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?
Say the words “demographic concerns” in any other Indian state, and you’d likely be branded a bigot. But in Kashmir, the “insider vs outsider” narrative is not only common, it’s actively pushed. If the Chief Minister, Omar Abdullah, has sworn allegiance to the Constitution of India, why the reluctance to openly embrace fellow Indians as equals? Kashmiris are free to work and settle anywhere in the country without being called outsiders. So why can’t someone from another Indian state do the same in Kashmir without facing hostility?
What India needs now more than ever is a spirit of unity. Not this constant “us vs them” divide.
These incidents make it clear: no one is truly secular, not even those who constantly criticize Hindu majoritarianism like Omar Abdullah. Let’s be honest. In Muslim-majority Kashmir, a fashion show during Ramadan sparked outrage, with people claiming it was against their “culture.” In parts of Malappuram and Kozhikode in Kerala, there have been cases where people were told not to eat in public during Ramadan. Meanwhile, in some Hindu-majority regions of North India, meat shops are ordered shut during Hindu festivals. Different standards, same mindset.
This isn’t just an Indian phenomenon. In the UK and the US, you’ll often hear people say, “We are a Christian country. This isn’t our culture!” whenever Hindu or Muslim festivals are celebrated in public spaces. The reaction is the same, just the setting changes.
Wherever you go, majority vs minority dynamics are always at play. What feels like a “religious restriction” to one person might feel like cultural protection to another. It all depends on your bias and perspective. Take Iran, for instance. Many of us might see it as deeply restrictive for women. But some Iranian Muslim women might see it as ideal because it strictly upholds their religious values. That’s religious bias in action – shaped by belief, identity, and comfort with the dominant culture.
Most people are secular only on paper. In reality, they tend to place their own religious beliefs a notch above others. They’re usually comfortable with the rules their faith imposes, no matter how restrictive those rules might seem to someone outside that belief system. It’s less about universal values and more about what feels familiar and justified to them.
I wasn’t planning to watch this K-drama, but the glowing reviews in some K-drama groups convinced me to give it a try. I had my doubts. Mainly because I haven’t been able to finish any romantic K-dramas lately. But I’m glad I took the chance, because it turned out to be an absolute treat.
What’s It About?
When Life Gives You Tangerines follows the lives of three generations of women, whose main struggles revolve around money, not men. Their hardships and resilience form the heart of the story. At its core, the message is clear: with strong support, you can weather any storm life throws your way.
Thoughts
The story is as bittersweet as the name suggests. Tangerines are generally sweet with a slight tang, but when unripe, they can have a hint of bitterness. Just like the layered emotions in the narrative of the series.
Struggle stories can be hard to watch, but When Life Gives You Tangerines somehow makes even the toughest moments feel bearable. The female protagonist’s poetic narration offers a gentle sense of comfort, reaching out to you, the viewer, and softly encouraging you to keep going just as the characters do in the series.
IU shines as the standout performer in When Life Gives You Tangerines, beautifully supported by Park Bo Gum and Kim Seon-ho.
The series explores the complex relationship between parents and children with deep empathy and emotion. I heard it’s based on a true story, and that might explain the raw, genuine feeling that runs through every scene. You don’t just watch the characters. You journey with them, as if they’re personally guiding you through their world.
This isn’t your typical lighthearted romance. It’s a slow burn, and you might find yourself tearing up in almost every episode. Normally, I don’t appreciate being made to cry. But for this family, I was more than willing to make an exception.
When Life Gives You Tangerines is streaming on Netflix. The series has 16 episodes, with each episode lasting roughly an hour.
Empuraan is facing criticism from the right wing for allegedly promoting a biased narrative. Many are calling it a political propaganda film with a pro-Congress stance. How true is the allegation?
