The following snippet is from a DEI study by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) in the U.S. The diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) program, originally meant to raise awareness, appears to have backfired in some areas. By framing everything through an “oppressor vs. oppressed” lens, it has ended up vilifying the Hindu Brahmin community, similar to the Jewish community.
While DEI narratives often focus on Islamophobia and racial discrimination, caste-based bias among American Hindus has largely remained outside the spotlight. Though widely recognized in India, caste discrimination has only recently started gaining attention in the U.S., leading to the introduction of caste-sensitivity training in schools, workplaces, and policy discussions. But did they have the desired effect? Studies show otherwise.
The vilification of Brahmins began in India, where they are often targeted for everything, from their dietary habits to their lifestyle choices. What should have remained a focused activism against caste discrimination has unfortunately expanded into a broader mockery of the community as a whole. Even Brahmins who reject caste-based thinking are not spared.
Like anyone else, a Brahmin does not choose the caste they are born into. So, isn’t attacking them solely for their birth also a form of casteism? Every community should be open to critique for its flaws, but no one should be dehumanized for simply existing.
Awareness is important, but this study shows that excessive activism can cross a line and end up vilifying an entire community. In the findings, respondents described Brahmins as “parasites,” “viruses,” and “the devil personified.” How is that fair, or even acceptable, in the name of social justice?
Religious fundamentalism is gradually rising in Kerala. Yet few dare to question it. Perhaps because it originates outside the Hindu community.
Members of the Muslim League, an ally of Congress in Kerala, now openly claim that the hijab is not a choice and are pushing for gender segregation in public spaces like the Mec7 exercise program. Recently, a religious leader criticized a Muslim widow for traveling to Manali, insisting that widows should remain at home and devote themselves to prayer. Others are now openly urging community members to refrain from participating in non-Muslim festivals, further deepening social divisions. Meanwhile, Hamas and Hezbollah supporters freely display posters of their leaders in Kerala, despite these groups’ ties to Pakistani terrorist organizations like JeM and LeT, which have carried out multiple attacks in India.
Was there any outrage from political parties or within the community? None at all.
When you point out the lack of internal criticism, the common response is that speaking out invites real danger and that reforms take time. While it’s true that advocating change within the Muslim community is difficult and radicals may threaten dissenters, how long must we wait? Another century? Should we remain silent and allow religious fundamentalism to grow unchecked? If no meaningful reforms have happened so far, what guarantees change in the future? If the community cannot challenge extremist views now, how will they resist when these forces become even stronger and impose their rules on others?
We are already seeing glimpses of this with the Waqf Board’s land disputes, where properties legally owned by other communities are being claimed. Why should non-Muslims be bound by Waqf rules? If the land originally belonged to Muslims, the claims may hold merit. However, many of these properties now belong to other communities. If they were encroachments, why did the Waqf Board fail to prevent them? In cases where the land was legally sold, why is it being reclaimed now? The Board’s mismanagement highlights the urgent need for Waqf reforms to prevent future disputes.
Unfortunately, political parties are misleading the Muslim community, falsely claiming that reforms would lead to property seizures. The reality is that corrupt politicians have more to lose than ordinary Muslims, especially the poor. Many are likely benefiting from Waqf properties, living in luxury through corruption. The revenue generated from Waqf assets is disproportionately low compared to their vast holdings, raising questions about where the money is going. Instead of being used for community development, it is likely being siphoned for personal gain.
This is why reforms are crucial. However, many in the community rely on their leaders for information, unaware that they are being misled. These leaders manipulate facts for their own interests, radicalizing and mobilizing people with lies. This is why it’s important that citizens seek information from multiple sources—both left- and right-leaning—to avoid being deceived.
It is a mistake to believe that only the BJP spreads communal hatred. Congress leaders have also exploited the Manipur issue, framing it as a Hindu vs. Christian conflict when it is, in fact, an ethnic dispute. When Hamas posters appear in Kerala and critics raise concerns, Congress dismisses them as “Islamophobia.” This selective outrage makes them unreliable as leaders. They are vocal against Hindu extremism but silent when it comes to Islamist fundamentalism.
