetic disorders.”

The BBC’s research also discovered that while British Pakistanis accounted for just 3.4% of all births in Britain, they accounted for 30% of all British children with recessive disorders and a higher rate of infant mortality. It is not a surprise, therefore, that, in response to this evidence, a Labour Party MP has called for a ban on first-cousin marriage.