An Indian’s Concern for Bangladeshi Hindus

It is with utter dismay I am reading the news about the attack on Hindus in Bangladesh. Secular Muslims in the country are trying to protect the Hindus. This is positive news, and you can’t help but feel grateful for such people in the community. However, radicals are still deliberately targeting the houses and religious places of Hindus. How can they be stopped?

Often, we have seen that in the struggle between radicals and seculars, the radicals emerge victorious. This has happened previously in Iran. A student uprising in Iran in 1979 played a significant role in the downfall of secularism and the emergence of the Islamic regime.

Student Protestors in Iran 1979 — Student protestors climbing the gate of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979 / Wikimedia Commons

The reasons for the uprising back then were quite similar:

Widespread discontent with the Shah’s authoritarian rule, political repression, and economic issues.
Iranian students, both domestically and abroad, were active in organizing protests, disseminating anti-Shah literature, and galvanizing public opinion against the regime. They played a crucial role in spreading revolutionary ideas and mobilizing the masses.

A simple act of protesting an “authoritarian” rule in Iran brought in a more religious regime that was dictatorial in its tendencies. So how successful would one consider this student uprising, unless the original intention of the riots was not social justice, but a religious takeover? Shah, considered secular in nature, fled the country never to return, which in all probability will be Sheikh Hasina’s trajectory too. Comparisons are inevitable. Iran is still struggling to bring back its golden days of secularism. Will Bangladesh end up being the same? Only time will tell.

I saw Bangladeshi residents expressing their joy over Sheikh Hasina’s ouster, which is valid, as she was unnecessarily brutal in her approach. But I also saw them in private groups worrying about the future of the country and whether they will fall into the hands of radical Islamists. Some even said they would leave the country if it came to that.

What does this mean for India? Sheikh Hasina was considered pro-India in her approach. She kept the fundamentalists like the Jamaat-e-Islami and anti-India elements under check. This is of significance as India shares a long border with Bangladesh and any sort of instability has the potential to spill over to neighboring regions.

The new leader, Muhammad Yunus, is a Nobel Laureate. He has proven himself an intellectual, but how effective would he be as a politician and a peace-keeper? Will he be pro-India and continue to maintain peaceful relations with our country, promising to secure the borders and protect the minority community in Bangladesh? Or will he be a puppet for the radicals? Questions only time can answer.

As usual, the leftist ecosystem in India is working overtime to convince us that the Hindus in Bangladesh are not in trouble. This is not surprising. It is a standard approach when minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and even within India (Kashmiri Pandits) are attacked. The events are quickly negated or justified and brushed under the carpet. A close observation of their responses provides enough proof of their bias. In my 40+ years, I have never seen them acknowledge attacks against Hindus. There is always a “reason” for it.

If by chance you point out the attacks, you are labeled a right-wing communal Sanghi (a BJP supporter). However, if you support any other community, you are a social justice warrior, an activist, and a secular. This double standard is difficult to fathom, and I have seen many becoming BJP supporters because of this hypocrisy.

In India, I am witnessing more secular Muslims openly supporting Bangladeshi Hindus than the so-called secular Hindus. Due to the indifference of left-leaning Indian Hindus, the community will continue to suffer persecution at the hands of radicals. There is not enough support. For the support to pour in, people need to first acknowledge the fact that there is an issue.

It is with some relief I read that all political parties in India are on the same page regarding the Bangladesh issue. The opposition hasn’t yet negated the Bangladeshi Hindu’s plight. They voiced concern for the minorities in Bangladesh and said they would work in unity with the central government. A nuanced approach their supporters need to learn.

Hopefully, peace will soon be restored in Bangladesh, rendering my concerns unnecessary. Until that day arrives, my worries persist.

How to Know if the Unmarried Life is Right for You

As a woman in my 40s, I am living an unconventional life in India, a conservative country that believes a woman’s life is incomplete if unmarried. I have experienced the ups and downs of living this kind of life while exploring new territories and learning from my experiences along the way. None of my family members or friends have chosen to live this way, so I don’t have anyone to look to for guidance. Is it daunting? Of course. But would I have it any different? Definitely not.

