Professor Romila Thapar is one of the most popular historians of India.

In a freewheeling conversation with Siddharth Varadarajan, the celebrated historian discusses the place of nationalism in contemporary Indian politics, the role of the media and of the public intellectual. #RomilaThapar #SiddharthVaradarajan #TheWire

Visit our website for more: www.thewire.in
Facebook:
Twitter:

professor unless after thank you very much for agreeing to this interview the broad theme which is a question that has been animating a lot of people in India of course but also well wishes of India around around the world which is is critical thinking in India somehow under threat imposing this question I have in mind not just overt or covert pressures from the state or political figures of political authority but also in the sense public attitudes the growing case to my mind tendency for the public to acquiesce in the state's own intolerant attitude towards descent to the difference the middle classes the East resistant middle class buys into hero-worshipped culture personality excesses valorisation of the nation these are all very much part of present-day India and if you look at the election of Donald Trump if you look at political trends in Europe then clearly this may also be in some sense a global phenomenon even though the closing of the Indian mind if I would call it that has been going on for some time and I would say longer than the tenure of the spread in government you could trace it back at least they came along there is a sense in which these negative trends and accentuated were sharpened over the past two and half years if in 2015 we saw in the country we the weight over tolerance and intolerance which was really a critique on the part of artists writers cultural personalities of the Gumbel's own tolerance or toleration of violence and shamanism and its failure to act when minorities were being targeted and this all the way in which the government was very quickly even intellectuals wrote against the government auditor and then it was and so on and that is very sixteen the attack seems so shifted to the university you saw the events in the way they unfolded in Devon enero University I would say things are moved on we have a very toxic media environment where excessive jingoism seems to become the norm and broadly speaking you have a situation the executive branch of government is encroaching on or making inroads in virtually every countervailing institution that this country has the judiciary Parliament we've now seen even the central bank not to speak in the media etc in this kind of an environment where to my mind critical thinking in India is under threat how do you see the role of public intellectuals what should they be doing what is their role if any in dealing with this kind of situation well you raise the voice of issues before I get out to the public intellectual let me just say that I think you know I be disturbed like all of us have been disturbed by not just what has been happening in our country but the worldwide thing and the election of Trump was certainly a startling wake-up call as it were and I think it does raise a couple of questions which which need to be answered which is that why have we why are we losing the sense of critical inquiry that we always appreciated and and I mean it is through the idea of the critical inquiry is usually associated with the middle class people coming from the middle class and there is an element there of very conventional thinking largely but there is also an element of dissent and I think that one should really look at what is happening there as well and admittedly it's true that the dissent has not been as vocal as as one would a thought which does add to the notion that there is a decline and there is in fact a decline of critical inquiry but I think the two issues that it does bring up very strongly to my way of thinking one is the whole question of the in oceans and structures of democracy have we come to a point today where we have to rethink what those institutions and structures should be we've always based ourselves on things like elections representation how do you represent opinion and people and so on the articulation of people's ideas for whole question of majoritarianism and so on is this sufficient or do we have to go beyond this now and consider the fact that there seem to be all these people coming into power on really a minority votes I mean one third is hardly a majority vote and yet the process is apps that they have gone to pass even Trump's water is not such an overwhelming vital off the problem you know in avoid so I think that there is a need now for people to sit down and say write democracy means these basic institutions but how do we make them effective how do we make them more representative how do we allow people to participate much more and determine in a sense other than just giving a vote the one man one who would say I think has been now overplayed and I'm not suggesting that we take away the vote but how do we strengthen that how do we do something to make that work much more effective and encourage people to come out and vote because there's a lot of sitting back and saying I don't like the system I'm not interested I won't vote that's one set of questions we have to address and the other I think came to me very strongly that you know America was always laid presented as not just the democratic systems but also a highly educated society and by all accounts it is a highly educated society what went wrong with the education what is it about the content of Education that we need to now consider much more seriously than we've done before and this applies to to India equally much in fact much more even because of education in this country how many people ask the question of what are you actually teaching the child you're giving the child information you're expecting the child to repeat that information and all this business about objective questions and the certain the other is really the over cataclysmic style of you're given a determined question a predetermined question you're given a presumed answer that's what you pick now for me the essentials qualifier in any kind of educational system is teaching a child to think critically to ask questions we're not doing that in fact we have ministers who stand up and say you can't outs conditions hmm well I'm at the National anti-national to us or if you if you have questions about black money reasons because you have black because you have Glanville you see now I mean this is an absurdity which I think needs to be torn apart because the whole purpose of education is to train people to ask questions and unless you do that unless you produce a citizenship that is questioning it's going to be very very difficult to have intelligent debates on the representation of people in a democracy I think that is very important and there again I mean you know it's all very well to say that America has very good schools and all the rest of it but what are they teaching are they in fact teaching this or does this critical inquiry element come in at the university level and even then for most of the majority of American citizens exists so so I do feel very strongly about that there are these institutions that we take for granted in a democratic system which maybe we need to look at now more critically and question the effect that they are having on the whole issue of the kind of governance that's coming our way now this is something yes that the educationists and other people need to think about very carefully and certainly the public intellectual plays an important role in this and when I say the public