There’s so much bad news everywhere. Wars, riots, terror attacks, persecution, and discrimination. I don’t know about you, but I’ve started to feel helpless, knowing I hold no power to fix these problems. As individuals, there’s only so much we can do. What is in our control is how we express our views, calmly and with clarity. But even that becomes difficult when those around us try to silence any perspective that doesn’t match their own. They get aggressive. We get perplexed. It becomes a vicious cycle. One that’s hard to escape. It drains our time, disturbs our emotional balance, and pushes away those who genuinely want to understand us.
In the midst of all this, I recently attended an online yoga session on International Yoga Day. We meditated together as a group, and it turned out to be one of the most peaceful and calming experiences I’ve had in a while. The meditation lasted only 7 minutes, but it had a noticeable, immediate impact. I felt centred. It helped me go about the rest of my day with a calm focus, even while handling everyday chores or reading the news. This is new for me. For the past few years, my mind has been troubled by witnessing the coldness with which society operates. There was a lingering sense of doom that had become hard to manage. So when meditation helped soften that heaviness, even slightly, it came as a welcome relief. I allowed myself to sit with that emotion and savour it.
The guide assured us that the control over our minds would improve even further with consistent practice. He said that even just 7 minutes of daily meditation can make a noticeable difference over time. I’m still new to the practice, so it’s too early for me to say how lasting the effects are. But one thing I can say for sure: you feel noticeably better after just the first session.
What made those few minutes so calming was the simple act of focusing only on the breath and the space between the eyebrows. In that short span, there were no screens, no distractions. Just stillness. It felt like a small step toward making peace with myself. This is what I experienced in my first few days of meditation. I’m not sure yet if I can commit to doing it every single day, but it’s something I genuinely want to try.
I’m not the body, I’m not the mind
As we meditated, this chant of “I’m not the body, I’m not the mind” by Sadhguru played in the background, accompanied by soothing flute music. It felt like an invitation to disconnect from the body and mind, to simply let yourself be. You don’t have to react to everything. You can observe your experiences as an outsider, from a third-person perspective. Feel your emotions, acknowledge them, but don’t let them consume you beyond control so that you lose sight of logic.
If you’re interested in trying the same meditation, you can do it at home by downloading the “Miracle of Mind by Sadhguru” app on your phone. The session includes the same calming chant and ends with a short 1-minute video from Sadhguru, offering simple insights on daily practice.
Now, I understand some may have reservations about Sadhguru due to political or personal views, or unverified claims. But I’d encourage you to look past that and focus instead on what this practice can offer you personally.
I’ve tried other meditation apps too, but they often felt too Western in their approach. This one, however, feels grounded in Indian sensibilities, with gentle flute music and guided instructions that actually help you stay focused. In a culture where complete silence isn’t always easy to adapt to, this format works well. It’s thoughtfully designed for an Indian audience, making meditation more accessible and less intimidating.
Even if India agrees to peace talks with Pakistan, who exactly are we supposed to talk to?
The Pakistan Army? The army chief, Asim Munir, has called Kashmir their “jugular vein” – they aren’t letting go. He raked up anti-Hindu, anti-India sentiments before the Pahalgam attacks. He stated, “Our forefathers believed that we were different from Hindus in every possible aspect of life,” and urged parents to instill this bigoted narrative in their children to preserve Pakistan’s identity.
The Pakistani Prime Minister? Just a puppet with no real power over the military. Funerals of designated Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorists have been attended by members of the Pakistani Army, further reinforcing allegations of state complicity. Such actions raise serious concerns about the Pakistan government’s commitment to counterterrorism, especially when these individuals are recognized as terrorists by the international community.
Pakistani celebrities? They won’t even whisper a word against state-backed terrorism. They rarely acknowledge well-documented facts, such as Osama bin Laden having found safe haven within Pakistan’s borders. They speak about “having a voice” in Pakistan. Yet, none have dared to criticize Asim Munir for his communal, anti-Hindu remarks, despite knowing that Hindus are living within their own country as well.
The civilians? The majority views India as the villain and often denies the existence of terrorists within their own borders. This raises an important question: Do they not consider figures like Osama bin Laden, Hafiz Saeed, and Masood Azhar as terrorists? Are they seen merely as ordinary civilians? When they refer to “terrorists,” is it only groups like the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and other factions causing unrest within Pakistan that they have in mind?
So really. Whom should we sit across the table with to discuss peace? There are no viable options.