It’s amusing that many people who warn about the drawbacks of being single are usually married. They haven’t experienced living alone for a significant amount of time, so they may not be the best advisors on “the other side” of the single life. These wellwishers often point to that one person they know who is feeling lonely in their 40s to push you to get married. Is it a genuine concern for your well-being, or is it a way for them to reaffirm their own choices? It’s hard to say for sure. In my view, only someone who has lived alone for 10+ years is truly qualified to answer whether the single life is as daunting as it’s made out to be.

Some advocates of marriage believe it to be the solution to all problems, especially for women in India. Feeling bored? Get married. Want to travel to foreign countries? Get married. Want to party at a club? Get married. Getting married is an all-in-one solution.

I got married in my 20s due to pressure. It was an arranged marriage. Unfortunately, it did not end well, as we were incompatible. Our culture and beliefs clashed from day one. We knew we were poles apart before we got married, but we fell for the usual narrative that marriage is the solution to all problems, even compatibility issues. No one was sensible enough to advise us that basic compatibility is required for a marriage to work. In fact, both sides of the family were desperate for us to get married as we were quickly crossing the ideal age for marriage.

My marriage eventually ended. It’s been 15+ years since my divorce, and I haven’t still tied the knot. I have no plan to. A year after my divorce, relatives started telling me how marriage is important and that I should consider getting married again. They told me to think of how my life would be in my 40s without a husband. In their eyes, it would be torture. But now that I am in my 40s and still unmarried, I will tell you a little secret. I have never felt freer and happier.

Someone now might say, “Wait till you are in your 50s“. I am ready to accept that challenge too. No one knows me better than I do. And I am sure it’s the case with you too. However, if you are in your early 20s and wondering if marriage is for you, here are some points to consider.

Get married if you are a social butterfly

If you are naturally extroverted and love being around people, chances are you would crave companionship at some point in your life. I am an introvert, bordering on being a loner. For me, solitude is a way of life.

As you age, you will find yourself spending a lot of time by yourself because everyone in your age group will be busy with life. You might get together once in a while, but meeting up every day would be unfeasible. Picture yourself in such a scenario. Would you crave constant companionship? Or would you be fine without it? As per my experience, most extroverts are not comfortable with stillness, silence, and calm. They need some human presence around them to feel energetic.

Find out the actual reason for your disinterest in marriage

I have seen that those who wish to get married but cannot find a partner end up choosing to live alone out of frustration or tiredness that emanates from constant disappointment. There is a chance such people might end up feeling lonely in their 40s. They have that “if only” in the back of their minds. Genuinely ask yourself if you are choosing to stay unmarried because it’s the best lifestyle for you or because you are unable to find a partner. If it’s the latter, you should not give up on the idea of marriage.

Living alone can be expensive

If you plan to stay single, you will need to save more. A pro of being married is that both of you can contribute to your daily expenses, whereas if you stay single, the onus falls on you alone – to earn well, invest wisely, and save efficiently. Of course, you shouldn’t get married thinking it will be costly to stay alone. Marriage is for companionship. However, this is a point that I found worth mentioning.

Living alone can be frustrating at times

I have been living alone for ages now, but there are times when I feel, “If only I could share this chore with someone.” But wanting a person to delegate my chores to isn’t a good enough reason for me to get married. I know for a fact that this need would be fulfilled if I hired some help. Alas, I am someone who wants to do it all by myself. This often leads to me being overwhelmed. But I take each experience as a lesson. If I were married, I wouldn’t have learned many things I know today. I would have been overly dependent on my husband to handle everything – from finances to decision-making. But yes, be prepared to be overwhelmed while you navigate through stressful times on your own.

Staying unmarried doesn’t mean saying no to love

You can be in love and still choose to remain unmarried. This is not widely understood. Many people assume that being unmarried means rejecting love. I have been in a committed relationship for many years, and I have no plans to marry because the traditional Indian married life is not what either of us wants.