intellectual plays an important role what do i how do i define the public intellectual the public intellectual is a person who is in a profession first of all it's professional person it's a person who is respected in his or her profession it's not just anybody it's not just any journalist but it's the journalists who has a reputation of being good or you know a social scientists or a scientist for that matter it's somebody who is respected the person is respected the person is respected for the fact that the knowledge that he tries to convey to the public is reliable knowledge you know it's not fantasies of just getting up and spouting but he knows what he's talking about thirdly I think it's terribly important that a person like that must have a sense of ethics and that is something that we're rapidly losing both in the practice of politics in the practice of governance in the practice of Education and so on the bringing back of not saying this is good in this is bad and you have to be moral about this so moral about that but the sense of asking the question each time is this ethical or not which is a question that we have insist to ask early so I think that that is terribly important in the making of a public intellectual the relationship of with advocate intellectual to society is that the public intellectual must have a concern for civil society must have a concern for the rights the duties the rights the obligations citizens to a state and wherever this is not being brought to the fore helped to bring it before and finally very importantly the public intellectual is there to protect the rights and the obligations of the citizen and that protection I think is really fundamental especially in situations where people get by with all kinds of gimmick Riis people get by with all kinds of dishonest ease and it's terribly important that there be a scatter of public intellectuals visible audible saying sorry this is not the way to do it and to protect those rights if you're right in tracing some of the recent developments that people find so unfathomable in some ways to problems in the way the university systems function that would in a way suggest reason why for the current dispensation in India zeroing in on universities is so important and why universities that in some sense emerges the front line for official interference official action as well as the distance and what's been remarkable over the last say two and a half years beginning with the film students at the FTII and Pune and then you had the agitation of students of in the unity of has herbivores vemula's suicide and then in JNU other campuses is that students and faculty members don't seem to be taking this assault on their autonomy and their their right to think critically lying down do you think that whole gospel promise for the way the situation may evolves well I think after a point is logical we have had an element of two things we have had an element of suggesting that education means critical thinking certainly in universities like the JNU for example from day one we have said to students you've got to ask questions stop us and ask questions think about what you're reading and writing inquire into what you're reading and writing so that has been an element in some institutions what is interesting is that the institutions that are picked on our institutions that have had a trace of critical inquiry I mean they're not picking on any university and any institution they pick on those where people have learned to think slightly independently and in addition to that of course you've got the other feature which is certainly important and that is it in any kind of democratic system and I think up to a point we have been developing this in the past but there are certain institutions that can claim autonomy and universities are amongst those universities and research institutions of a higher level and they must not only claim it they must protect their autonomy and I think part of this problem has been precisely that people have seen that the autonomy of the university or the autonomy of the institution is being infringed in a very serious way and it's important to maintain this autonomy because you cannot have a democratic system in which the government controls absolutely everything you have to have some institutions that are beyond government control that are zones now many of us have been arguing I mean take take the case of something like textbooks many of us have been arguing the last decade or more that the agencies that produce textbooks should be a handled only by professionals be that they should be autonomous of government so agencies like the NC er T should be autonomous bodies manned by social scientists scientists and so on who supervised the writing of textbooks and it doesn't mean that every time the government changes the textbooks change remain to open up this is what happens now we've reduced it to an absolute joke no one takes them seriously I mean I get telephone calls from parents saying what do I tell my child who's sitting from the CBSE exam did awkward marriage over by or did he not and I mean you know history has been reduced to those kinds of questions now so I think it is extremely important with the autonomy of institutions be underlined and protected and this is one area in which public intellectuals do play an important role right in addition to the professionals now professionals as a group in this country tend to be partly because these institutions the government funded they tend to argue that if the funds are coming from government we have to listen to what government says but when you have change ability in government policy surely it is the right of the professionals to say this is the policy that we require and you know if there is to be a change it has come from professionals and not from a bureaucrat or a politician who has a whim or a fantasy that it should be done in a particular way here you're battling actually an older older legacy issue which is the over bureaucratization in some ways of Education where even to change or update the syllabus requires several committee meetings perhaps going various levels higher you know then then we measured faculty other games that yeah and you know the fact that this can be done much more simply is something that we demonstrated when we started the JNU it was it was a university that did not follow any other syllabus of any other university we talked about it we discussed it we debated it we worked it out very carefully and we made a bit of that and it worked I mean and that is one of the things that one is in in those of us who are in academia when things were really frightened of that autonomy to think and that autonomy to work out a syllabus in the curriculum and teach it that may go yes sometimes you've been zeroing in on the importance of asking questions this is the fundamental problem of our time and academia is one area where this has to take place but obviously the media is the other important you know sector of society where a questioning attitude has to be adopted and it's quite alarming to me as a journalist to see how the practice of journalism has shifted from a profession where in a Weibull took pride in being adversarial ya against those in authority to a situation where big media today prides itself in being the functions keeper of the state functions keeper of the nation egging the state on to battle in the more disturbing fashion against enemies be the external or internal how coupled are you by the way in which media culture in this country has evolved I don't know how much of our television news watcher you are but there's a lot says pretty horrid