Some progressive Muslims argue that meaningful reforms require both external pressure, such as government intervention, and internal efforts from within the community. However, in India, any government-led push for reform risks being labeled Islamophobic. This, in turn, gives radicals more ammunition and invites criticism from the Western world, which often misinterprets such actions as oppression rather than necessary change. Moreover, since Hindus form the majority, any move by the Indian government is framed as an attack on Muslims, further polarizing the discourse and making genuine reform even harder to achieve.
At this point, the situation feels like a deadlock. Either we wait indefinitely for internal reforms, which may never come, or the government steps in, triggering backlash and further polarization. Both paths are fraught with challenges, and in either case, things could turn messy. The fear of being labeled Islamophobic limits external intervention, while internal resistance to change keeps fundamentalist views unchecked. This leaves little room for meaningful progress, making the prospect of reform seem increasingly distant.
Wholesome movies are rare these days in Indian cinema, making them feel like an oasis in a desert when they do appear. The demand for feel-good movies is higher than ever, as seen in the success of re-releases like Laila Majnu and Sanam Teri Kasam, which prove that Indian audiences are eager for romance and uplifting cinema. It is during such a time that The Mehta Boys has arrived on OTT (Amazon Prime).
The Mehta Boys is a poignant, understated father-son drama centered on their dysfunctional relationship. Open communication and emotional expression are not their strengths, often leaving them struggling for words. Boman Irani portrays a grieving husband learning to cope with his loss, while Avinash Tiwary plays his talented yet self-doubting son. The heart of the story lies in their journey toward accepting each other’s imperfections.
We often see such father-son dynamics play out in real life. In many Indian families, open displays of affection are rare, making the relationship feel more formal than familial. Conversations typically revolve around daily chores and future plans, with emotions deliberately left out. The Mehta Boys captures this dynamic perfectly, portraying characters who have much to say but choose to hide behind silence.
Boman Irani has done an exceptional job as a first-time director, leaving me eager to see what he creates next. Avinash Tiwary, as always, excels, effortlessly bringing out the angst, anxiety, and awkwardness of a character who gradually finds his voice. He shines, leaving you wondering why you don’t get to see him on-screen more frequently. Instead, audiences are repeatedly offered star kids given endless chances to prove themselves, while talented actors like Avinash, who have already showcased their brilliance in just a film or two, are left waiting. It’s unfair, but all one can do is wait for movies like The Mehta Boys to arrive, offering a well-deserved cinematic experience.
For the uninitiated, in February 2025, during the annual Uroos festival at a mosque in Thrithala, Palakkad district, Kerala, a procession featured banners displaying images of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders.
These banners were prominently displayed atop elephants. The event drew over 3,000 participants and sparked widespread controversy and discussions on social media. Critics questioned the organizers’ decision to include images of individuals associated with designated terrorist organizations. The participation of local political figures, including Congress leader VT Balram and Minister MB Rajesh, further intensified the debate. They maintained the status quo of excusing terror sympathizers by criticizing media outlets for allegedly using the incident to target the Muslim community and Kerala at a national level.
During a News18 Kerala debate, a Malayalee Muslim from Palakkad admitted that what happened at the Uroos was wrong. However, he dismissed concerns by saying, “The event was organized by kids who randomly picked images from the Internet. They had no idea who these people were, so we shouldn’t make a big deal out of it.”
This raises an important question: Why is it that when left to “randomly” select images, they chose figures linked to terror groups instead of respected Muslim leaders, scientists, or sports personalities? A former Indian Army officer who was stationed in Kashmir responded thoughtfully: “If they were simply Googling, why not Abdul Kalam, cricketers like Siraj or Shami, or Muslim soldiers who died protecting our nation? Why did they choose a group in cahoots with Pakistani militant groups like LeT and JeM? Instead of dismissing this, we should educate young people about who should be admired and who should not. Only then can our nation progress. We also cannot keep excusing such incidents as the actions of innocent children. Recently in Europe, a teenager attempted a suicide bombing, and in another case, four children from the same family were radicalized into extremism.”