Attacks Initiated by Pakistan
In all the following attacks initiated by Pakistan, India has demonstrated extreme restraint:
Attack
Year
Fatalities
Bombay Blasts
1993
257
Lajpat Nagar Blast
1996
13
J&K Assembly Blast
2001
38
Parliament Attack
2001
9
Raghunath Temple Attack
2002
12
Kurnool Train Crash
2002
20
Akshardham Attack
2002
33
Mumbai Bombings
2003
52
Delhi Blasts
2005
62
Varanasi Blasts
2006
28
Mumbai Train Blasts
2006
189
Samjhauta Express Blast
2007
68
Hyderabad Blasts
2007
42
Jaipur Blasts
2008
63
Ahmedabad Blasts
2008
56
Mumbai Attacks (26/11)
2008
166
Patna Bombings
2013
6
Pathankot Attack
2016
7
Uri Attack
2016
19
Pulwama Attack
2019
40
Pahalgam Attack
2025
26
India’s restraint in the face of repeated cross-border terrorism is often seen by Pakistan as a weakness. The ongoing attacks have led many Indians to believe that simply maintaining the status quo won’t bring lasting peace.
India’s Efforts Towards Peace Have Gone Unnoticed
India has made several efforts in the past to reach out and promote peace. We have celebrated Pakistani singers, actors, cricketers, and artists, and defended them when the Indian government initiated a ban against them.
Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan was revered, even after singing a controversial song with the line “Muslims should not allow kafirs (non-Muslims) in their homes.” Mahira Khan and Hania Aamir were regulars in Bollywood fashion pages, and Indian women admired Fawad Khan.
Yet, none of these figures had the courage to denounce the terror networks in their own backyard or question Asim Munir’s communal statements.
We extended every olive branch, but it was met with betrayal, silence, and violence. It’s time to stop romanticizing those who wear a false pro-India mask while harboring hatred.
Pakistan’s Blatant Radicalism
In the current war, the Indian Army has focused on precision strikes targeting terrorist camps and military assets, with considerable efforts to avoid civilian harm. The death of any innocent civilians in terrorist camps is deeply unfortunate, but could have been avoided by Pakistan. Why were civilians present in known terrorist camps? Were they placed there deliberately to attract international sympathy and deflect blame?
In contrast, Pakistan’s use of drones in civilian zones has drawn comparisons to Hamas-style tactics against Israel. If not for the advanced air defence systems in both India and Israel, the death toll could have been far higher.
Pakistan has often revealed its radical side openly. To cite a few examples:
In a recent interview with Sky News journalist Yalda Hakim, Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif acknowledged his country’s historical support for terrorist organizations. He stated, “We have been doing this dirty work for the United States for about three decades… and the West, including Britain.”
Khawaja Asif, while addressing a session of the Pakistan National Assembly, said that students in madrassas will serve as the country’s second line of defence in wars, when needed, implying they are disposable.
The former director general of the ISI, Asad Durrani, in an Al Jazeera interview, said the death of 150 APS Peshawar school children was “collateral damage” in pursuit of “broader” national interests.
Mubasher Lucman, founder of the Pakistani television network ARY Digital, during a podcast with journalist Naseem Hanif, stated that if Pakistan were to win a war against India, he would want to claim Indian movie actresses as maal-e-ghanimat—a term historically referring to war spoils, including enslaved women (sex slaves).
During a protest outside the Pakistan High Commission in London on April 25, 2025, following the Pahalgam terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir, Colonel Taimur Rahat, Pakistan’s Army and Air Advisor in the UK, made a provocative throat-slitting gesture towards Indian demonstrators. This is perhaps the first time a diplomat of any country has made such a shocking and radical gesture in public. The act not only defies diplomatic conduct but also reflects a deeply irresponsible and provocative mindset, especially in the context of a civilian tragedy.
Former Pakistani cricketer Danish Kaneria, one of the few Hindus to represent Pakistan at the international level, publicly accused former teammate Shahid Afridi of discriminatory behavior during their time together on the national team. Kaneria alleged that Afridi repeatedly pressured him to convert to Islam and excluded him from team activities, including meals.
Shahid Afridi’s cousin, Shaquib Afridi, was a commander of the Islamist terrorist group Harkat-ul-Ansar. He was killed by Indian security forces in Anantnag, Jammu and Kashmir, in 2003. Reports indicate that Shaquib had been active in the region for approximately two years prior to his death.
