I waited a while before watching Neeraj Ghaywan’s Homebound on Netflix. Even with glowing reviews and friends urging me to watch it, I knew it wouldn’t be an easy experience. It’s heavy in more ways than one, because the film doesn’t just explore caste discrimination, it also shines a light on the prejudice faced by Muslims in India. So from the beginning, you know you’re stepping into something intense and uncomfortable.
Neeraj Ghaywan holds an important place in Indian cinema as he’s one of the very few Dalit directors who publicly acknowledge his Dalit identity. As viewers, most of us don’t sit and think about a filmmaker’s caste or religion when watching a movie. But the uncomfortable truth is that opportunities in the film industry still seem to be uneven. If he is the first Dalit filmmaker in decades because of gatekeeping rather than lack of talent, then that says a lot about how deep systemic bias still runs in India, even in an artistic platform like the film industry. This is something the film industries across India need to acknowledge and work on.
As expected, the story in Homebound was heartwrenching. It’s based on a real incident, which sadly doesn’t come as a surprise. The film also draws inspiration from the Bhim-Meem idea, a political expression that promotes Dalit-Muslim unity, adding another layer of depth and context to its narrative.
For me, the most heartbreaking scene was when Ishaan’s character, a young Muslim boy, is accused of being Pakistani after an India vs Pakistan cricket match. That moment was infuriating and hard to sit through.
At the same time, I feel Indian films need to move beyond the usual “General Category vs Dalit” and “Hindu vs Muslim” framework when addressing oppression. Recent incidents, including the honour killing of a Dalit man by an OBC family because he dared to love their girl, show that reality is much more complex in India, and discrimination doesn’t come from one direction. It exists across castes and religions. Dalit Christians, Pasmanda Muslims, and many others face layered forms of exclusion, yet these conversations rarely enter mainstream media or pop culture.
I recently spoke to someone from the Yadav community who felt that Yadavs should be getting more opportunities than others in Bihar. It surprised me, because it shows how deeply caste identity shapes expectations, even among groups that aren’t “upper caste.” It’s even sadder to see communities that once faced discrimination now repeating the same mindset toward those they see as lower in the hierarchy. Many people assume caste hierarchy is a simple top-to-bottom structure, but in reality, it behaves more like overlapping layers of status, power, and regional identity.
I also think about the discrimination that exists within minority communities. My neighbour, a very liberal Muslim woman in Kerala, once told me that some of her extended family members won’t eat food cooked by non-Muslims. So who addresses that side of prejudice?
If we want a more equal and united India, we need to acknowledge and call out all forms of discrimination. But if someone tries to make a film exploring other angles, it often gets labelled propaganda or agenda-driven. That makes honest conversation difficult.
We’ve seen similar themes in films like Dhadak 2 this year, and even the first Dhadak explored the same kind of social divide. Something that stood out to me across movies in this space was the prominent placement of Ambedkar’s photograph. It’s a small detail, but it says a lot. Ambedkar himself is a layered and complex figure. His critique was not limited to Hinduism, and he questioned multiple belief systems with the same sharpness. But that side of him rarely enters public discussion, because even many of his admirers seem hesitant or defensive about acknowledging it.
Many of us are ready to recognise discrimination against Muslims and Dalits, and those conversations are important. But there should also be space to talk about other traumatic histories like the Kashmiri Pandit exodus without being dismissed or judged. Empathy and understanding shouldn’t stop at one group. If injustice matters, it should matter universally.
This isn’t a rant. Just a hope that our films, stories, and discussions grow braver and more layered. Because India isn’t simple. It’s diverse, complicated, emotional, and full of uncomfortable truths. And storytelling feels meaningful when it reflects that reality rather than just one slice of it.
I recently came across a video featuring an interview with Stalin Devan, the activist managing the legal research and paperwork for Munambam. In this interview with Shajan Skariah, Stalin shares that Father Joshy added him to a WhatsApp group with the Munambam residents and said, “Explain one point from the Act every day in simple words.” Over time, Stalin became their legal guide, and his efforts are one of the main reasons the community now understands the law so well.