The Malayalee panelist logged out before responding, but a Muslim League leader acknowledged the need for change. However, like many others accused of spreading hate, he quickly shifted the discussion, saying, “Yes, all of this is bad, BUT Israel is committing genocide.”
This pattern of deflection is becoming more common. When doctors in Australia were suspended for their hate speech, the response from left-leaning supporters and a major Australian Muslim group was, “They should not have been suspended because Israel is committing genocide.” When California faced wildfires, some even claimed, “Well deserved because the U.S. supplies arms to Israel.”
The Israel-Hamas war is being used to justify hate and extremism worldwide. While criticism of geopolitical events is valid, it cannot be a shield for promoting radicalism or excusing problematic behavior.
If we applied the same logic, we could say, “Islamophobia is wrong, BUT Islamist groups like ISIS have mass-murdered people.” That would be an absurd and dangerous argument, just as deflecting discussions on extremism with geopolitical grievances is.
Condemning violence and radicalization should not come with conditions. No ifs or buts—wrong is wrong, no matter who commits it.
Why don’t we see progressive Muslim nations like the UAE and Bahrain glorify Hamas on the streets, unlike India? Because they understand the consequences— supporting such groups could destabilize their own countries and invite extremism. They firmly recognize the Muslim Brotherhood, the group from which Hamas originated, as a terrorist organization and have banned it, seeing it as a source of extremism. In contrast, many Western countries have not taken similar action in their attempt to uphold secular values. This could also explain why leaders of many Muslim nations maintain ties with Modi, meeting him and discussing business, decorating him with awards and honors, instead of ostracizing him. They likely recognize where some of the propaganda against him stems from.
The Love Queen of Malabar is a captivating exploration of the life of Kamala Das, also known as Kamala Surayya, one of India’s most celebrated poets. Written by Merrily Weisbord, the book is thought-provoking, highly controversial, poetic, melancholic, and at times, shocking.
Kamala Das shares her deepest emotions with Merrily, treating her as a confidante in revealing thoughts that range from lyrical to unexpected. While the book may not appeal to everyone, it left a lasting impression on me—an eye-opener that offered a rare glimpse into the intimate world of a literary icon.
I have carefully selected some non-controversial quotes from the book. Not everything Kamala says can be shared publicly due to its sensitive nature. However, the quotes listed here provide insight into Kamala’s thoughtful persona and capture the essence of Merrily’s book.
“A writer moves away from family, old relationships, very far with the speed of a falling star,” she says. “Otherwise the writer is destroyed, and only the member of the family remains: the mother, sister, daughter, wife. The writer at some point must ask, Do I want to be a well-loved member of the family? Or do I want to be a good writer? You can’t be both at the same time. The days when you are with the children and are being a very good mother, you cease to be the writer. You feel repelled by the pen and the paper, which are definitely going to come between you and your loved ones.”
“Because the writer can give all of herself only to that task of writing. She will have to write against her loved one, put him under the microscope, dissect him, analyze his thoughts, his words. After a while he is no longer the man you held in your arms at night. You have cut him into little slivers, everything is burst open, he is seeds and pulp and juice all spread out in little bits on your writer’s table. After that, you can’t go to his arms the same way.”
If I had not learned to write how would I have written away my loneliness or grief? Garnering them within my heart would have grown heavy as a vault, one that only death might open, a release then I would not be able to feel or sense.
“Ask the books that I read why I changed,” she says. “Ask the authors dead and alive who communicated with me and gave me the courage to be myself.”
“Make a woman laugh, then make her cry, that is the secret of a good film. Not make her cry, cry, cry. What message is that for women today?”
Her dislike of organized religion is so much more pronounced than on my last visit that I wonder if any beliefs remain to comfort her. “Yes,” she answers. “A concept of God. A presence in my room. I’m not alone. I visualize a shower of moonlight falling on someone in prayer. It is a soothing exercise. I feel bathed in light, and I know there is a God.”
