I finished I Am a Trollby 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.
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.
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)
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.
Some Indian Muslims like Arfa, Rana, Zubair, and Naseeruddin Shah feel India is intolerant and unsafe for Muslims.
Yet, Muslims like Taslima Nasreen and Sheikh Hasina feel safer in India than in their own Muslim-majority countries. They have escaped their countries to avoid getting persecuted and can openly criticize extremists in India.
Souce: x.com/taslimanasreen
In India, you can criticize any religion freely, like PC George in Kerala targeting Islam, or Stalin in Tamil Nadu attacking Sanatana Dharma.
Source: livelaw.in
But at the same time, mocking/disrespecting Hinduism or Islam can also lead to lynching or beheading.
This shows the complicated nature of India’s religious tolerance. It’s not fully black or white; there are many layers of grey.
A country, accused of religious intolerance, is also a country where seers like Swamy Premanand Ji openly advocate for LGBTQ issues. He advises young members of the LGBTQ community not to succumb to parental pressure to marry according to societal norms, as it could harm both their own life and that of their partner.
From these examples, it is quite clear that India is a nation with diverse perspectives. Yet international media often portrays it as a regressive and intolerant society, probably because they rely heavily on left-leaning biased sources for their information. This depiction is unfair to the country’s social fabric, which embraces various ideologies.
It is important to note that much of the left-leaning media in India tends to present only one side of the story, resulting in incomplete or biased information. In an era where media bias is prevalent, it is strongly recommended to read news from both left- and right-leaning sources to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issue. Without this balanced approach, people may remain unaware of where genuine reforms are needed and could be misled by those with specific agendas.
The downside of one-sided stories is that they can foster an extreme victim mentality, making people believe that any violence or attack is justified due to past suffering. For instance, some celebrated the LA fires, posting that the USA deserved it for funding weapons for Israel, without considering that pro-Palestinians could have lost their homes too. If a tragedy strikes India, similar comments might surface. This is partly due to media narratives that fuel such sentiments and intensify hatred.
In an increasingly polarized world, it is crucial to report news with accountability. Both extremes are harmful—religious extremism that forces others to conform through coercion and an extreme victim mentality that blinds individuals to any positive aspects, making them focus solely on negative narratives. Currently, in India, I am seeing more of the latter than the former. Media is partly responsible for this.
I was once a leftist. However, at that time, I didn’t consider all sides of a story. Even though I am a Hindu, I was often dismissive of conflicts in which Hindus were victims in India, such as the Kashmiri Pandit genocide, the 1992 Ajmer rapes, the Moplah riots, and others. I coldly labeled the narratives as right-wing propaganda. I was radicalized to the extent I wasn’t open to other perspectives.
On October 7th, 2023, I experienced a significant shift in my perspective. I witnessed people justifying acts of violence, including rape and saw secular politicians in my country referring to it as resistance. This left me shocked. It wasn’t the BJP that influenced my change, but rather the people around me. The only individuals expressing outrage about these events were from the right wing, which took me by surprise.
Over the next couple of months, I underwent a monumental shift in my ideology that startled me. It felt like old layers of my beliefs were peeling away, making way for new understandings—a painful process. I came to realize that the principles of fairness and equality I had believed in until then were merely a façade. I also understood that I would likely be alone in this revelation.
The world operates in a contradictory and troubling way. People often expect unwavering support from others, yet when it’s their turn to show empathy, they respond with scoffing, mockery, and belittlement towards heinous crimes. They easily justify acts of violence, murder, and rape with statements like, “So what? They deserved it.”
It took me months to calm my anger and process the betrayal I felt when I discovered that some of my friends had become radicalized to the point of believing that rapes were justified. Until that moment, I had viewed the world through rose-colored glasses, believing it to be a kind place.
I then looked at my country with a fresh perspective and realized that similar patterns were at play here. Hindus seemed to have to compromise more than other communities in the name of secularism. I observed that many conflicts where the victims were predominantly Hindus were dismissed as propaganda, belittled, mocked, or invalidated, much like the rapes of Israelis on October 7.
I now identify as a right-winger. I consider myself center-right and hold no animosity toward anyone. In the past, I hesitated to label myself as a right-winger because almost everyone I know leans left. However, over time, I’ve moved past the fear of labels. People can judge or categorize me as they wish; as we age, labels become less significant. My shift in ideology is not due to any political party or its propaganda, but rather my observations of people’s behavior and their viciousness.