The interview was informative in many ways. At a time when there is still no clear update from politicians or the media on what is actually delaying the resolution for Munambam, even after the Waqf Amendment Bill was passed, Stalin explains the situation with complete clarity.
A screenshot of the video
The Three Possible Legal Outcomes for Munambam
According to Stalin, there are three possible solutions for Munambam:
The government restores revenue rights immediately. This can be done at any time if the Chief Minister approves an administrative order restoring those rights.
If the Supreme Court upholds the High Court order declaring the land not Waqf, all cases, tribunal, revenue, and others will automatically end.
If the Supreme Court rules otherwise, the next legal step will rely on the amended law using Section 2A.
Why Section 2A Cannot Be Used Yet
Earlier, I assumed that recent positive court developments were on the basis of Section 2A. I later realised that was incorrect. Stalin’s interview clarified it. He said:
“We must wait for the rules to be notified. Only after the rules come into force can we use the amendment. As soon as the rules are published, we will file a new petition before the Waqf Tribunal. Once the new rules take effect, the Waqf Board’s order cannot survive.”
It was only through him that I learned the rules tied to the amendment have not yet been fully implemented (central rules were notified in July 2025, but further steps, such as central and state compliance and the ongoing Supreme Court matter, are still pending). Once implementation of the rules is complete, Munambam will be able to use the amendment (Section 2A) fully to establish its rights.
This is where politics begins to overlap with law.
Where Politics Meets Law
Stalin said:
“When everything is resolved, people should celebrate and then withdraw the protest with dignity. But politics entered the issue, and some withdrew support — not because the problem is unresolved, but because they feared the BJP might gain political mileage.”
This is why I feel that even though BJP is the party that helped Munambam with the establishment of new Waqf amendments that can prove favourable to Munambam residents, the Congress-led alliance (UDF) may still win the election there.
Strategically, it makes sense. Now that they’ve pushed the BJP to change the Waqf rules, Christian voters can continue supporting the party they feel protects their religious interests, especially one that does not interfere with missionary activity.
UDF has traditionally been the preferred choice of many Christian voters in Kerala. However, their position on the Waqf Amendment has not aligned with what Munambam residents expected or hoped for. Even so, Christian voters may still continue supporting UDF, largely because they align with the coalition’s lack of anti-conversion sentiment.
Why Timing Matters to BJP and CPM
Here’s where it gets interesting. What follows is only my analysis, not a confirmed claim:
As mentioned earlier, the amendment becomes fully usable only after the remaining implementation steps (central and state action, portal uploads, surveys, and Supreme Court clarity). That process can take months, sometimes more than a year.
Because of that, the timing is now in the hands of both the Central Government (BJP) and the Kerala Government (CPM). Residents say Rijiju has not been active recently. It is possible that the central leadership is waiting to see how the political situation evolves before re-engaging. The BJP may already understand that, even with the support they are offering, they might still not gain full trust or support from the Munambam Christian community. Religious identity often influences decisions more than political assistance. BJP may choose to wait and see whether their support translates into goodwill before offering more help or speeding up the process. In short, they might be waiting for election results to analyze public sentiment.
Meanwhile, CPM has not yet updated or published Waqf lists in the state gazette or uploaded them to the central portal. This is of utmost importance to implement the waqf amendment. CPM has not given explicit technical reasons for the delay.
Current Status of the Waqf Amendment Process (December 5, 2025)
Central Government (BJP)
The Act itself was published and came into force in April 2025. Rules were notified in July 2025. But implementation is still pending: WAMSI portal digitization is incomplete, nationwide surveys and audits have not been done, and the Supreme Court stay since September blocks key provisions.
The central government’s delay primarily reflects implementation challenges. However, political considerations may also play a role, as governments often pace sensitive rollouts based on election outcomes and political advantage.
Kerala Government (CPM)
CPM has not published Waqf lists in the Kerala state gazette. Nor have they uploaded lists to the central portal (90-day deadline under Section 2A). Waqf Tribunal and Board procedures are not aligned yet.
The Kerala government’s delay appears more political in nature. They seem to be officially resisting the amendment.