She tells me that even in Kerala, which prides itself on religious coexistence, she is still being attacked from both sides. The Hindu Sangh Parivar, an association of Hindu nationalist organizations, protests her ownership of the snake shrine on her own ancestral property at Nalapat because she is a Muslim. The Muslims are “disgusted” with her because she speaks against their practices and clergy, refusing to support sectarian politics she finds unpalatable. “They feel they are losing their grip on me.”
Western countries often criticize India, accusing it of restricting the religious freedom of minorities. For a long time, I was puzzled by this, as I saw minorities freely attending their religious places without any problems. On the other hand, Hindus in Jammu require police protection to visit their religious sites due to the ongoing threat of terrorism. So, where is this accusation truly coming from?
One of the main reasons many Christians oppose the BJP is that the party has significantly restricted international funds meant for proselytization. These funds were often misused in India to attract economically disadvantaged citizens into converting, with promises of financial assistance tied to conversion. As a result, conversions were driven more by economic pressures and manipulation than genuine faith.
Countries like the USA actively fund missionary programs, with groups such as the evangelical World Vision and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) advocating for unrestricted proselytization as a form of religious freedom. They often cite Article 18 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR), which asserts that every individual “has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief…” This interpretation forms the basis for their criticism of India, accusing the country of limiting religious freedom and ranking it low in the religious freedom index. A 2012 article written by Dr Aseem Shukla explains this point brilliantly (hinduamerican.org/blog/proselytism-conversion-to-intolerance/).
This raises an important question: why offer monetary assistance only after conversion? Why not provide help based on humanitarian principles, without attaching religious conditions? When people are lured into faith through financial incentives, it undermines the integrity of the belief system itself. Shouldn’t conversions be driven by genuine faith and conviction, rather than economic manipulation or coercion?
Unfortunately, that’s not the reality for many. People are being lured into changing their religion through manipulation, whether through money or other means. I personally know several individuals who converted simply because they were promised financial support. What’s even more surprising is that younger generations are now making conversion a prerequisite for marriage. It’s hard to comprehend how, in today’s world, people still can’t accept different faiths and feel the need to demand conversion from their partner for the sake of marriage. Is this really secularism? Or love? I discussed this topic on this blog after watching a show, Nobody Wants This, on Netflix some time ago.
I’m currently reading a book about Kamala Das, The Love Queen of Malabar, written by a Canadian author, where it’s mentioned that Kamala was pressured to claim her conversion was out of faith, not love. The reasoning behind this was that saying she converted for love would diminish the strength of her faith. However, after her partner left her, she felt deeply depressed. The book suggests that the man she loved had been financially incentivized by foreign entities to convert Kamala. Later, Kamala wished to return to Hinduism but feared for her life and her family’s safety, including her grandchildren. Her sons even used to correct her whenever she, by habit, uttered the name of her former god, as they were afraid it might anger radicals and put their family at risk.
Why manipulate people into conversion? Let them choose to convert out of genuine faith – that is true religious freedom, not a process driven by external incentives.
The new government has largely restricted predatory conversion tactics by limiting international funds and addressing radical elements within society. This is one of the primary reasons the Indian government is widely criticized globally.
The propaganda against India has a broader base compared to the narratives propagated by BJP supporters. It’s easier for these narratives to spread, as the Christian and Muslim communities form larger global groups compared to the Hindu community. With such a widespread network, sensational news spreads quickly and easily. Adding to this challenge is the Hindu community’s general reluctance to actively counter exaggerated news, making it even harder to protect India’s image.
Many who believe in proselytization through unfair means seek the removal of the current government to restore previous practices. This is probably why they complain about every small issue and often manipulate facts to present one-sided stories. By focusing on selective narratives, they aim to undermine the current administration and bring back the old ways.
The narratives about India are often more complex than they appear in the media or through agenda-driven sources. They tend to present only one side of the story, exaggerating it to evoke emotional reactions. This is why it’s crucial to consult both left and right-wing media to gain a more balanced perspective. Otherwise, you risk forming judgments based on incomplete or biased information.
The Monkey Dilemma 
You must be logged in to post a comment.