In an undated video that surfaced online, former Pakistani cricketer Shoaib Akhtar discussed the Islamic prophecy of Ghazwa-e-Hind, which refers to a prophesied battle for the Islamic conquest of India. In the video, Akhtar stated: “Ghazwa-e-Hind is mentioned in our sacred books. We will first capture Kashmir and then invade India from all sides for Ghazwa-e-Hind.“
Pakistani actor Hamza Ali Abbasi has publicly expressed support for Hafiz Saeed, the founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba and the alleged mastermind behind the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks.
In a televised discussion, Waqar Younis praised Pakistani cricketer Mohammad Rizwan for offering Namaz during a match, emphasizing it was done “in front of Hindus,” which he found particularly satisfying.
Zaid Hamid, a Pakistani political commentator, propagated conspiracy theories, claiming that the 2008 Mumbai attacks were orchestrated by “Hindu Zionists.” He has also stated that India will be “trounced and enslaved according to Sharia if Hindus don’t repent and embrace Islam.“
The videos and news articles for each controversy listed above are available online.
If Pakistani diplomats, politicians, cricketers, and celebrities act this way and are left largely uncriticized, what hope do you have from ordinary civilians?
The “Jugular Vein”: Kashmir
Pakistanis and the international community often focus on the “oppression of Kashmiri Muslims” and the call to “free Kashmir,” but they conveniently overlook the genocide of Kashmiri Hindus, a community forcibly displaced from their ancestral land. They are yet to return out of fear.
The genocide of Kashmiri Hindus (whitewashed as an “exodus”) is a tragic chapter in the region’s history. They, as the indigenous people of the land, have every right to return to their homes. Many Kashmiri Muslims are ready to welcome them back, acknowledging the need for healing and reconciliation. However, Pakistani-backed terrorists continue to block this process, instigating violence and creating an atmosphere of fear every time Kashmiri Hindus attempt to settle in Kashmir.
The narrative of “freedom” for Kashmir remains incomplete without acknowledging the rights and voices of the Kashmiri Hindu community. As the original inhabitants of the region, their cultural and historical ties to Kashmir that span thousands of years. Any move to integrate Kashmir into Pakistan would only deepen their marginalization. History bears witness: the Hindu population in Pakistan has sharply declined due to forced conversions, persecution, displacement, and violence. These facts raise serious concerns about the future of Kashmiri Hindus under such a scenario. To safeguard their identity, rights, and survival, it is vital that Kashmir remains an integral part of India.
It is time the international community recognizes this truth and supports the return of Kashmiri Hindus to their land, allowing for genuine reconciliation and the restoration of peace. Until this happens, international human rights activists should shift their focus to the “Free Balochistan” and “Free Iran from Islamic Regime” campaigns. Currently, they are more oppressed than Kashmiris, and their plight requires global attention.
UN Resolution
The United Nations (UN) has addressed the issue of Kashmir through Resolution 47, passed in 1948. The resolution emphasizes the right of the Kashmiri people to self-determination. It proposes that a plebiscite should be held to allow the people of Jammu and Kashmir to decide whether they wish to join India, Pakistan, or remain independent.
However, this resolution also includes conditions for the plebiscite, the most important being the withdrawal of “all Pakistani nationals” and “tribal forces” from the region to create a neutral environment for a fair vote. This is the first requirement in Resolution 47 that needs to be met. However, it does not get stressed enough.
The presence of Pakistani-backed terrorists in the region complicates the situation and directly contradicts the conditions of the UN resolution. Until Pakistan withdraws these forces and halts its support for terrorism, the possibility of implementing the UN resolution’s provisions remains unfulfilled.
I have covered this information in detail in a separate Kashmir Plebiscite blog post.
War or Peace?
Every past peace talk with Pakistan has failed. Not once, but multiple times.
Should India keep repeating the same cycle just to comfort a few people’s idealism? At what cost? More lives, more betrayal, and more denial?
I’m not advocating for war. But let’s be clear. Peace isn’t possible with a neighbour who constantly thirsts for our blood.
In such times, I choose to trust our Indian leaders, intelligence, and armed forces to make the best call for protecting the nation, not some random social media activist who would sell their soul for money.
If my country wants to teach the neighbour a lesson, I would support it. If it says it’s going to withdraw, I would support that too. In other words, the country comes above everything else. Jai Hind.
As I write this, an Indian news channel is broadcasting peaceful protests by Kashmiris condemning the recent Pakistani terrorist attack on tourists in Pahalgam. One protester says, “Pakistan doesn’t want us to live in peace. They’re destroying our livelihood by constantly sending terror into our land.”