My view is that the full rollout (central setup, state compliance, and Supreme Court resolution) will now unfold at a pace influenced by political timing. Legally, the delay should not be indefinite, but in practice, regulations and execution can remain pending for a long time if the government chooses.
Why Munambam’s Leadership Is Remaining Neutral
Politics has made the situation complicated.
Many in the Munambam Land Protection Council do not want the BJP to gain politically, but they appear to be trying to remain neutral as the process is still unfinished. The ball is still in the court of both CPM and BJP. This may also explain why Church leaders reportedly asked Joseph Benny, the head of the Munambam Land Protection Council, to withdraw from the election as a UDF candidate. Any outright political affiliation may prove disadvantageous to Munambam residents at this stage.
I recently watched Nobody Wants This Season 2. If you haven’t seen Season 1 of this Netflix series, I really think you should. It deals with a topic that most interfaith love stories never touch — conversion. It’s a sensitive issue, especially among Abrahamic religions. So it felt quite bold that the makers decided to go into it at all.
Season 1 had already touched on the idea of conversion. But Season 2 takes it a little further. This time, you see the boyfriend, who is a Jewish rabbi, and his family, constantly pushing his Christian girlfriend, who seems more atheist or maybe agnostic, to convert. It adds a new layer to their story and makes the whole situation feel even more complicated.
However, this post is not a detailed review of the series, but the many thoughts that came to my mind while watching it, mainly concerning conversion and how it is seen in India.
There are many abroad who have a distorted idea of religious freedom in India, no thanks to misleading, half-baked news articles, often written by left-leaning Hindus or non-Hindus, and I wish to debunk those notions as well and present them from the perspective of a centre-right Hindu who was, till two years ago, a leftist.
Be prepared for a long post, because this is a topic I feel strongly about. If you’re short on time, you may want to save or bookmark it and read it when you’re free.
A Hindu’s View on Conversion
Before I begin, I want to make my religious beliefs clear. I’m not a religious Hindu in the traditional sense, but I’m still a staunch Hindu. If that sounds confusing, it’s only because Hinduism allows this kind of pluralism. You can be spiritual, non-religious, or even an atheist, and still remain Hindu.
The faith makes space for many ways of thinking, which is why someone like me fits comfortably within it. I’m not ostracized for eating beef, nor am I ostracized for not following religious beliefs properly. I can question and I can push back against religious rules I don’t believe in without repercussions.
This freedom that my belief generously allows me is exactly why I strongly stand by the community and call myself a “staunch Hindu.” I advocate for the rights of my community, which a religious Hindu in India may not always do, as they wish to appear secular and tolerant of even the injustices against us.
Now that my beliefs are out of the way, I want to say that even as a non-traditional, progressive Hindu feminist, I don’t support conversion. I don’t understand why anyone has to give up their identity for love, marriage, or even politics, no matter how much anyone would try to justify it.
Most Hindus in India feel the same way, which is why you rarely see the community protesting against anti-conversion laws in some states. Among ourselves, we often say the same thing quietly: “What’s the need to convert?” Of course, many reasons are given. I address them later in this post.
Then we see Indian-origin Hindu politicians in America converting to Christianity to stay relevant and gain acceptance, and it makes us pause. It makes us wonder, “Is America really the land of the free?” And on what basis do they judge India on religious matters when they themselves have not reached full religious secularism yet?
However, in Abrahamic religions, conversion is considered a matter of freedom of faith. This is acknowledged. But this is also a major reason for communal tensions in a Hindu-majority country like India. Most Hindus do not believe in conversion or proselytization, while Abrahamic faiths consider it a part of their practice.
Hindus are of the belief that everyone should be free to practice their faith without disturbing others or disrespecting anyone else’s faith. Proselytization goes against that idea. It feels disrespectful because it implies someone’s existing faith is not good enough. It involves putting down those beliefs, so they are convinced enough to join the new one. So, this “freedom of faith” often comes at the expense of disrespecting others, which was tolerated for the longest period of time, till the Hindu community got the strength to say “enough is enough.”
This pushback is the part that’s often presented to the world as a “lack of religious freedom” in India. Or, to put it more frankly, the lack of freedom to convert Hindus. This clash of beliefs has no solution, and I see it continuing even after a change of government. It’s a label the country has to live with, because there can be no middle ground when people feel their identity is being erased.