that's out there night after night oh I think one of the reasons why are ceased being a television news watcher or a television watcher as it were it's precisely because I find it absolutely indigestion I mean you sit there and look at what is being presented and and you say how can we do this you know it's a deliberate sort of in many cases and many channels it's the delivers misleading in other channels it's a refusal to ask questions again you know back to the to that I mean you have a crisis you have a crisis which involves for example the adivasi community whether it is the worship of their sacred mountain or whether it is the demand for a better life that is going on in central India and buses or how many news channels have actually gone to a divisive villages and asked the other RC people why they are supporting or opposing the nuptials however you get people from Delhi who are commenting on this all the time but go ask the people who are actually involved in it you don't do that I mean with the exception of one or two channels by and large there is a tendency to have quantification from certain predictable people on every issue and that is really not what is the media's role at least as I see it I mean there again little myself the role of the media is simply to entertain which I don't accept because I think that if the media is in fact the medium of communication then it has to do much more than that then it has to do things like having serious discussions and I don't buy this every time I talk to media people television people and say why don't you raise the level of your discussions and why don't you at least half an hour every evening have a really serious discussion by people who are professionally but to talk about the subject and they say we lose our viewership now I don't buy that at all so this old alibi that we are giving readers of yours what they want where are you I don't think so I think that you can change readerships demands by giving them something better I mean French television for example is a lovely case of where they started years ago they started a program adding half an hour or 40 minutes of book reviewing they take one book and they get three people to discuss that book and it became one of the most popular programs in front now France is not a highly extra highly educated country it's normal like any European country and I think the point of course is that you have a variety of people who are looking in you give them that variety of programs but somewhere you make sure that the quality of the variety on giving them is a little higher than just the lowest common denominator and that is where I think the the media doesn't really reach out it doesn't when there is a problem it doesn't reach out to the people who are concerned with that problem and ask questions about you know why they're concerned what their concern is what the problem is you can't generalize sitting it as a distance you have to go out and that going out is not enough like this the chieftain in official discourse you know if you wanted if you were confronted with an uncomfortable point of view in the past the obvious tactic would be to ignore it or to starve the department of funds or to ensure that future hiring took place in a different kind of way today the government all these people in authority seem to have successfully mobilized a section of the media to actually assist them in the attack on university autonomy the attack on on critical thinking the attack on just differences of opinion I mean bunch of kids shouting slogans or a professor videotaped giving a lecture clips of that being shown and public sentiment being cited that oh look at what our university is up to this is really something new and very very dangerous well I think it's it's the use of media now not to communicate and not not not not to communicate the reality but to propagate ideology this is the different use of the media altogether I mean I was very struck by the fact that last year when we had this outburst on intolerance and so on various TV channels asked me to do interviews and I did some and those were shown even though I I said things in a very direct fashion to channels important channels invited me we fixed the day in the time and then I was right up until the very sorry we're not given attention for him and I thought to myself that if for a simple interview of 10 minutes you have to take the mission from Joe Corbett I then Raimi where is the autonomy is the media right right exactly now this is something that's media has always had problems with this country and I've been a journalist after 20 years and have worked in media opposition's in a situation where we've had four or five maybe six times it says narsimha now they to governor watched by Google manone and then in the Lodi Dodi but climates today is really quite different in the sense that media proprietors are far more risk-averse far less willing to ask questions far less willing to have their people ask questions and far more willing to you know clamp down on you know whether it's an interview or a debate topic or an append there is a sense in which you know certain kinds of questions will not be tolerated and I think this is really what's what's alarming people you know you still have media freedom and academic freedom for all intents and purposes but if important areas of questions of inquiry are shut out and not aired that creates the problem you see the two reasons for that I mean that is happening it does create a problem one is you shut it out because you don't want anyone to have a dissenting opinion and you want everybody to agree to what is going on but you do that because you have a sense of insecurity you yourself are not confident and secure enough to say it doesn't matter we have a discussion some people would take an opposite point of view and some people won't but when you're frightened of that when you're frightened of opposition and dissent then you resort to this idea of shutting people up or not allowing people to speak on the media right now one of the aspects of present-day politics in India is that you have a ruling party the party isn't a party and it's parent organization to son for Iran and of course of host of affiliated bodies which give the RSS and the BJP plausible deniability because when they act and do things that are quite terrible the government or the ruling party can say well we have nothing to do with them but they all essentially sink to the same broad tune then that tune in illogical terms has been you know a Hindu nationalism in duchamp but what I'm afraid you won't use the Hindu theology and we've seen elements of that ideology coming into play over the last two and a half years but I get the sense that somewhere down the line not just the prime minister or the BJP or the RSS but the whole wide asan parivar has latched on to the idea of the nation and the nation on the threat as being a far more potent vehicle for their kind of politics we've we've seen of course in this in the campaign against JNU which is where in a ways this whole thing started where they accuse students having a key national in the basis of shouting slogans because there will be seditions then you had the soil controversy about how politicians and people must say Bharat Mata ki jai and if you don't then somehow you are being at the national and there's that of course the entire discourse over terrorism the so-called surgical strikes even the campaign against black money is all being cast in the language of nation cutting their hair the nation is in danger and if you don't stand with the government at this time that somehow you are being unpatriotic and