What about the future?

Many people in favor of marriage often pose the question, “What about the future? What will happen when you’re 70 or 80?” It’s a valid question but not a compelling reason to get married. Your spouse may pass away, and if you don’t have children, you may find yourself alone. In Indian culture, parents often view their children as a safety net for their old age. However, many elderly parents in India find themselves alone as their children are settled abroad and only visit occasionally.

I have a few options to consider for my future living arrangements. I could stay in a good retirement home or move in with a friend or relative who is living alone and could use some companionship. It’s important to me that I don’t become a burden to the people I care about because of my health issues. There are many potential paths to choose from, and the decisions I make will depend on the trajectory of my life. I simply want to be financially independent and not rely on anyone else.

Having the confidence that I can thrive regardless of what life brings my way means I don’t have to fear being unmarried.

***
Photo by Mihman Duu011fanlu0131

How Does It Feel to Lose a Parent?

Losses are an unavoidable part of life. You win over some people while you lose others. However, some losses, especially the death of a parent, are permanent and leave an aching scar. Nothing can truly prepare you for this. The experience is uniquely profound in the sense that we often take our parents for granted, assuming they will always be there. When death eventually rears its ugly head, it comes as a rude shock.

I lost my father several years ago. I still vividly remember the days leading to his death. He had started losing his memory and was facing hallucinations. The doctors we consulted were unable to treat his issue effectively. As someone who has seen her father as a proactive and energetic man most of her life, this transition was unbearable. The pain and suffering of my loved ones always scared me. You feel helpless, knowing nothing you do can make them feel better. You also feel helpless witnessing their own struggle to comfort themselves.

Distance ends up helping your mental health in such circumstances, but it also brings with it a terrible amount of guilt. Some children go abroad and feel guilty for not spending enough time with their parents. I stayed near my parents, yet the guilt remained. How can you perfectly cater to your own mental health, essential for managing daily work life, while caring for an ailing loved one? It is not easy. This is the most difficult stage for any family member acting as a caregiver. We simply do not know how to navigate the situation.

My father quietly passed away one day while we were in the midst of hiring professional help for his care. It had become emotionally taxing for my mother to take care of him alone, so we needed the extra support. I guess his leaving us was his way of saying, “Don’t worry too much about me. I’m going to a better place where all my needs will be taken care of.“

People often say that time heals the pain of losing a loved one. As someone who has lived with grief for several years, I can tell you it’s a lie. You never heal from a loved one’s death; you simply make peace with it. The sadness becomes a part of you, often camouflaging itself well within the depths of your soul, but it sometimes surfaces unexpectedly. When it does, you embrace it, sit with it until the moment passes, and then carry on with your life.

The sadness travels with you like a silent, understanding companion. It doesn’t demand your attention all the time, but it never leaves you. You don’t wish for it to leave you alone, either. In this digital, robotic world, when circumstances make me feel like I am devoid of sentiments, all I have to do is think of my father. As my eyes well up, I feel relieved knowing my soul still aches from his memory. It serves as a gentle reminder that I am still a living, breathing being, capable of experiencing deep, intense emotions.

***

Picture Courtesy: Matthias Zomer

Quick Bytes: As a Centrist Hindu, I Did Not Find Netflix’s Maharaj Problematic

Indian politics cannot be easily categorized as “right” or “left” in the truest sense. However, it is easier for an apolitical person to understand whom you are referring to when you mention “left” (parties like CPI(M), but we generally include any non-BJP party in India) and “right” (NDA). I would call myself a centrist as I find a lot of things from both sides problematic. I can never swear allegiance to any one party, as I often look at the party’s performance and form my judgments based on that.

