Why Do Hindus Vote for BJP?

I’m a Palakkad native, and I had travelled home just to vote during the Lok Sabha elections. To make it clear, I have no loyalty to any political party and have voted for different parties over the years based on their performance and activism. I believe pledging unwavering support to any single party prevents us from critically examining their flaws. However, this time, voting for the CPI(M) was not an option, as I am well aware of its shortcomings during its second term in power.

I decided I would vote for Congress in the Lok Sabha elections. But then October 7 happened, and I saw Congress’s response to it, especially how they tried to silence Shashi Tharoor in Kerala for criticizing Hamas. It came as a shock and played a key role in changing my decision. That’s when I realized, unfortunately, this party is no different from those it criticizes. The Opposition parties in India excel at criticizing far-right Hindu groups, but avoid condemning far-right Islamist groups in society, fearing backlash from supporters.

People call out the BJP and RSS for sheltering far-right Hindus. But how is Congress different if it shelters far-right Islamists? Both cater to extremes. BJP voters are criticized for supporting a party that allegedly wants to turn India into a Hindu nation. Congress voters should ask themselves the same question: why support a party that mollycoddles groups that have once openly called for turning India into an Islamic nation? How would it make the majority of Hindus feel?

So, when people ask why Hindus vote for the BJP, the answer is simple. If the choice is between far-right Hindus and far-right Islamists, many Hindus will pick what feels safer. Left-leaning Hindus may sympathize with Islamist groups, seeing them as victims. But most in the community, just like any other community, vote on the basis of safety.

Congress and Islamist Ties

In the upcoming Nilambur by-election in Kerala, the Welfare Party has now openly declared its support for the Congress candidate.

To the uninitiated, the Welfare Party is the political arm of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, a group known for its fundamentalist views. This group shares roots with the Jamaat movements in Pakistan and Bangladesh, which are often accused of anti-Hindu activities.

As per the New Indian Express report, “It’s learned that the Welfare Party, backed by Jamaat-e-Islami, has put forward various demands, including making it an associate party of the UDF. However, no assurance has been received in this regard so far.” This is a common far-right Islamist tactic in democracies across the world: try to join mainstream parties to gain power, resources, and reach. Once these groups gain enough strength, their true agenda emerges, often centered around enforcing religious doctrine. We see this happening in Bangladesh today. A similar pattern unfolded in Iran in 1979, when leftists and Islamists joined forces to establish an Islamic regime. This led to widespread persecution and the exodus of many Persians, some of whom sought refuge in India.

Many leftists, in both India and abroad, often align with Islamist groups unknowingly, driven by a genuine desire to support the persecuted and uphold justice. However, this well-meaning approach is frequently exploited by far-right Islamist groups for their own agenda. It’s fair to say that many on the left still operate with this same mindset, unaware of the long-term consequences.

Such Islamist groups remind me of the Persian movie “The Seed of the Sacred Fig” (playing on Amazon Prime), a 2024 crime drama film directed by Mohammad Rasoulof. The movie starts with an explanation of strangler figs, a type of parasite that grows on a host tree’s branches. As they grow, their roots reach the ground and thicken. Eventually, they wrap around the host tree, in a way “suffocating” it. Over time, the host tree dies from lack of light and nutrients, while the fig survives independently. I hope Congress and other left-leaning parties realize that they are the “hosts” in this equation.

Both the Welfare Party and SDPI have been trying to win Congress’s favour in Kerala. Their open support was clearly visible in places like Palakkad (my hometown). The fact that Congress is not distancing itself from these groups is a matter of concern. The party appears to seek the support and votes of such groups to win, which may explain its consistent silence or hesitation in condemning Islamist acts. But how far are they willing to go? Will there come a time when they finally strike deals with the devil because they can’t win anymore without their support or votes?

Valid Concerns

Can you really blame Hindus for refusing to vote for parties that associate with groups that seem more likely to drag India down a path similar to Pakistan or Afghanistan?