most recently we've seen even the Supreme Court of India passages weren't making it mandatory for the national anthem to be played in movie halls and this prescribed in my new detail as the doors must be closed and flags must show the screen as a historian of course as a public intellectual but as installing you have a long view of these things where is this coming from why why is nation nationalism Bharath matha why is this required so much of salience today and is there some easy way in which critics of the government can deal with this kind of pressure because once you go around that whole nation under threat or jingoism it's a slippery slope and you know you have TV channels now I don't recall earlier referring to every dead soldiers a matter but you know every channel ourselves you know soldiers imatra so the whole language of public discourse has become very overtly nationalist which leaves me little worried as a journalist and so what is he was a historian but how do you look at how do you explain this new sail you found salience as a nation as well I think it hasn't become overtly nationalist it's become a work lee nationís of a particular type you know one of the problems is that me let me now be in storage and so to be a little academic on this nationalism is a stage in history it's not something that goes back to the vedic period or the book period or removal period or anything that kind it is a change that societies undergo when they when they start turning towards things like industrialization and capitalism and so on the middle class emerges as the most important body I mean this is just simple history but there it is and nationalism emerges as a way of restructuring the different communities into a new identity and value system and what is the identity the identity is the citizen you move from being a subject of a kingdom to being the Citizen of a nation and the nation is one category among the world series of states I mean you've had clans societies you've had kingdoms you had monarchies Empire so now you have a nation-state that the state is a nation what has happened in this process is a kind of Miss information or not in information but but that's a form of of disguising nationalism to mean the community that you wish to give priority to and this happened in the Indian case where who had an all-india nationalism that talked about the coming Indians in colonial times and you had a series of other nationalisms pre-eminently Islamic Muslim nationalism and Hindu nationalism they talked about the coming of the state of a religious guy you had Pakistan on the one hand and you have the Hindu Rashtra in the 1930s being defined and the difference is that a general Nash nationalism of a nation brings all the communities together and gives them a new identity as a citizen and the new identity is the Equality of everybody equal rights to social justice in the law equal rights to resources distribution and so on human rights are guaranteed in the and the goals of being a citizen but what happens in the case of varieties of nationalism is whether it's religious or caste or linguistic that particular group is to be given priority and so in the Hindu Rashtra you have as has been amply written about extensively you have the Hindu citizen being a notch higher because he has the territory of British India as his patrimony and as Pune Musab occurs yes that is really what the whole it immediately some favored RSS thesis is based on now there is therefore a contradiction here a tension between what many of us understand as nationalism as such and what they understand by nationalism which is Hindu Dash's the it's not the same thing at all and in a democratic setup where you're talking about the representation of everybody every citizen you cannot say some citizens are not Chavez and you cannot give more priority to some citizens everybody has to be absolutely equal now what do you do then in order to get round this question of defining nationalism as the ideology of the city which means equal rights we laws the serving of laws nor the rest of it and slightly edging in either a religious or linguistic or costume you do it through slogans so when you look at the slogans that they're giving you the slogans are all slogans that really deal with the superiority of the Hindu they're not slogans that deal with the citizen as such you know the the a religion of citizens they're going to get the concept they to give that concept and and this creates a further problem this kind of nationalism is suggestive of another problem in democracy which is in a sense democracy's dependent on being secular you cannot have a democracy where you have predetermine majorities of whatever kind in a democracy an issue comes up and the majority goes from every comes from every part of society and takes a decision and the next issue that comes up has a totally different constituent of majority it doesn't have the same thing right therefore how do you kind of ensure without saying that you are a Hindu state how do you ensure that in fact these little indicator words are going to give an identity to the citizen would you do it entirely by doing this and and in a sense I think that this whole vigilante activity as it is called which is activity that is meant to create terror in the alley by people who are formerly outside the state but who are fully implicit to implicate you like yourself and they're doing precisely this they're bringing in this element into the definition of what is the nationhood but of course it did build on you know when the when the BJP or the RSS talks of they they embraced in a formal sense the idea they say we need genuine secularism they criticized as being pseudo secular and what they do is that they they question the democratic states need – in a way act in the sense of sections which may be linguistic or religious minorities who are disadvantaged in some way they would decry that as a piece of interns per second or when they latch on to those sorts of protections which are very granular roles in any in a philosophical sense but they would hold that as somehow subverting the concept of equal citizenship but in fact is it's not the great thing is that your own concept of the nation is not supporting equal citizen merit Foley and and your programs are not supporting equal citizenship least of your programs are supporting equal citizenship one would say yes it's alright but you can't allow a situation where some people are more vulnerable than others and yet talk about equal citizenship and this also guys in a little bit with our definition of secularism where we keep on talking about the coexistence of religion and I've been trying to argue that it's more than that in the sense it is not just the coexistence it's the equal rights of every religion to human rights to the constitutional laws etc etc and secondly it is that there are certain areas of social functioning where you don't allow religious organizations to pour the shots right that they have to be secular they have to be you know through secular institutions and should not be governed by any religious organization I mean in a sense education also is is one of those issues which is going to come up as if we go on becoming more and more genuinely secular this issue will come up in a big wave if the rise of the concept of citizens and citizenship is central along with the whole discourse or the need for equal rights equal claims and resources is central to the idea of the nation the wait historically evolved this ironic that in today's – rationalist times you know you have valorisation valorisation of the nation happening beside will attempts to convert the