I have become more patriotic and now want everyone in India to adopt a “nation first” mentality. This is something I missed when I was a leftist; I felt that people weren’t sufficiently pro-India. I realize now that the center-right community is where I truly belong.
We, the center-right, believe in the following principles:
We are patriotic and uphold a “nation first” mentality.
We reject extremism from both the far-right and the far-left.
We take pride in the achievements of India.
We advocate for equal rights for everyone, regardless of their community.
We oppose appeasement politics.
We strongly support enhanced security measures.
We have zero tolerance for radical groups.
There are several negative aspects of the far-right that frustrate people like me. They should be held accountable by the government. However, I still feel positive about my country under strong leadership that has the courage to confront extremism.
Unfortunately, in India, when you openly call out extremism, you are declared Islamophobic. When radicals get arrested due to active participation in extremist groups, the country is declared Islamophobic. The global media often gets their news about India from the local left-leaning media which is notorious for giving one-sided stories. In this day and age of media bias, it is imperative to refer to both the left and right-wing channels to get a full balanced view.
It’s true that Islamophobia exists in India and the country should do more to protect its minorities. However, even if the BJP takes positive steps, it is unlikely to reduce the extreme victim mentality prevalent in the community that refuses to acknowledge any good done by the party. For example, the BJP introduced the Shadi Shagun Yojana scheme in which a Muslim girl is given Rs 51000/ when she marries after her graduation (BA, BSc, BCom, BE etc.). BJP banned the Triple Talaq. This is for Muslims alone. Most of the recipients of other welfare schemes have been members of the Muslim community. No ruler would have tried to uplift the Muslim community if they were Islamophobic. Riots and young children getting murdered due to terrorist activities in Kashmir have also drastically reduced. But these plus points are often blatantly ignored and many choose to judge Modi by the actions of the far-right.
A question to consider is: If Modi is still judged for the 2002 Gujarat riots, why isn’t Congress held accountable for the 1984 Sikh riots that they enabled, which were equally horrific? Politicians have contributed to deepening societal divisions by fueling narratives. Riots and violence instigated by one party are often deemed forgivable, while those provoked by another are considered unforgivable.
My political ideology is not fixed. I may shift from center-right to center-left in the future if I find that the center-left in India has become bold enough to openly oppose Islamist extremism as well, not just Hindutva. As of now, they do not meet that standard.
To end with a quote on pseudo-secularism in India:
To those who claim we are now living in a totalitarian, fascist, Hindu Rashtra, one must ask:
What kind of Hindu Rashtra is this where Ram Navami, Hanuman Jayanti, Durga pooja processions, and even Garba celebrations, are attacked and stoned with impunity?
What kind of Hindu Rashtra is this where Hindus are forced to be refugees in their own land, where one can settle 40,000 Rohingya Muslims but not 700,000 Kashmiri Hindus, the land’s original inhabitants; where the judiciary says it is too late to prosecute those who raped, murdered, and ethnically cleansed lacs of Hindus?
What kind of Hindu Rashtra is this where Hindu temples are exclusively controlled by the State, and where the government usurps hundreds of thousands of acres of temple land and is responsible for more than 100,000 temples losing lakhs of crores in rental income?
What kind of Hindu Rashtra is this where the Right to Education Act discriminates only against Hindus and their schools, forcing tens of thousands of them to shut down?
What kind of Hindu Rashtra is this where a communal violence law was about to be enacted through with only the Hindus would have been held guilty in a communal riot even if they were in a minority for example in Kashmir?
What kind of Hindu Rashtra is this where court judgments like the Sabarimala and legislative enactments like the Hindu Code Bill purport to reform only Hindu religious practices but dare not touch practices of other religions, and if they do, the decisions are promptly reversed like in the Shah Bano case?
What kind of Hindu Rashtra is this where the Waqf Act gives overarching powers to Muslims to declare a 1500-year-old Hindu temple to be on Islamic land when Islam is only 1300 years old?
If this is how a Hindu is rewarded in a Hindu Rashtra, he’d much rather be in a Muslim Rashtra because then at least there’d be no pretence of equality.
The Monkey Dilemma 
You must be logged in to post a comment.