Spoilers Ahead
I haven’t watched the movie yet, but I’ve heard that the first 30 minutes focus on the Gujarat Riots. It depicts some of the most horrific incidents from that time. Reportedly, the film includes a rape scene that’s highly debatable. This particular rape story has been circulating since the time of the Gujarat Riots but remains unverified, with no solid evidence to support it. Additionally, the Godhra train burning in the movie is reportedly depicted as something that happened by accident. This portrayal gives the impression that the film is based on the findings of the Banerjee Committee Report, a report that was later ruled invalid, unconstitutional, and politically manipulated by the court. The Nanavati-Mehta Commission Report is the report that was officially accepted as the authoritative account of events due to its presentation of evidence. This information was also covered in the recent film The Sabarmati Report.
The Banerjee Committee was set up in 2004 by the UPA government, led by the Congress party. The committee’s report was released just before the Bihar Assembly elections, apparently to influence the election results and weaken the BJP’s position. The report concluded that the Godhra train fire was accidental, contradicting the BJP’s stance that it was a pre-planned attack.
However, the Nanavati-Mehta Commission later confirmed that the train burning was a premeditated communal act, not an accident.
The investigation found that large quantities of petrol were purchased a day before the incident from a nearby petrol pump.
The forensic report confirmed the presence of petrol residues inside Coach S-6, where the fire broke out.
Eyewitnesses and forensic evidence suggested that petrol was thrown into the coach and set on fire, indicating a pre-planned attack rather than an accidental fire.
For Malayalees who prefer not to watch TheSabarmati Report, I recommend a documentary on YouTube by the Sanchari channel. It’s in Malayalam and provides a detailed account of the Godhra train burning. I am attaching a screenshot of the video below.
The documentary is likely one of the first of its kind in Malayalam. It offers a detailed look at the various angles of the Godhra train burning, the different reports that emerged, the political maneuvering involved, and the final conclusions drawn. If you are a Malayalee interested in research and fact-checking, I highly recommend watching this video.
Naturally, Congress is supporting Empuraan, just as the BJP backs right-wing films when they are released. Even if Empuraan turns out to be entirely pro-Congress, I support the creator’s right to make and release such a film. Several right-wing movies have been produced in India recently, so a left-leaning perspective is equally valid in a democratic space. However, as viewers, we must avoid taking any movie as absolute truth. Instead, we should conduct independent research, considering both left-leaning and right-leaning sources to develop a balanced understanding of the subject.
The Netflix series Adolescence is a wake-up call. It shook me to the core and shed light on the stark realities the new generation faces.
I grew up in a time when online influence was non-existent, and our worldview was shaped by the people around us. Today, that has changed. Algorithms dictate perspectives, feeding you opinions from across the world. Knowledge is no longer derived from just parents, teachers, or elders. This is a positive thing, but it has also resulted in an information overload.
There are several social media accounts trying to dump different perspectives on you. For every argument supporting point A, there’s another endorsing point B. Ultimately, it depends on which perspective you resonate with the most. Once you decide, the algorithm ensures you see more of it, reinforcing your beliefs. Sometimes, without you even realizing it. This can be dangerous. What if a child interacts with harmful content? The algorithm ensures they see more of it, shaping their beliefs in a troubling direction. We risk raising a generation programmed by these echo chambers. It’s a challenge we can’t ignore.
**Spoilers Ahead**
Every plus comes with a downside. Today, we have information at our fingertips, but this convenience comes at a cost. This is a reality that Adolescent portrays with unsettling accuracy. Jamie retreats to his room as soon as he gets home, immersing himself in his online world. His parents remain unaware of what he consumes, assuming, like many modern parents, that giving him complete freedom is the right approach. However, this unchecked digital exposure can shape young minds in ways they don’t anticipate, often with troubling consequences. It’s a new-age problem.
The series also introduced me to terms like Manosphere, Red Pill, and the 80-20 rule, making me realize how rapidly digital ideologies evolve. Figures like Andrew Tate are shaping young men’s perceptions of masculinity, often promoting the idea that being “alpha” means suppressing emotions. He preaches that men are providers and should be respected without being “given a headache.” This mindset isn’t foreign to India. I’ve noticed how men in my household particularly often express fewer emotions. When I was hospitalized recently, only the women in my family directly checked on me, while the men relied on them for updates. The burden of emotions lies on the women, whereas men are expected to be mere providers. Ironically, when men fall ill, women are expected to inquire directly. This emotional divide is ingrained in my household. I am unsure of other households. However, male-to-male interactions may differ. A “bro” might feel more comfortable checking in on a fellow “bro”.