citizen back into being a subject in some sense yeah you will stand up yeah you will surrender your money right if you don't do this if you don't do what we say then somehow you are against the nation so in the language of nation and nationalism the city over the strip diversity you see again that seems to me to be there's an element of insecurity there where you have to tell the citizens that you will do such-and-such to prove that you're a good national news ever absent papers saying these are your fundamental duty duties they don't do it for right no that's it that they don't talk about right and and they don't concede that the citizen has the right to say I'm sorry but I would like the issue of Kashmir of bus fare of the our d'Ivoire sees or whatever it may be the ballots here the burning of churches there whatever it is our issue I would like a discuss publicly the media should be taking up these discussions and saying the different points of view and so on there's nothing anti-national about having discussions on these issue but but again if it senses insecurity then you start saying you have to do this and you have to do this you have to do that some liberals and electrons respond to the excessive nationalism of our times by the way rejecting the idea of the nation do you think in this country the public intellectual how does one begin lecture negotiate our way around this whole question is it is is the language of this course of the nation still relevant and an essential part of of public discussion or is it the category that perhaps no longer enjoys the kind of salience that it once did well I think that the fact that there is a debate going on on what is meant by the nation and a national and nationalism means that the nation hasn't ready got firmly embedded this discussion will go on but because it is a Oracle see as I see it I also see that there are some parts of the world where they have moved beyond the nation European Union with one I mean when you consider the relationship between France and Germany and how deeply nationalism is in there and here is tied into territory I mean and I think this is partly the result of cartography in the abilities draw maps and boundary lines and so on and the boundary line becomes absolutely the firm divider all of this I think is something which is part of a historical phase and if it can be changed in as it was changed in Europe though wooden sword the Navy coming back to the idea of the nation again but at least for a period of time they weren't one can think of a possibility of a future fifty years down the line when national boundaries may not be so important who knows historian – no don't make predictions but there is an openness about the future it's not that that historically let me say that the ideal affiliation is not something that will go from now to eternity so it will undergo some changes but what those changes will be one doesn't know one of the things which alarms me personally and I'm sure a lot of other people who watch what has happened in India or Europe or the u.s. is a growing tendency among you know large sections of I would say the middle class for want of a better term to buy into the culture you know cult of leadership to be seduced by sloganeering of one kind vacuous logan's of one kind of the other wild and completely crazy proposals that politicians make as a means of addressing you know perhaps not even real problems which is why I feel that the pressure critical thinking and the pressure on the public intellectual comes not just from the state and those who echo its concerns directly but also from the shifting terrain in among the public what explains this is this product of political culture education what explains the public willingness to go along with a certain kind of retrogressive narratives well it's sometimes explained by the uncertainty and the insecurities of the times we're living in now I don't know whether this is particular to our times or whether it was the case earlier if I look back in my own lifetime certainly one had the feeling I was a child in the 30s and in school in the 40s one had the feeling that life is secure it was determined and yet at the same time the national movement was going on so as one grew a little older and became aware of the world around one man realized that there was an extreme tension going on which somehow one didn't feel so much now I think one of the things that happened is that we have really in especially in the late 20th century gone through tremendous revolutions of change apart from actual revolutions both the Russian and the Chinese in the aftermath of those which have demonstrated that what was desired didn't actually happen creating uncertainty there and others like the technological revolutions now I mean some of us were reasonably intelligent and able to handle technology and so on are still very uncertain about how we're going to handle this because it's going so fast and you know I'm constantly ringing up my grandnephew and saying can you tell me how I do this guys's way because it's beyond me now that's very exciting if you can handle that technology but on the other and if you feel uncertain about this it creates a certain insecurity will I be able to manage or not everybody says now you have to switch the netbanking and I'm sitting there saying how does one do knit that I can will someone please teach me there's that then you have been living as an isolated nation you're very proud of your independence and your autonomy and so on of which your economic growth in the 60s and the 70s was a very major part as indeed was the crisis of the 90s when you switched you switched into a market economy where you're mixing and battling and being friends with all kinds of people and you're really little uncertain because your own economic future is not any longer independent it's tied into the future of others which adds to a further kind of uncertainties and I think in all of this it's very comforting to feel that there's somebody up there who's looking after you who you feel well if I express my loyalty and faith in this first proposal got off slightly slightly like the tendency towards religion you put your faith in something else and you do it in all honesty and you do it with absolute you know clarity that that is where you want to put your faith may be an element of that that you know when the uncertainty goes or lessons or becomes different people will begin to become much more autonomous because a baker even back at the 40s that one against the tendency to have the cult of hero worship he of course meant Guardian gender yeah but that's something that could equally apply to modern day India well that that is certainly something that nationalism does bring the culture hero worship everywhere in the world where you had strong national movements you have that hero worship because in a sense it's the hero that sort of leads you all that takes you into places and makes a different human being out of you citizen out of you and that kind of thing and of course we have always thought history from the point of view of the euro it's only now recently that it's begun to change and people are talking about the parson in an indifferent term so that's always been there and there's always been this sense of the utopia India was great in the time of Ashoka and up were and that kind of thing who knows what the reality was whereas we can't go back into the bus but nevertheless there is that face and so you know even today feel this is there is a strong person who's handling governance then you put your faith in that person right or that most remember that thank you so much for this conversation