Now, the left-leaning crowd is naturally praising Maharaj, Netflix’s new movie starring Aamir Khan’s son, Junaid Khan. In contrast, the right-wing supporters are asking Hindus to boycott the movie. Truth be told, I haven’t read much about the Maharaj libel case, so I cannot pinpoint with utmost certainty which part of it is anti-Hindu. My opinion here is based on what I saw in the movie. Here’s why I, a centrist Hindu, did not find the movie problematic.

In Maharaj, Karsandas is portrayed as a reformist who is a practicing Hindu, but he asks questions and is not swayed easily by godmen. There is a monologue at the end where he says he fell more in love with his religion when he studied it in detail. He accuses the religious leader, Maharaj, of misusing it, misinterpreting the Sanskrit Vedas to further his vulgar agendas. This is not anti-Hindu in any manner. The court must have thought the same as well, which is why it got a clean chit.

The only material I referred to after watching the movie was a Wikipedia article on Karsandas. Interestingly, I found the following information, which was not covered in the movie.

He was deeply influenced by the English culture to an extent that he had dislike for institutional religious authority and had penchant for reading Christian sermons and later started translating English sermons & conduct manuals into Gujarati, thereby also bringing a distinctively Protestant ethic into Gujarati’s cultural world.

I am of the belief that community members and religious leaders should openly criticize the bad elements of their religion. If there is an extremist misusing and spoiling the name of your religion, why not openly oppose them? This applies to all communities. It’s only when you distance yourself from the fringe elements of religion that society truly reforms. As long as haters get support in the form of words or silence, radicals will continue to flourish.

The Kerala Story Everyone Hesitates to Acknowledge

The Kerala Story is back in the limelight. The right wing insists the movie is a must-watch, while the left wing is actively discouraging viewership. However, both sides could not have foreseen unexpected support emerging from unlikely sources – church factions in Kerala.

On Sunday, the Idukki Diocese of Syro-Malabar Catholic Church screened the movie for Class 10-12 children. Other factions are considering similar actions, although this remains unconfirmed at present.

Many seem to have taken offense to this move by the Church and are calling it “Islamophobic.” This opinion is indeed subjective. Personally, I do not think openly talking about extremist groups and their nefarious intentions is Islamophobic. It should not be eyed as such. When someone criticizes the RSS, it is not considered Hinduphobic. In the same way, openness to constructive criticism should be encouraged within all communities. Labeling discussions with terms like “phobia” can hinder healthy discourse about important issues. It’s essential to acknowledge and address problems, even if some individuals attempt to deny them.

Common Takes and Counter-Arguments

Here are a few common retaliations against The Kerala Story and my counter-arguments.

Take #1: The Kerala Story is all lies and propaganda

People who say this probably haven’t watched the movie or made an effort to fact-check the claims individually. Granted, the extrapolated count shown in the trailer was unnecessary. The makers have removed the count in the final cut. The acting and storytelling felt amateurish. There are other misleading claims in the movie. For instance, the movie makes it seem CM Achuthanthan predicted Kerala would become an Islamic state in 20 years. On the contrary, he was talking about PFI’s plan. He said, “They (PFI) want to turn Kerala into a Muslim-majority state in 20 years. They are using money and other inducements to convert people to Islam. They even marry women from outside their community in order to increase the Muslim population.“

That said, to dismiss the entire movie as a lie and propaganda is dangerous, considering there is evidence to show there are indeed some anti-national elements in the state who are actively working to convert and recruit members for not-so-peaceful intentions.

The Shahan Sha case file includes many of the atrocities portrayed in the movie. The following details are mentioned in the PDF, “The inquiry by the Special Branch reveals that fundamental outfits like NDF, PFI, and Campus Front have roots in the college campuses in the City referred to therein. Referring to Campus Front, it is stated in the report thus: As per the available information, the plan of this organization is to trap brilliant upper caste Hindu and Christian girls from well to do family, especially those who are studying for professional courses and employed in IT sectors.”

So, to say the entire story is a lie and propaganda is lazy reporting at its best.