A thought I often hear is, “There are so many Christian-majority and Muslim-majority countries in the world. Why can’t they just leave us alone?” It reflects the frustration many Hindus feel when they see constant pressure to convert despite already being a global minority.
Pressure to Convert in Interfaith Marriages
The topic of conversion in marriages is prevalent in Indian Reddit circles. Almost every other day, you see someone saying, “My partner’s parents want me to convert. What should I do?”
From what I’ve seen, it’s usually the Hindu who is expected to convert. And often, the Hindu partner is unaware of what that really means. They hear lines like, “You just need to get baptized. After that, you can follow your own culture,” and they assume there’s no conversion involved. Many agree because they don’t realize the deeper implications. We walk into these situations thinking others are as pluralistic and flexible as we are, and that’s where the misunderstanding begins.
Conversion is also very normalized. When I ask my Christian friends if someone needs to convert to marry into their community, they casually say “yes,” as if it’s the most ordinary thing in the world.
We recently saw this when JD Vance openly and coolly said he hopes his wife, Usha Vance, a Hindu, converts someday. Ironically, the same line appears in Nobody Wants This Season 2 as well, where the Jewish rabbi says he hopes his Christian girlfriend converts one day.
For us Hindus, it’s a culture shock, almost regressive, because we never expect something like this from others. At the same time, Abrahamics and international news channels are confused when they report that there’s outrage in India over Vance’s statement. They have no idea why Hindus are angry. So they brand it as “far-right Hindutva.”
Why Do Hindus Dislike Conversion?
Most Hindus find the idea of conversion strange, because the religion itself accepts that God can appear in many forms. It is naturally pluralistic. So someone like me, who is not religious, or even someone who is an atheist, is still seen as a Hindu, because schools like Carvaka already accept that. We also tend to readily accept other gods because of this pluralism. We don’t consider them as fake. We don’t believe that ours is the “only true god” either.
This pluralistic mindset of Hindus is both a boon and a bane. A boon because we naturally accept all faiths, and a bane because we expect the same openness from others, and we don’t always receive it.
On top of that, many Hindus today focus more on careers and less on having children. So there is a natural tendency to protect the current Hindu population from inducements. The Chattisgarh High Court reiterated the same thing recently:
Chhattisgarh High Court Condemning Induced Conversions
With all this in mind, it’s natural that the majority of Hindus don’t look at conversion in a positive way. Our faith is already mocked by many Abrahamics around the world, who use words like “demon-worshipping pagans.” This makes it even more important to push back against that narrative and simply exist as we are.
Hindus, in short, want the freedom to be seen and respected in their own identity. But this way of thinking is often dismissed by, ironically, the very same people who speak loudly about secularism and freedom of religion. If others believe Hindus can be freely converted, then Hindus also have the right to openly object to it.
Ghar Wapsi
Now, some may argue that even Hindus encourage conversion in the form of Ghar Wapsi (reverting to Hinduism). However, Ghar wapsi is not a core part of Hinduism. It is more of a reaction to the aggressive conversions that have been happening in the country.
Most people I know converted to Abrahamic religions because of perks, not out of faith. They were poor and needed money. They were promised financial benefits if they converted. The fact that they are openly admitting this is nothing any faith should feel proud of. The only reason to convert to another faith should be faith itself. You should feel that the new faith and its principles are right for you, not be influenced by inducements or pressure.
If you ask why the Hindu side can’t match these perks, the answer is simple: we don’t have multiple Hindu-majority nations funding such activities. India is the only major Hindu-majority country, so the playing field is not equal.
Ghar Wapsi is simply an attempt, based on faith alone, to help those who genuinely want to return to Hinduism.
Arguments Used to Justify Conversions in India
1. Charity
There’s this belief that the money given during conversions is out of pure kindness. But I know many Christians who are struggling, working extra hours just to manage their basic needs. If the intention is genuine help, why not support them first?
And, most importantly, why should any help come with the condition of conversion?
Real help doesn’t demand a change of faith. If it does, you have to wonder whether it’s truly help or part of an agenda.