32 thoughts on “Romila Thapar on nationalism and the role of public intellectuals #RomilaThapar

  1. As a Jewish Israeli, I declare this woman Romila Thapar as a PURE RACIST NAZI EVIL.

    The Aryan Theory is fake, there is no race called Aryan, Abrahamic religions NEVER claimed it ever – until the Racist British Christian missionaries in their genocidal agenda towards Hindus in India & Jews in Europe invented the fake race theory to justify their genocidal empire rather than be rightly accused of being invaders of Asia & Africa.

    Leftist Historians like Romila Thapar are aligned with White Supremacists of the West in propagating this fake racist aryan race myth even today & it can be seen in their political hatred for Hindu India & Jewish Israel vis-a-vis Arab occupied Palestine (historically Jewish territory).

    1) There is not a SINGLE archeological evidence of Hindu or so called 'Vedic Aryan' artifacts from Europe or elsewhere outside the Indian subcontinent PREDATING the ones found inside the Indian subcontinent. This proves that Hinduism or Vedas or whatever, are PURE Indian origin.

    2) The ancient European pagan religions that are many thousands of years old, NEVER had the word 'Aryan' in them either, not a single European God was a 'Hindu or Vedic God'.

    3) Genetic research shows that ancient traders intermingled and intermarried during international trade & brought in new genes to the local populations – this is NOT an argument for genetic invasions – only a RACIST minded person like Romila Thapar & Left Wing Nazis (Nazi is short of National SOCIALISM, a Left Wing Ideology) can think of such simple behavioral patterns of human beings into racial agendas.

    With love from Givatayim, Israel.

  2. intolerant evangelist christians are vandalizing hindu temples across the world all the time
    . This year in 2019 , at least 3 temples were vandalized in USA in dallas, washington and kentucky. So don't teach us secularism, when you christians have killed 80 million in crusades.

    http://www.currentriggers.com/world/radicals-attack-hindu-temple/

    http://www.currentriggers.com/world/another-american-missionary/

    But law in kentucky does not qualify this as a hate crime

    https://www.wdrb.com/news/by-law-vandalism-at-hindu-temple-in-louisville-might-not/article_c7ae514a-25c4-11e9-af69-e7ac51f30c51.html

    Meanwhile in evangelist christians in India who are creating fake stories about church burnings due to which temple across the world have been attacked. We should punish the arch bishop in India who is trying to create religious hatred by siding with congress politics

    The first thing Rahul Gandhi could do is to stop paying money for divide and rule just like this ancestors. He should come good on merits and not based on fake propaganda by paying to media.

    It will be good if he could Stop spreading fake stories against Buddhist and Hindus, our religion teaches us not to even kill a cockroach. Only christians done crusades and muslims done jihad.

    hindus and buddhist dont kill for religion like christians and muslims.

    There are many hate groups in USA who have been spreading fake stories about church burnings in India these people are more dangerous then the 17 year old who actually done it. How can we punish those who are spreading lies sitting in USA. how can we punish the arch bishop of India who engages in politics of religion to create fake propaganda. It is due to arch bishop of India fake news the temples have come under attack in USA and Fiji. such evil christians need to be brought to justice to uncover their hate mask.

    It will be good if arch bishop in India and christian hate network in USA could Stop spreading fake stories against Buddhist and Hindus, our religion teaches us not to even kill a cockroach. Only christians done crusades and muslims done jihad.

    hindus and buddhist dont kill for religion like christians and muslims.

    christians speak out against fake church attacks, they are saying fake rumours are being spread by christians and media. speaker says organized planning is evident for fake news

    bishops are politically motivated to instigate fake church attacks

    shame….shame ….shame

    https://youtu.be/wWOlHe2SO1Y

    https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mangaluru/2-held-for-circulating-fake-news-on-church-attacks/articleshow/64406154.cms

    https://www.oneindia.com/india/how-christian-missionaries-are-funding-naxals-their-urban-friends-to-break-india-2713576.html?fbclid=IwAR0bzBTIHnHyxFA46YwF6jf5W3e1GhSUDbtGsmrx0c3uSTDEWJB6Z4NSySk

    http://www.sinhalanet.net/ltte-terrorism-church-links-can-someone-explain-these-photos?fbclid=IwAR01VkCEP47rxstdC4SWo2cI89vBkWgKIxNDLBuicndEBeW-nbmZtZRnQWU

    the real problem is the church does not want to declare its account books, else they will be exposed of links with terrorism

    https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/madras-hc-ruling-says-the-church-of-south-india-is-a-company-must-follow-company-law-requirements/articleshow/12484347.cms?fbclid=IwAR1C3rhh7MxxuAqSBxzwACv4K0FqBmTrJN_Uw8ijxvuvXYtGaLj06CSXT9Y

