With the Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam cases once again drawing global attention, especially after Umar Khalid’s father met US politician Zohran Mamdani, it’s the right time to scrutinize why the Supreme Court rejected bail pleas for both activists. The issue has sparked renewed discussion around India’s anti-terror law, the UAPA, and how it is applied in high-profile cases.
In the age of social media, misinformation often travels across the world long before the truth gets its moment. That makes it all the more important to examine each argument carefully and understand the reasoning behind the court’s responses. We are living in a time where selective fact-checking is common, misinformation is circulated to serve political agendas, and inconvenient truths are pushed out of sight. From what I have seen, some of the material relevant to this case has still not reached the wider public because it is rarely covered by mainstream media. As a result, distrust continues to linger.
Of course, for some people, no amount of truth really matters. What they seek is validation for their existing biases or political leanings. This post is not meant for that audience. No amount of proof can change such a mindset. It is written for readers willing to acknowledge facts when presented.
Getting back to the case, according to the prosecution, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were not just participants but masterminds who mobilised or influenced others during the events in question. The defence, however, put forward two key arguments while seeking their release on bail. Let’s take a closer look at what those arguments were and why the court chose not to accept them.
Defense Argument #1: Not Directly Involved in Violence
One of the most repeated arguments, especially in Umar Khalid’s case, is that he was not present at the riot spots when the violence took place.
Court Response
The court indicated that the act of masterminding the riots, even without direct presence, was in itself sufficient. The court’s position was clear and firm: nothing comes above the interests of national security. On a prima facie assessment of the material placed before it, which includes videos, audios, posts, and messages, the court held that both Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam faced similar allegations of being the masterminds, which weighed heavily against granting bail. Due to their involvement in the larger plan, several people were killed and injured, including an intelligence officer.
It should be noted that provocative words alone can be enough to incite violence. This is not something new. Something similar was seen even before the Gujarat riots, where RSS members were found to have mobilised people through provocative speeches. Many who provoked never participated in the violence, but their words were enough. They were taken into custody and remained there for years.
This raises an important question: what makes those cases different from the cases of Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, so that the latter deserves bail? Both instances were the same: provocative speeches leading to mass mobilization. The 2020 Delhi riots too had a communal angle, with tensions between different communities being stirred during the violence. Videos of the provocative communal speeches are available widely on X. WhatsApp groups were formed along religious lines, which added to the sense of division at the time.
Rather than relying on political influencers or commentators, I recommend reading the official case files to understand the facts as presented in court. You can find these by searching Google with terms like “Delhi NCT Sharjeel Imam pdf” and then looking within the document for specific details.
Often, religion is used as a tool to strengthen or manipulate one’s case, and that appears to have happened here as well. As someone who has gone through the provocative videos and social media posts of the two, it is difficult to see them as innocent. I cannot quote or reproduce those statements here because of their sensitive nature, but they are publicly available and can be found on social media platforms like X by searching their names.
Sharjeel Imam’s Facebook account is still active, while Umar Khalid has deleted his. I would recommend going through Sharjeel’s Facebook posts to see for yourself how passionately he tried to convince people to hit the streets. Some posts had a communal dimension as well. The content includes rhetoric that can be interpreted as calls for violence and even secession, which adds serious weight to the charges against them.
Defense Argument #2: The Trial Delay
One more argument that often comes up is the long delay in the trials of Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid.
Court Response
The court maintained that a delay in the trial does not dilute the gravity of the case.
The court observed that the polarising material appeared prima facie true, and this played a key role in denying bail to them as alleged masterminds.
The court admitted that balancing individual rights with the nation’s security is never an easy task.
Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were not denied bail because of unfairness or a failure of the legal system. Their bail was rejected because the court found the material presented before it to be valid and credible.
However, unless this material, such as videos or posts, is made available for public viewing in a structured and responsible manner, many people will continue to believe that the legal system itself is fractured. Since I have seen the provocative videos and social media posts and gone through the case details, I do not doubt the court’s reasoning.
But the lack of transparency leaves room for misunderstanding. It also creates space for political parties and interest groups to selectively present facts and shape narratives for their own benefit. Should there not be a mechanism to clearly explain why and how such decisions are taken, along with supporting material, so that the ordinary citizen does not have to rely on fragments found on their own?
I watched Dhurandhar a few days back, and it has stayed with me ever since. It keeps running in my head – the songs, the action sequences, the passion for the country. The nationalist in me is satisfied.
For the first time in a long while, an Indian spy movie moved away from humanizing terrorism. That shift feels bold and necessary. The film forces you to sit with harsh truths instead of offering easy heroes and neat endings. It does not try to make violence look noble or harmless. That honesty is what makes Dhurandhar powerful, and also hard to shake off.
Personally, I felt a quiet mix of angst and sorrow when I saw some people brush the film off as propaganda or political. This view is subjective, but it still made me uneasy. The events shown are not opinions or theories. They happened. Calling a film like Dhurandhar propaganda does a disservice to the people who lost their lives in terrorist attacks. It dismisses real events that happened and real pain that was lived. These truths were not addressed openly for years, often out of fear or sheer convenience. When cinema finally creates space to tell these stories, the instinct should be to listen, not reject. The strong box office response shows that many people are ready to face uncomfortable realities. That response matters. Aditya Dhar deserves credit for choosing honesty over comfort. I have admired his films for consistently daring to tell stories most would rather avoid.
When the screen turned red, I could not hold back my tears. It made me emotional. But I also wondered if anyone watched that moment and felt nothing at all. That thought itself felt disturbing. Not feeling the pain of fellow Indians, or even a flicker of anger, says something deeper. In a country where apathy is already common, it is easy to believe some viewers saw it with blank eyes. For them, everything uncomfortable becomes propaganda, dismissed as an attempt to show Pakistan in a bad light.
Sometimes it feels like a lost cause to expect people to stand firmly with the country, without hesitation or filters. Many of us avoid the truth because it feels uncomfortable. We prefer to hide behind safe words like peace and love. But years of doing that came at a cost. We were taken for granted. Our suffering was questioned. Our stories were dismissed as lies or branded as conspiracy theories.
I think it is time for India to stand up for itself. We need to acknowledge our truth and stop looking away. Facing reality head-on is not hatred or extremism. It is honesty. Only when we accept what went wrong can we learn from it. Growth does not come from denial. It comes from clarity, courage, and accountability.
Now there are people who argue that this much truth does not belong on screen. If that were true, then why do we make social films like Homebound at all? Those films are also hard-hitting and deeply uncomfortable. Cinema has always helped bring difficult issues to the public in a more digestible way. Stopping that only pushes reality back into silence.
The violence in the movie is also being criticised, but real-world events prove how close such scenes are to the truth. The recent lynching of a Hindu man in Bangladesh is a grim reminder that brutality is not exaggerated fiction. Dhurandhar does not sugarcoat this reality, and that honesty is exactly why it matters.
Coming to the performances, while many are praising Akshaye Khanna, for me it was Ranveer Singh who truly stood out. His eyes did most of the talking, and it was brilliant to watch. There was a quiet intensity in his acting that stayed with me. Sara Arjun also impressed me with her performance and screen presence. She brought both grace and emotional weight to her role. The music deserves special mention too. It lingers in your mind and pulls you back into the world of Dhurandhar long after the film ends.
Overall, I would say Dhurandhar is a must-watch. It is not an easy film, but it is an important one. It stays with you long after the credits roll. I most probably would end up watching it again.
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 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.
The Monkey Dilemma 
You must be logged in to post a comment.