After years, Kashmir was finally seeing progress. Businesses were recovering, and for the first time in ages, children completed a full academic year, attending school instead of being pulled into stone pelting and street violence funded by Pakistan’s terrorist groups.
So, who exactly are these Pakistani terrorists fighting for? Themselves? Their religion? What does Pakistan gain by funding terrorism or sheltering terrorists on its soil, other than being rebranded year after year globally as a “terrorist state”?
Where are the voices of Pakistani celebrities, many of whom have large Indian fan bases, when it comes to condemning this violence?
A quick scroll through Pakistani Reddit forums shows users justifying the attack as “resistance.” When will ordinary Pakistanis tell their government and military to stop sponsoring terrorism in Indian Kashmir?
When will they let Kashmir breathe in peace?
So many grievances. And yet, silence ensues.
When Indians express anger toward Pakistan, many Pakistanis act surprised. They are unable to understand why Indians harbour so much hatred for Pakistan (or they may be feigning ignorance). The answer lies in the reactions, the deafening silence that follows whenever India gets attacked. It’s easy to speak of peace and brotherhood when you’re not the one burying your loved ones. How many Indians, soldiers and civilians, Hindus and Muslims alike, have lost their lives to Pakistan-sponsored terrorism? And yet, we’re expected to keep our borders open, welcome Pakistani artists, and pretend everything is normal. Most of these artists haven’t even spoken a word against the radicals who spill Indian blood. They want our money and admiration, while their country fuels terror against us.
Every time Kashmiris speak out against Pakistan or wave the Indian flag, Islamabad spins the same tired excuse: “They’re being forced by the Hindutva government.” Really? Was the Kashmiri Muslim man who died trying to save Hindu tourists in Pahalgam doing it under pressure from the Indian government? Make it make sense.
Pakistan is to India what Hamas is to Israel. Friendship is a fantasy. We may share history, but there’s no future unless Pakistan first cleans up the terrorism it breeds. Until then, no dialogue, no gesture, no cultural exchange can bridge this gap. The course correction has to begin on Pakistan’s side. Let Kashmir live in peace.
The following snippet is from a DEI study by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) in the U.S. The diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) program, originally meant to raise awareness, appears to have backfired in some areas. By framing everything through an “oppressor vs. oppressed” lens, it has ended up vilifying the Hindu Brahmin community, similar to the Jewish community.
While DEI narratives often focus on Islamophobia and racial discrimination, caste-based bias among American Hindus has largely remained outside the spotlight. Though widely recognized in India, caste discrimination has only recently started gaining attention in the U.S., leading to the introduction of caste-sensitivity training in schools, workplaces, and policy discussions. But did they have the desired effect? Studies show otherwise.
The vilification of Brahmins began in India, where they are often targeted for everything, from their dietary habits to their lifestyle choices. What should have remained a focused activism against caste discrimination has unfortunately expanded into a broader mockery of the community as a whole. Even Brahmins who reject caste-based thinking are not spared.
Like anyone else, a Brahmin does not choose the caste they are born into. So, isn’t attacking them solely for their birth also a form of casteism? Every community should be open to critique for its flaws, but no one should be dehumanized for simply existing.
Awareness is important, but this study shows that excessive activism can cross a line and end up vilifying an entire community. In the findings, respondents described Brahmins as “parasites,” “viruses,” and “the devil personified.” How is that fair, or even acceptable, in the name of social justice?
CPM mentions this about Islamist groups in the draft resolution:
Hindu extremists are using radical Muslim groups as fodder to fuel hatred between communities. But the reverse is also true—radical Muslim groups exploit the political climate to spread their own agenda. They feed off each other.
One side claims, “If Islamists stop, Hindu extremism will die down.” The other side counters, “If Hindu extremists stop, Islamists will weaken.”
There’s no middle ground. How do we break this cycle? Who should compromise? The answer is—both.
The only way forward is to call out radical elements within your own community—those who discourage interfaith interactions, prevent you from celebrating others’ festivals, and push you away from the secular fabric of the country. Peaceful coexistence is the only solution.
However, I mostly see this self-criticism coming from the Hindu community. Not everyone supports right-wing politics, a Hindu Rashtra, or extremist activities, and many Hindus actively speak out against radicalism within their own circles. But the same level of criticism isn’t visible in other communities. At least 95% of the Muslims I know have never condemned extremism within their own community, but they are very vocal about Hindu extremism. If only one side is willing to challenge its radicals, how can we truly achieve peaceful coexistence in a secular, democratic nation like India?