    Modi is only asking church more accountability you cannot hide how you spend the money

    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/christian-ngo-tops-list-of-foreign-funding-recipients/articleshow/57727649.cms

    Christians and congress party colluding to spread fake propaganda

    https://www.oneindia.com/india/how-christian-missionaries-are-funding-naxals-their-urban-friends-to-break-india-2713576.html?fbclid=IwAR0bzBTIHnHyxFA46YwF6jf5W3e1GhSUDbtGsmrx0c3uSTDEWJB6Z4NSySk

    http://www.sinhalanet.net/ltte-terrorism-church-links-can-someone-explain-these-photos?fbclid=IwAR01VkCEP47rxstdC4SWo2cI89vBkWgKIxNDLBuicndEBeW-nbmZtZRnQWU

    Politics of the church

    https://www.firstpost.com/india/crying-wolf-the-narrative-of-the-delhi-church-attacks-flies-in-the-face-of-facts-2101105.html?

  3. Only a fool can make fake claims that hindus are bhakts. Now look at the muslim character of india, do you feel a hindu can win in a muslim majority part of India. Muslims of India are responsible for creating communalism not the Hindus. The hindus infct even voted for muslims where muslims were just 2% population. But sikular paid media and muslims and christians, naxals made sure that a democratically elected PM modi was not allowed to govern, during his 5 years term congress made sure there were riots

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI3IGXb3pJY

  4. The congress teaches us wrong history & now there is an organized effort to call kashmir is not part of India this is being done in a systematic way by congress party & communists in India. the partition of India & pakistan happened based on religion, after 90% muslims voted for Pakistan this is historical facts, that Pakistan was made for muslims, & India for hindus. Now the hindu majority, being tolerant agreed to give rights of religious freedom to the minorities but they did not agree for secular constitution, infact it was ambedkar who severely opposed to add the word secular in the constitution, this is because the hindu culture is inherently is secular. But in 1971 during emergency corrupted the constitution, by forcefully adding the word secular without regard for majority votes in the parliament to pass this in a democratic manner. Meanwhile Nehru also did corrupt the constitution by adding things without majority vote, which means the constitution was violated & needs to be corrected.

    Partition of India Pakistan does not take into account many facts,

    The british created fake partitions, keeping 30% seat reservation for muslims, bribed a pork eating, alcohol drinking Jinnah and beef eating Nehru to partition India, using the psyche of muslims when 90% Indian muslims voted to create Pakistan. The British had already planned partition of India soon after 1857, created muslim league themselves in 1906, with agenda to be loyal to the British crown.

    Pakistan was created british using fake elections, even the hard core muslim mullahs did not want separate pakistan, it was only the zamindars, but british played a cleaver card via Jinnah to create it into land for islam as until that point there was no country made for a religion only 2 countries israel and pakistan have that distinction.

    The fact is if Kashmiris wanted to coexist they would have not found any trouble in India and Hindus. The reality is a few Kashmiris have hijacked Kashmir because they get paid by Pakistan to do these things and create this violence. These people brainwash the others to follow them. Pakistan is almost idiotic and fanatic in their approach about Kashmir. They forget that the land that has been made Pakistan is infact the birth place of vedas and hindu / sikh religion and yet Indians are not fanatic about this. We believe in live and let live. However this cannot be a continuous process of demanding more and more land in the name of a religion. We can be generous but we are not dumb. There are more Muslims in India than Pakistan and Bangladesh put together and yet a few Kashmiri muslim want to join Pakistan, they forget in 75 years of existence Pakistan has killed more muslims than any country in the world. This is a reality we all know how many killed in Bangladesh and Balochistan. Yet no muslim blinked and eyebrow why.

    During the partition India and Pakistan, the two countries were divided based on religion although the religious significance of Pakistan territory to the Hindus was like mecca to muslims or vatican to christians , yet still the British forced the partition and gave the 10000 year old hindu lands to the muslims. During the partition the population of Muslims was 92 million muslims in Undivided India. The population of muslims who went to Pakistan from India was 5 million and the Population of muslism that went from India to Bangladesh (East Pakistan) was 5 million. So at the time of partition 82 million muslims stayed back in India and only 10 million muslims went to Pakistan and Bangladesh (East Pakistan). This despite the fact that 90% of the muslim population had voted to create Pakistan. So East and West Pakistan took 10% of the muslim population but took 35% of the land and resources.