As Ambedkar said, we cannot hide our heads in the sand just because the thought of it hurts our sentiments. The first step to resolving an issue is acknowledgment. Only then can there be proactive steps to prevent cases like Nimisha’s and Sonia’s from happening again. By outright denial, we risk leaving more people vulnerable to similar incidents, as they may not fully grasp the seriousness of the situation.

Take #2: The movie is Islamophobic

Is criticizing terrorists Islamophobic? Why is it that whenever a movie comes out that talks of terrorists, the left wing immediately calls it Islamophobic?

Terrorism has no religion. We should stop equating the two. I would say it’s Islamophobic to correlate the two – terrorism and religion – which is what the left often does with movies like The Kerala Story and Kashmir Files. Kashmir Files, in fact, starts with a Muslim child helping a Hindu child escape terrorists. The Kerala Story predominantly focuses on a radicalized group, not all Muslims. So, to claim the story as Islamophobic is unfair to the Muslims who have no part to play in all of this.

I would even go on to say that even Muslims should watch the movie as they are the most vulnerable. It’s crucial for individuals to recognize that there are extremist groups within the community who are determined to radicalize them. As per the PFI document, “Popular Front of India (PFI) is confident that even if 10% of the total Muslim population rally behind it, PFI would subjugate the coward majority community to their knees.”

TP Sulfath, the BJP member from Malappuram, bravely talked about such groups in Kerala in a video. Alas, the original Marunadan video was blocked or removed. The clip can now only be watched from a Reddit group.

Take #3: Only 2 or 3 cases have been recorded in Kerala

No one has an actual count. The existing ISIS cases in Kerala came to the limelight only when parents filed police cases. Many family members do not openly reveal such things out of shame and prestige issues. However, if you actively google for cases, you will find many. There are sufficient YouTube videos of Malayalee victims, not just two or three. Parents of radicalized children do not go to the police; instead, they seek help from centers like Arshya Vidya Samajam, as they wish to keep their concerns out of the limelight.

The official count of converts is taken from authorized conversion centers in Malappuram and Kozhikode in Kerala. These are state-approved centers. However, conversions happen outside such registered centers, so it is impossible to give an accurate number.

Take #4: We are too educated to fall for such traps, so we don’t need the guidance

I see the new generation saying this. However, love can make us, including the most educated, do illogical things. Anyone who has fallen in love madly and profoundly knows what it is like. We stop becoming rational. I often tell youngsters, “Follow your heart, but take your mind with you.” Love is at its most intense when we are teenagers. This is what radical groups look to exploit. They want you to fall so deep in love that you are ready to do anything, including convert, to be with them.

Maturity involves being open to advice from all sources, even those you may not initially consider necessary, as it equips you with the knowledge to handle similar situations that may arise in the future. The Kerala Story gives away the advice that in love you do not need to convert. If it does, it ceases to become love and more of a “You will get this, only if you do that” kind of transaction deal.

Take #5: The movie is vulgar and has adult scenes

I recently saw a politician saying this. The scenes are sourced from reality. The extremist group is known to enslave and rape women as they think it’s their right. It is a horrifying reality depicted in accounts like Nadia Murad’s The Last Girl. Further reading can offer more profound insight into the atrocities committed by ISIS.

Take #6: The Kerala Story has been released to make Kerala look bad

As a proud Keralite, I didn’t feel offended by the movie; instead, it made me more cautious.

We should reach a stage where not even one Keralite gets radicalized and joins ISIS. Then, we can claim victory as ours. Till then, we should be open to criticism and look for ways to rectify such problems, not hide them. What can we do to stop radicalization? How can we stop terrorist modules from cropping up in our state now and then (even as early as this year, 2024)? How can we stop Malayalee women like Nimisha and Sonia from joining such groups? Should we talk to our youngsters and spread awareness, or would we rather they find it out themselves (if at all they do)?

It’s like teaching kids the difference between good touch and bad touch. You cannot force anyone to follow your rulebook, but you can definitely advise them on what is good and bad. The decision on which route to take ultimately falls on them, but by encouraging active discussions, you are helping them to see through things that they would otherwise have failed to do on their own. At the same time, care should be taken not to generalize an entire community for the sins of a few. A nuanced approach is the need of the hour.