I believe Adolescence should be screened in Indian classrooms with regional language dubbing. Andrew Tate-inspired accounts are emerging in India, pushing narratives that degrade women. If we don’t educate our youth about the dangers of such ideologies, we risk fostering a generation of men who lack empathy for women’s concerns, some of whom may even resort to violence to assert their views. The time to act is now.
The social message aside, this was Owen’s debut performance, yet he delivered with astonishing depth. It made me wonder how much the Indian film industry could thrive if it prioritized raw talent over nepotism, giving opportunities to newcomers who truly have the skill.
One of the most unsettling moments for me was Jamie’s chilling question to Briony with a steely, mocking gaze: “Are you afraid of a 13-year-old?” Owen Cooper’s portrayal was so disturbingly real that it made even a viewer like me uncomfortable. That’s the power of natural acting. His transformation, from an innocent boy insisting he has done nothing wrong, to someone consumed by uncontrollable rage, is nothing short of remarkable. It’s a performance that leaves a lasting impact.
Social activist and NISA founder V.P. Suhara met Indian Minister Kiren Rijiju to demand equal inheritance rights for Muslim women in India, similar to those of Muslim men. Actor and BJP leader Suresh Gopi was also present at the meeting.
V.P. Suhara had earlier launched an indefinite hunger strike at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar, advocating for equal inheritance rights for Muslim women. However, the protest was forcibly stopped by the police. Before returning to Kerala, she announced plans to discuss the issue with key leaders in Delhi.
Did you see anyone in Kerala supporting her? Likely not. Instead, you’ll hear women with internalized misogyny saying, “We don’t want such reforms.” But these reforms aren’t for them. They are for women who seek more. Women who wish to follow traditional rules can continue to do so. Reforms do not prevent anyone from adhering to their beliefs, just as Triple Talaq is still practiced in India despite being banned. However, these reforms give Muslim women the legal option to seek justice if they are forced into following restrictive rules against their will.
When Muslim progressives like Suhara fight for women’s rights, you would expect so-called secular voices in India to stand with them. But these voices only seem to speak up when it comes to reforming Hinduism—whether it’s elephants in festivals, casteism, regressive practices, or allowing women in Brahmachari temples—because, let’s be honest, it’s far safer to push for changes in Hinduism. You see people from all communities, whether Hindu, Christian, or Muslim, openly advocate for these changes with confidence, knowing they face no serious repercussions. However, if you question some of the regressive practices in other communities, suddenly, you’re a bigot. The moment you point out that some proselytization techniques are predatory, you’re immediately accused of supporting the “restriction of religious freedom.” If you take a moment to observe people, you’ll notice countless little things that suddenly jolt you out of your slumber. You won’t need any political party to point this out to you. The double standards are there for the world to see.
When asked why the Muslim community largely does not openly advocate support for such reforms, progressive Muslims argue that it is dangerous to challenge established rules, unlike in other communities. They believe real change requires both internal and external pressure. While I acknowledge that speaking out within the Muslim community comes with risks, how long should we wait? Another century? Would it ever happen in our lifetime? Until then, are we expected to remain silent and unquestioning?
If the Indian government applies the “external pressure” suggested, it would inevitably lead to accusations of Islamophobia, further damaging the global perception of Indian Hindus and India’s image as a whole. Any attempt at reform would be spun as targeting a particular community, making meaningful change even harder to achieve.
Now, another group conveniently refuses to support this cause simply because the BJP—“the communal party”—is handling it. But name one other party that has ever stood up for Muslim women’s rights. The Opposition has always catered to Muslim men, not women, and will continue to dance to their tunes. This isn’t new; it has been the pattern for decades, ever since the Shah Bano case. If the BJP doesn’t take up the issue raised by Suhara, I can say with 100% certainty that no other party in India will.
***
Pic Source: Mathrubhumi.com (auto-translated from Malayalam)
The Monkey Dilemma 
You must be logged in to post a comment.