2. Caste Discrimination in Hinduism
It’s also misleading to say that converted Christians escape discrimination to enter a better way of life after they leave Hinduism. Many are treated as “lower-level” Christians, and some have even gone back to Hinduism because of this.
Source: New Indian Express (July 2025)
Additionally, consider the points made below (took help from Google Search AI):
One person told me about a convert in her family who wants to return but cannot, because they signed a financial help agreement that now holds them back.
The good thing is that the caste system within Hindu society is slowly being dealt with. Families are becoming more open to inter-caste marriages, including in my own family. This change is happening faster in the South than in the North. It’s not perfect yet, but progress is real. In this situation, constantly blaming a community that is actively trying to fix the problem does not help.
Yes, many Hindus still support caste, and as long as they exist, the issue will continue. But this divide is also kept alive by leaders, both political and religious, because it benefits them. If caste truly disappears, many of these leaders lose their power to divide or convert Hindus, and that is why the system hasn’t faded away completely.
Instead of building bridges, the “narrative builders” choose to burn them by feeding divisive stories, which only pushes people of different castes further apart. Missionaries often highlight caste discrimination so aggressively because it helps them drive conversions. So you have to ask — are they really helping, or are they using the problem to serve their own goals?
4. Freedom of Faith
The tricky side of conversion in India is that Hindus openly say they are against it. But in Kerala, I often see Christian groups shift their stand based on who is converting and to which religion. They welcome anyone who joins their faith, but they loudly object when someone chooses to leave it.
Churches often use the term “love jihad” when a Christian woman converts to Islam for love. Yet the same groups talk about “freedom of faith” when a Hindu woman converts to Christianity for love.
Since both Abrahamic religions support proselytization as part of their belief system, you would expect them to be supportive of conversions into each other’s religion. But that rarely happens.
Complications of Conversion in Interfaith Relationships
Spoiler Ahead for Nobody Wants This Season 2
Click to reveal spoiler
Considering the many unwanted complications related to conversion, I was really hoping the female character in Nobody Wants This would take a stand. I wanted both partners to accept that two religions can live side by side without one needing to disappear. The ending didn’t go the way I hoped, but since there’s a Season 3 coming, I’m hoping they fix things and take the story in a better direction.
*Spoiler Ends*
In many interfaith relationships, I notice that the Hindu partner often gives in to the Abrahamic faith — if not through marriage, then through the children.
Take Usha Vance, for example. All three of her children were baptized because her husband couldn’t accept the kids growing up Hindu. That feels like a loss of her own identity. It shows that even an educated woman like her is not fully protected from this pressure.
If it were up to me, ideally, I would want the kids to grow up with both religions. But if we had to choose one religion for my “imaginary” children, I would fight hard to raise them in my own. Purely because Hinduism is naturally pluralistic, and it doesn’t invalidate any other faith. It would also matter to me because Hindus are a global minority, while the other religions face no existential crisis. It’s like the global majority religion being generous enough to make space for the growth of the minority.
Also, if I had to pick, I would choose a court marriage. But if the partner insists on a religious ceremony, then it would have to be a temple wedding. You don’t need to convert for that. You only need to respect the rituals. It’s simple, fair, and inclusive.
This is probably why I feel an interfaith marriage may not work for me. I believe in equality between religions, while an Abrahamic partner may not always see it the same way. There would be constant tension, and I am not the kind of Hindu who would compromise on my identity.
When I was younger, I probably would not have thought this way. Back then, love felt like everything. But growing older makes you see the bigger picture.
Pushback Against Conversions in India
More Hindus today realize that they don’t need to give up their beliefs for anything, which is why you see fewer people willing to convert.
Hindu Villagers in India Fighting Back Against Conversion
This awareness is slowly growing. I recently saw a post on Reddit where an Indian Christian said they felt sad that many Hindus in India are no longer open to conversion or to “the way of the Lord.” To me, this is actually a positive sign for the Hindu community. It shows that more people are choosing to stay firm in their identity.
And honestly, this should be true for every religion, because love and true secularism do not require anyone to change who they really are.