Let’s not forget the current state of Bangladesh. JEI has played a significant role in steering Bangladesh toward radical Islam. If India were ever to become an Islamic nation, it wouldn’t resemble the UAE or Bahrain. It would more likely mirror Pakistan or Bangladesh, where radical Islamist groups wield substantial influence. Unlike the Gulf nations, which strictly ban and suppress such groups, India still hesitates to even name them. The moment any criticism is raised, it’s quickly dismissed as Islamophobia by human rights activists.

No One’s Truly Secular

In the end, no one is truly secular. Most people vote thinking, “Which party is best for my community?” — not for the nation. That’s why, in Kerala, Congress is the preferred party for many Christians, and a large section of Muslims support the Muslim League. So why is the burden of voting on the basis of secularism placed only on Hindus?

***

Feature Representative Image Source: Shutterstock

Book Review: “I Am A Troll” by Swati Chaturvedi

I finished I Am a Troll by Swati Chaturvedi last night. It’s an insightful read if you’re unaware that the BJP, like all major parties, has a dedicated IT cell.

However, if you’re already familiar with the BJP’s IT cell, the book doesn’t offer much new, apart from a few interviews with former BJP insiders who strongly criticize the party. But in Indian politics, this isn’t unusual. Members who leave any party, be it the BJP or Congress, often openly highlight its flaws. This trend isn’t unique to the BJP.

The book also points out that Modi’s official Twitter handle follows some controversial right-wing accounts like OpIndia, which is a valid observation. This is somewhat unusual; I’m not aware of any left-leaning political leader or party officially following social media influencers or accounts considered far-left. In that sense, this could be something unique to the BJP, and worth re-evaluating if it raises credibility concerns.

All that aside, the author’s pro-Congress bias is evident. She claims Rahul Gandhi was becoming as popular as Modi and predicted strong results for the Congress in the 2019 elections (the book was published in 2017). She lays emphasis on Rahul Gandhi’s social media growth, rather than his on-ground political performance. Chaturvedi presents his increasing followers and engagement as indicators of his strength and popularity, which feels selective and somewhat misleading. To appear balanced, she briefly mentions 2–3 false narratives that were pushed by the Congress IT cell, but downplays their impact.

The writing has its issues. Critiquing someone’s views is fine, but body-shaming, stereotyping Indian men, and mocking someone’s English skills feels unprofessional, especially from a journalist aiming to be objective. For example, consider the sample below, where she generalizes right-wing “trolls”.

Chaturvedi also complains that trolls refuse to engage with her reasoning on why the BJP is problematic, yet admits she zones out when they begin to speak. This contradiction weakens her argument and suggests a similar unwillingness to listen.

Interestingly, the book indirectly acknowledges that mainstream media was largely pro-Congress in 2014 (and still is in states like Kerala), which made it difficult for the BJP to be heard without strong social media outreach (reference to this is below).

These are a few minor concerns I had with the book, but overall, it provides a revealing look into political online warfare, though not without its caveats.

What I Learnt From Boston Marathon Bombings

As soon as I finished watching Netflix’s series on Osama Bin Laden, it recommended another American Manhunt documentary by Netflix. This one is about the Boston Marathon bombings. I had read about the attack before, but watching the documentary made a much deeper impact.

What Are the Boston Marathon Bombings?

The Boston Marathon bombings were a terrorist attack that took place on April 15, 2013, during the annual Boston Marathon in the United States. Two homemade bombs exploded near the finish line, killing 3 people and injuring over 260 others.

The attackers were two brothers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, originally from Chechnya. They used pressure cooker bombs placed in backpacks. After the attack, a large manhunt followed. Tamerlan was killed in a shootout with police. Dzhokhar was captured, tried, and sentenced to death.

The Tsarnaev brothers claimed they carried out the Boston Marathon bombings as revenge for U.S. actions in Muslim countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. They believed that killing Americans was justified because of U.S. military involvement in those regions.

Dzhokhar wrote in a note that the attack was meant to defend Islam and punish the U.S. for killing Muslims abroad. However, they were not part of any organized terrorist group. Investigations found they were self-radicalized, influenced by extremist content online.

Their actions were widely condemned by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Thoughts

I’m not going to focus on the Tsarnaev brothers themselves, but rather on the general impression the documentary left on me.