Why Dhruv Rathee’s Anti-BJP Videos Won’t Make a Significant Impact

Dhruv Rathee’s recent videos have garnered much interest. Whenever he posts an anti-BJP or anti-Modi video, it trends on X. However, despite the popularity of his videos, here’s why these videos won’t have a significant impact.

Echo Chamber

The people who religiously watch Dhruv Rathee need no convincing on why the BJP is, in his words, a “danger to democracy.” They already wholeheartedly believe in this narrative. It must be acknowledged that Dhruv Rathee’s videos primarily cater to the anti-BJP audience. His videos might not have a significant impact outside this zone. Probably, he also means to reach out to fresh, impressionable minds. However, it remains to be seen how many Indian citizens are without political bias, considering the country is already significantly polarized.

Many people in India are Modi supporters, as evidenced by his victory in the last two elections. To overturn this support and for videos like Rathee’s to make an impact, the same set of Modi supporters responsible for his victory must be willing to consider viewing things from a different perspective, i.e., “the other side.” Asking right-wingers to go through leftist channels, including Dhruv Rathee’s videos, hoping to transform them, is like asking left-wingers to subscribe to right-wing media. It’s a lost cause. People who support the left call the right-wing press “Godi media” or “Sanghi media” and dismiss them. They refuse to even listen to a right-wing narrative. The same thing happens with the right-wing supporters. They dismiss videos from Dhruv Rathee and other left-leaning journalists.

So, who will these videos educate and reform? Takers are little.

Selective Activism

The main reason why even the center-right refuses to take Dhruv Rathee seriously is because of his selective news reporting. CPM’s rule in Kerala, the state I am from, is showing all signs of fascism, where freedom of speech and expression are routinely suppressed by the SFI activists (the youth wing of CPM), as seen recently in Sidharthan’s case. Still, Dhruv Rathee and several other left-leaning journalists hardly ever comment on this. It makes you question their agenda. More right-wing supporters would have taken him seriously if he had a more balanced approach to news reporting. In this matter, he fails.

Unquestioning Loyalty

As per surveys, Narendra Modi is the most popular leader globally. It’s a kind of hero worship that makes his supporters often ignore or justify his wrongs. But you usually see this with CPM and Congress supporters as well in Kerala. A kind of blind devotion engulfs them. Regardless of several corruption cases or scandals, party supporters refuse to waver. It is not easy to make someone shift their strong loyalties. This kind of worship is not just limited to politics. You see it with movie stars, singers, religious leaders, etc. People refuse to hear anything negative about a person they admire.

Recently, I came across a video on YouTube where a man was conversing with a couple in Kerala who earned their livelihood by selling tea near a beach. The conversation went something like this:

“How has it been for you the last five years? Has your life improved?”

“No, we are struggling financially. No changes have been made to the district. We continue to suffer.”

“So that means you are seeking a change?”

“Yes, we need a change for sure.”

“Who will you vote for then?”

“LDF! We have been staunch LDF supporters for years. No change in that.”

So basically, people are well aware of the problems they face and how things haven’t changed under the ruling party’s leadership, yet they refuse to stop their support. They might criticize the party but will not think about voting for another.

So, no matter how many videos Dhruv Rathee comes out with or how viral they become, the truth remains that he won’t be able to change the perspective of citizens who are already Modi fans. The videos will, however, solidify and intensify an anti-BJP person’s existing hatred towards the party.

For issues to be taken seriously, someone more nuanced, balanced, or unbiased needs to cover them. When people are convinced that the person reporting the news has no bias, the trust factor will naturally increase. However, this is a farfetched dream. In a world where biases are prevalent, only a newly created AI journalist might be capable of offering a completely neutral perspective. Unfortunately, even this AI journalist may develop biases over time, making it another unreliable source for obtaining news.

***

Photo by Studio Art Smile