What defines horror? We often think of ghosts, possessed souls, or strange creatures with no clear form. Yet I realized there’s another type of horror that hits harder. The ones that combine these supernatural ideas with the harsh truths of real life. This is a type of blend that creates an impact, which stays with you long after the movie is over. This is where Baramulla is about.
What’s It About?
Baramulla opens with a policeman who moves to Kashmir and stays in an old house filled with secrets. He is there to investigate the disappearance of children in the area. Strange events start to unfold at once. The elder daughter senses a foul, “dog-like” smell in the house, even if there are no dogs. The caretaker carries a plate of food every day to a locked room. What lies behind these mysteries? Why are children vanishing? These questions drive the heart of the story.
Thoughts
I can’t, unfortunately, share everything I felt without giving away the main plot. Since I wanted to share my thoughts in full, I placed them in a separate “Spoilers Ahead” block after this section. You can skip it if you prefer to avoid spoilers.
Baramulla left me with many emotions. I was genuinely amazed by how the team crafted it.
The movie tries something that Indian cinema, to my knowledge, hasn’t attempted before in a horror movie. That is, blending the past and the present into a story that’s rooted in historical events. It reminds you that horror has layers. It’s not only about the unknown, but also the known. The horror of trust turning into betrayal. The horror of being dismissed or gaslit. The horror of violence, both mental and physical. Baramulla captures all of this with sharp clarity.
The performances are strong across the board. Personally, I would say it’s a must-watch.
Baramulla is now streaming on Netflix.
**Spoilers Ahead**
I felt emotional through many scenes. The acting was powerful and honest. The pain never felt exaggerated.
By now, you probably know that the film draws from the suffering Kashmiri Hindus faced in the late ’80s and ’90s. Many cast members are Kashmiri Hindus who had to flee their homes. Manav Kaul is one of them. He left Kashmir when he was in grade 4. He moved on to become a competitive swimmer in his late teenage years and participated in state and national-level championships. He has more than 14 national medals in swimming to his credit.
The end scenes also show Sanjay Suri, which is befitting, since his father was killed by terrorists in Srinagar when Suri was just 19. He moved to Delhi after that and became a known face in the film industry.
The producer and writer, Aditya Dhar, who is also Yami Gautam’s husband, is a Kashmiri Pandit. He has been using his craft to share Kashmir’s story with care and technical prowess.
Some Kashmiri Pandit celebrities, like Kunal Khemu, have chosen not to explore their past, and that is their personal choice. In an interview with Smita Prakash, he said he doesn’t know much about that period, even though his own family lived through it.
I feel it’s important for us to understand our history so we don’t repeat old mistakes. Stories like these should be passed from one generation to the next. My only regret is not asking my grandfather about his experiences—how Kerala felt during the Indian freedom struggle, and what life was like then. Those anecdotes have been lost forever, as he did not pass on the stories to his children as well.
It’s remarkable that so many Kashmiri Hindus who had to flee the valley are using art to express their experiences instead of resorting to violence. Their goal is empathy and understanding, something they were denied for a long time, not provocation. Choosing storytelling over violence is admirable, especially in a world where violence is often justified in the name of resistance.
There are also a few Kashmiri Hindus with left-leaning views who defend problematic groups and take part in “Free Kashmir” sloganeering, similar to how a very small number of non-Zionist Israelis speak in ways that don’t reflect the wider population.
Most Kashmiri Hindus (and some Kashmiri Muslims) have appreciated the movie. However, left-leaning Hindus are also criticizing the movie for “propaganda,” even though the events have been well documented. Films that depict and educate the viewers on crimes against Muslims in India are welcomed, while films showing crimes against Hindus are often dismissed as Islamophobic, nationalist, or propaganda. This imbalance is where many activists struggle. They accept one truth but not the other.
People like me have slowly stepped out of that mindset to face the whole truth.
It may take a while, but I really believe the truth will eventually reach wider acceptance sooner or later. And the stories can’t stop until the pain is finally acknowledged. They need to be told, retold, and carried forward. Only then will they finally find the place they deserve.