You often see people justifying extremism, like the brothers did, whether it’s acts of violence or even celebrating natural disasters or someone’s illness, as payback for a country’s past actions. It’s all framed as if everything is justified. What’s troubling is that this mindset isn’t limited to radical groups. You sometimes see it in people around you: the so-called moderates. Some may appear balanced on the surface, but quietly endorse extremist views in subtle ways.

This exists across communities, not just one. There’s often only a thin line between those who wish for destruction and those who act on it. That line might be common sense, fear, or simply a lack of means. We may never know. The point is, the anger and hate that fuel such extreme actions are far more mainstream than we believe. I see it daily, on social media, and at times, even within my own circles. It’s not always loud or violent, but it’s there, simmering under the surface. The only time you get a glimpse of it is when disaster strikes.

For some, all it takes is a spark to turn toward extremism. For example, Tamerlan was a skilled amateur boxer with hopes of representing the U.S. in international competitions. However, after being denied a visa to compete abroad, he grew increasingly resentful. He reportedly believed the rejection was due to his Muslim identity and refused to accept any other reasons, which deepened his sense of alienation and fed into his radicalization. In a way, an extreme victim mentality played a significant role in his downfall. Tamerlan saw himself as targeted and wronged, interpreting setbacks as part of a broader injustice against Muslims. This mindset not only fueled his resentment but also made him more vulnerable to radical ideologies.

What’s alarming is the sheer scale of such hate. It has become disturbingly normalized. If a disaster strikes the U.S., or even India, I’m 100% sure there would be people to celebrate or justify it. And that, perhaps, is the most disturbing part: the way the line between the humane and the inhumane has begun to blur.

However, the hypocrisy lies in the fact that many of these individuals do not express the same anger toward countries like Iran, known for oppressing women, or Pakistan and Bangladesh, where minorities often face persecution. This selective outrage reveals a duality that many need to recognize and address.

Personal Takeaways from American Manhunt: Osama bin Laden

I’ve watched many documentaries on Bin Laden, but what sets American Manhunt: Osama bin Laden on Netflix apart is that the U.S. intelligence officers themselves are narrating the incident. It shows a side of intelligence officers we rarely see or acknowledge: one that’s vulnerable, emotional, and capable of error, just like any of us.

The fact that they faced extreme guilt after 9/11, plus humiliation from those who expected them to have superhero capabilities, shows us that intelligence work is a thankless job. You’re not remembered for the hundred attacks you prevented, but for the one you didn’t.

We tend to view intelligence agencies as all-knowing, supreme beings capable of preventing every threat. But they are made up of people just like you and me – flawed, prone to mistakes, and constantly learning how to address loopholes.

Almost every terrorist attack in the world has been labelled an “intelligence failure.” In most cases, including Mumbai’s 26/11, intelligence agencies had some idea that an attack was likely. But without knowing exactly when, where, or how, they couldn’t act decisively. Acting on vague information risks wasting resources and creating false alarms.

We owe our intelligence officers greater respect and appreciation, not just criticism.

Another key takeaway was the deep distrust the U.S. had toward Pakistan. They chose not to inform Pakistani authorities about the Osama bin Laden raid, fearing it would be sabotaged. This seems to negate Pakistan’s constant claims of being a victim of terrorism rather than a supporter of it. After the raid, the Pakistan army tried to shoot down the U.S. Navy SEALs’ helicopter. If they are actively involved in the fight against terrorists, why resist when others take them down for you?

One U.S. intelligence officer mentioned that Al Qaeda had regular contact with Pakistani nuclear scientists. It makes you think of Pakistan’s constant nuclear blackmail. Are they using it against the U.S. as well by implying that if Pakistan collapses or goes bankrupt, its nuclear arsenal could fall into the wrong hands (such as the terror groups that want to take down America)? Is this how they get their IMF loans approved? Perhaps this fear is why the U.S. continues to be soft on Pakistan, even though it sheltered the prime suspect in the 9/11 attacks. We will never know.

India Pakistan War: Why Peace Is No Longer a Viable Option

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.

***

Photo by Pixabay

Category: politics