I feel this silence comes from fear—fear of being ostracized by their own community. In Kerala, the Muslim League openly stated that the hijab is not a choice for Muslim women; it is mandatory. When a journalist asked, “What if someone doesn’t want to wear it?” the leader reaffirmed, “If she’s a Muslim, we advise her to wear it.” There was no room for choice. Yet, despite often advocating for personal freedom, there was no backlash from within the Muslim community against this statement. This silence is unsettling. It makes people wonder—“If they won’t even speak up for their own freedom of choice, how can we expect them to stand up for ours?”
India is a secular nation, and preserving this secularism requires protecting religious freedom. When prominent leaders impose strict regulations on women, silence is not an option—it is a time to question them and hold them accountable. If not now, then when? Waiting until things spiral out of control will only make it harder to reclaim lost freedoms.
Western countries often criticize India, accusing it of restricting the religious freedom of minorities. For a long time, I was puzzled by this, as I saw minorities freely attending their religious places without any problems. On the other hand, Hindus in Jammu require police protection to visit their religious sites due to the ongoing threat of terrorism. So, where is this accusation truly coming from?
One of the main reasons many Christians oppose the BJP is that the party has significantly restricted international funds meant for proselytization. These funds were often misused in India to attract economically disadvantaged citizens into converting, with promises of financial assistance tied to conversion. As a result, conversions were driven more by economic pressures and manipulation than genuine faith.
Countries like the USA actively fund missionary programs, with groups such as the evangelical World Vision and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) advocating for unrestricted proselytization as a form of religious freedom. They often cite Article 18 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR), which asserts that every individual “has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief…” This interpretation forms the basis for their criticism of India, accusing the country of limiting religious freedom and ranking it low in the religious freedom index. A 2012 article written by Dr Aseem Shukla explains this point brilliantly (hinduamerican.org/blog/proselytism-conversion-to-intolerance/).
This raises an important question: why offer monetary assistance only after conversion? Why not provide help based on humanitarian principles, without attaching religious conditions? When people are lured into faith through financial incentives, it undermines the integrity of the belief system itself. Shouldn’t conversions be driven by genuine faith and conviction, rather than economic manipulation or coercion?
Unfortunately, that’s not the reality for many. People are being lured into changing their religion through manipulation, whether through money or other means. I personally know several individuals who converted simply because they were promised financial support. What’s even more surprising is that younger generations are now making conversion a prerequisite for marriage. It’s hard to comprehend how, in today’s world, people still can’t accept different faiths and feel the need to demand conversion from their partner for the sake of marriage. Is this really secularism? Or love? I discussed this topic on this blog after watching a show, Nobody Wants This, on Netflix some time ago.
I’m currently reading a book about Kamala Das, The Love Queen of Malabar, written by a Canadian author, where it’s mentioned that Kamala was pressured to claim her conversion was out of faith, not love. The reasoning behind this was that saying she converted for love would diminish the strength of her faith. However, after her partner left her, she felt deeply depressed. The book suggests that the man she loved had been financially incentivized by foreign entities to convert Kamala. Later, Kamala wished to return to Hinduism but feared for her life and her family’s safety, including her grandchildren. Her sons even used to correct her whenever she, by habit, uttered the name of her former god, as they were afraid it might anger radicals and put their family at risk.
Why manipulate people into conversion? Let them choose to convert out of genuine faith – that is true religious freedom, not a process driven by external incentives.
The new government has largely restricted predatory conversion tactics by limiting international funds and addressing radical elements within society. This is one of the primary reasons the Indian government is widely criticized globally.
The propaganda against India has a broader base compared to the narratives propagated by BJP supporters. It’s easier for these narratives to spread, as the Christian and Muslim communities form larger global groups compared to the Hindu community. With such a widespread network, sensational news spreads quickly and easily. Adding to this challenge is the Hindu community’s general reluctance to actively counter exaggerated news, making it even harder to protect India’s image.
Many who believe in proselytization through unfair means seek the removal of the current government to restore previous practices. This is probably why they complain about every small issue and often manipulate facts to present one-sided stories. By focusing on selective narratives, they aim to undermine the current administration and bring back the old ways.
The narratives about India are often more complex than they appear in the media or through agenda-driven sources. They tend to present only one side of the story, exaggerating it to evoke emotional reactions. This is why it’s crucial to consult both left and right-wing media to gain a more balanced perspective. Otherwise, you risk forming judgments based on incomplete or biased information.
The Monkey Dilemma 
You must be logged in to post a comment.