What surprises me more than the terror attacks in India is the speed with which some Indians dismiss them as “false flag operations.” For instance, a look at the comments under Faye D’Souza’s Instagram post about the Delhi terror blasts shows several users mocking the incident and blaming the Indian government instead of the perpetrators. Many genuinely seem to believe it’s a political ploy to influence votes rather than an act of terror.
The “false flag” narrative isn’t new. It has surfaced after nearly every major terror attack in India. Even the 26/11 Mumbai attacks were, at first, misrepresented by some as an internal operation. The claim gained attention mainly because Ajmal Kasab, one of the attackers, wore a saffron thread on his wrist. Those spreading the theory strangely assumed such a thread could only belong to members of BJP or RSS. They overlooked the possibility that it might have been deliberately used to mislead investigators.
Ajmal Kasab with Saffron Thread on His Wrist
Kasab’s real plan, as later revealed, was to die appearing as a “Hindu” and thus shift suspicion away from Pakistan-based handlers, reinforcing the myth of “saffron terror.” Thankfully, due to the extraordinary courage and sacrifice of Assistant Sub-Inspector Tukaram Omble, Kasab was captured alive and later confessed to being a Pakistani national trained by terrorists.
Tukaram Omble
By then, however, the false-flag theory had already gained widespread circulation. Well-known public figures even released a book titled 26/11: RSS ki Saazish? that promoted the “false flag” theory surrounding the attacks.
Influential Indian Figures Promoting “26/11: RSS ki Saazish?” Book
The “false flag” narrative resurfaced after the Pulwama terror attack, when a suicide bomber from Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) drove an explosive-laden vehicle into a CRPF convoy in Pulwama, Jammu & Kashmir, killing 40 soldiers. Following the attack, some voices in Pakistan, including senior officials, suggested that India might have staged the incident to influence the upcoming 2019 elections. Commentators in India echoed similar theories online, framing the tragedy as politically motivated rather than acknowledging it as an act of cross-border terrorism.
Then came the recent Pahalgam attacks, where Pakistani media outlets and online commentators claimed that India had staged the incident to divert attention from domestic issues and influence elections. They described it as part of an alleged “Indian playbook” of false-flag operations. Soon after, similar talking points appeared in sections of Indian social media and commentary spaces.
In each case, claims of “false flag operations” lacked credible evidence and were primarily rooted in conspiracy theories first circulated in Pakistan and later amplified by certain opinion groups in India.
The Global “False Flag” Obsession
It’s worrying that many people in India tend to believe external narratives about terror attacks rather than trusting verified investigations at home.
This pattern might have been up for serious debate if it only happened locally, but the deflection from religious extremism appears to be a global trend. To cite a few examples:
The 9/11 attacks are still viewed by some as a “false flag” orchestrated by the U.S. or Israel to malign Muslims. This is a theory long disproved but still used by extremist groups to recruit followers. They thrive on anger, convincing vulnerable minds that violence is the only response to perceived oppression. In India, extremist recruiters have similarly exploited stories like the Babri Masjid while dismissing events like the Godhra train burning as conspiracies, weaving grievance into a tool for radicalization.
The October 7 attacks in Israel were also met with widespread conspiracy claims, framed as a false flag operation meant to discredit certain groups.
Likewise, criticism of regimes such as Iran’s leadership, the Taliban, or Hamas is often dismissed as Western propaganda. This is another form of deflection that prevents honest introspection.
Conspiracies Shield Extremists
It’s time to move past the overused “false flag” narrative.
Each time a terror attack is dismissed as a conspiracy, it insults the victims, weakens trust, and blurs the line between truth and propaganda. These baseless claims don’t protect anyone. They only embolden extremists and deepen divisions.
Real courage and national unity will come from confronting facts, condemning violence without bias, and demanding accountability from those who spread hate, no matter where it comes from.
Ending the false flag obsession is the first step toward restoring integrity in how we respond to terrorism.
As someone who’s chronically online and keeps up with news from all kinds of sources, mainstream, regional, left, and right, I’ve noticed something important: Christians in Kerala don’t really have a go-to political party anymore.
For a long time, people assumed the Indian National Congress (INC) was the party in Kerala that understood what every community wanted. But that idea seems to be changing fast on the ground.
