Personal observation: In almost every war, there’s always someone who doesn’t want it to end.
In the India–Pakistan war, many in India didn’t want the fighting to stop because they felt Pakistan hadn’t learned its lesson yet. Some even wanted the government to reclaim PoK (Pakistan-occupied Kashmir) during this time (which I strongly oppose).
When Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear sites, many anti-regime Iranians wanted the war to continue because they hoped the regime would fall.
The Israel–Gaza conflict is even more unusual. Many who kept calling for a ceasefire suddenly went quiet or were openly against it when finally announced. Maybe they had expected Israel to be driven out and a new Palestinian state to rise “from the river to the sea.” But that idea is unrealistic and only calls for more violence. Just like India will never give up Kashmir, Israel will never give up its land. Both countries get a lot of criticism for putting their own interests first. But, over the years, Jews and Indians have learned an important lesson: if they want their interests protected, they can’t rely on anyone else. When Indians get murdered in America, there’s next to no backlash. It’s the same case with Jews. History is also proof that when Hindus face persecution or genocide (Kashmiri Pandits, Sandeshkhali, Bangladeshi, and Pakistani Hindus), the world stays silent. In a world shaped by selective activism, these two communities have gradually learned to shed their passivity and docile nature, standing up for themselves without guilt. Indians, in my view, are still learning. Our tendency to stay silent runs deep. But since 2014, that’s starting to change, much to the annoyance of some. Apparently, a “good” Indian is still largely expected to be a silent one in the face of persecution and bigotry.
Anyway, the point is that in any war, there’s always duality. Those who push for the conflict to continue aren’t always on the “far-right.” Sometimes, they are far-left or far-right figures from other communities, disguised as leftist liberals. Take, for example, the India-Pakistan war. Many leftists in India wanted it to end and for peace to prevail. Yet recently, some of those same voices wanted Hamas to reject the peace deal, even at the cost of many lives.
I’ve often felt that the far-left and far-right are just two sides of the same coin. The recent wars and reactions to them over the years only validate this claim.
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?
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.
The Monkey Dilemma 
You must be logged in to post a comment.