Communal Conflicts in Kerala: Who Supports Whom?
If you’re new to Kerala politics, here’s a simple way to understand how parties respond to communal issues here:
Hindu vs Minority: CPM and Congress usually back the minority community.
Upper Caste Hindu vs Lower Caste Hindu: CPM and Congress generally side with the lower caste.
Christian vs Muslim: CPM and Congress often stay neutral at first, saying things like “we’ll look into it,” but in the end, they tend to side with Muslims. Examples include the Munambam Waqf issue, Professor Joseph’s case, Sona Eldhose’s conversion, and incidents involving SDPI bullying, such as the hijab case at the Christian-run St Rita’s school in Kochi (details in the image below).
News Source: “Hijab controversy forces school in Kochi to close temporarily after parents’ protest” (Mathrubhumi.com)
If you look at any case in Kerala, the pattern more or less stays the same. I’m not sure about regional politics in other states, but I suspect it’s similar elsewhere.
While BJP clearly positions itself as a Hindu party, there’s a growing sense in Kerala that Congress and CPM lean pro-Muslim. Why? It’s not really about religion. It’s about vote-bank politics. Christians are a minority among minorities in Kerala, so pandering to them doesn’t win many votes and can even cost support from other minority groups.
Growth of Chrisanghis in Kerala
Now, in Kerala, there’s a growing group called “Chrisanghis,” a term left-leaning voices like Arundhati Roy have used. These are Christians who support the BJP. Arundhati recently warned Christians in Kerala not to become Chrisanghis, citing conversion attacks in the North as a concern.
So why do some Christians support the BJP? It’s because they view Islamist groups like SDPI and Jamaat-e-Islami as a bigger threat than BJP. Many point to the persecution of Christians in countries like Nigeria by Islamist groups and feel that, compared to such threats, the BJP’s Hindutva agenda poses a lesser danger. At the same time, parties like Congress and CPM often downplay or ignore the activities of these Islamist groups in India, mostly for political gain, leading some Christians to see BJP as a safer option.
News Source: “Congress in a fix as Jamaat arm readies to back theocratic state” (NewIndianExpress.com)
Notably, Jamaat-e-Islami has frequently been in the news, even recently, for persecuting minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh. In India, its branch presents a secular image, likely to gain acceptance and influence within mainstream politics, using it as a pathway to gain power.
It’s also true that Kerala’s two mainstream parties have largely ignored such concerns from the Christian community. Their typical response is often, “Don’t fall for RSS/BJP propaganda,” even when the issues have nothing to do with RSS or BJP.
Thoughts
So what can the Christian population in India do in this situation? On one side, there’s a pro-Hindu or “Hindutva” party that will never fully accept conversions under “freedom of religion,” and on the other, there are parties that haven’t supported Christians when they faced threats from Islamist groups.
From my perspective, Christians should keep all parties guessing about where their votes will go. They shouldn’t strongly back any party, since none fully meets their needs. Take the Munambam Waqf issue, for example: the removal of Section 40 in the Waqf Bill allowed the Kerala High Court to rule the Waqf claim over Munambam land as illegal, protecting Christian landowners. Congress leaders like Hibi Eden tried to persuade residents to drop their case, saying nothing would come of it, while the only BJP MP from Kerala, Suresh Gopi, stood by the people, largely comprising Christian fisherfolk, and supported the amendment that ensured their land rights.
When missionaries face attacks by far-right Hindus in the North, that’s when Opposition parties step in. But in cases like the Chhattisgarh nuns’ arrests over alleged conversions, the local Congress in Chhattisgarh hardly protested, as taking a stand would have cost them votes. On the other hand, in Kerala, protesting the arrest of the nuns would have earned them support, which is why several Opposition leaders from Kerala traveled to Chhattisgarh to show solidarity.
This shows that Christians can’t rely fully on any party and should strategically make their political influence felt.
This is how politics works: there are no fixed principles for political parties. They act based on the local political context. Christians in India should remember this and avoid fully backing or rejecting any party. Instead, they can use this knowledge strategically and wisely, since different parties support them in different situations.
The Monkey Dilemma 
You must be logged in to post a comment.