    The total population of undivided India in 1947 was approx 390 million. After partition, there were 330 million people in India, 30 million in West Pakistan, and 30 million people in East Pakistan(Now its called Bangladesh)., So after partition there were 9 million HIndus still left behind in Pakistan forming 22% of the population of West Pakistan and 11 million Hindus left behind in Bangladesh (East Pakistan) forming 27% of the population of East Pakistan as per the 1951 census in both these territories, but within 40 years the population of Hindus in these regions killed, exterminated and as per 1991 census only 1.8% hindus were left in Pakistan and 7% Hindus were left in Bangladesh. After that Pakistan stopped counting the hindu population in subsequent census, instead counted them as minorities together with other shia, ahmediya minorities. Where as in India the 82 million muslims who formed just 8% of the population has now increased to 19% muslims where they got opportunity to progress.

    In 1947 90% Indian muslims voted for creation of Pakistan and then later the same muslims stayed back in India and claimed they were loyal Indians. If they were loyal why did they vote for creation of Pakistan. We all now understand your Muslims ancestors were practicing Taqiyya (deception). But when India and Pakistan were divided based on religion, Pakistan a Islamic country and India a hindu country. Yet it was hindu majority that created a secular constitution that allowed all Indian including minorities to practice their religion with full freedom, unlike pakistan and bangladesh were minorities were exterminated the same did not happen in India. Till date they do not tell the muslims you are not belonging in India.

    Now let us hear this from the mouth of sardar patel who said in this speech to muslims.and he said , You will killed 5000 muslims in nokhali, 90% of you muslims voted to create pakistan but stayed back in India. Still we the hindu majority will be toerant we will create a secular constitution. so that you have freedom to relgion. He said we are giving you chance to integregrate.but so far even after 75 years of indiependence muslims are doing block voting and violating democracy. Hence muslims should not be given voting rights in India if they are going to destroy secular democracy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3HFNqforiM

    SO based on this Pakistan was already given more land for muslims in 1947, but they never took all the muslims, so why more land needs to be given for muslims. Infact the Kashmiri muslim majority has done exodus of Hindus, and created constitution to discriminate Hindus and Women.

    Pakistan never withdrew instead it gave/ gifted 5800 sq kms of land to China another thing it did was it mixed its own population inside the Pakistan occupied Kashmir, and massacred millions of Hindus and Sikhs. Mass marriages of Pakistani men with Kashmiri women continued. Also Pakistan changed the borders and took away some provinces of Kashmir and included them into Pakistan. In the same period India has never allowed any Indian to buy land in Kashmir, it has not allowed Indians to get Kashmir domicile status. Infact till today a Muslim in Kashmir valley can get resident permit in 15 days where as a hindu even if he is Kashmiri his son can take 2 years of rigorous effort to get the domicile of own home state. In Indian Kashmir the politicians made a rule via Kashmir constitution girls of Kashmir marrying Indian nationals will loose its citizenship and their children have no rights to anchesterial property in Kashmir. But when Kashmiri girls or boys marry Pakistanis, thier spouse is given kashmiri/indian citizenship and their children get ancestral property rights.

    Moreover the number of Love jihad attacks on Hindu and Sikh women by Kashmir boys who have right to enter India freely have increased. Is it safe to have open borders with Kashmir Muslims which exposes India and its Hindu population. No govt in India has done anything to punish these people who do dreadful things in the name of religion. English paid media wont even put this in news cause it is a Hindu girl who is gang raped by Muslims. Updesh Rana in the video below was killed in a targeted accident who was trying to support a Hindu girl gang raped by Kashmirs.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLJLg4uQfIM

  5. Sanatan Dharma as a religion in it original form does not exist, what is left today is a corruption. The Moghals and British removed Sanskrit from normal education system, the British used the Germans to corrupt the vedas. Now as you know there are not vedic experts in India all the vedic experts are foreigners who turn and twist the vedic translations as they please.

    we are brothers and sisters in humanity, does not matter we are hindus, muslims, sikh, issai, buddhist still we are all from same anchestors adam/ eve, firstly we cannot identify ourselves as hindus cause hindu is a foreign word not even mentioned in vedas aur bhagwad geeta, the word hindu was given by our islamic captors and attackers from the west.

    Irrespective of which religion we want to practice it is a private matter but we are all products of Indus valley. I want you to listen to what I say today with an open mind and digest this and a part of history, just because we had a violent history with a lot of corruption does not mean we need to live in animosity and hatred for the rest of our lives. The people with vested interest have used hatred to poison our minds against each other. We need to be brave to acknowledge facts and not fall into the same trap that our forefathers were exposed to. For this we must first know the real facts and then learn to move forward with universal brotherhood. I say this cause unlike what many of you have told religion was made of universal brotherhood but it was hijacked along the line, due to rich people who wanted to control people and hold on to the power. Irrespective of your religion there are corruptions and you have become a pawn in the hands of few powerful people, nothing more.

    Hindus should know the fact that we remember ourselves as followers of hindus is enough evidence that there is corruption in our religious facts. Our religion is not hindu but Sanatan Dharma and Sanatan Dharma is not even a religion it is a green practice which explains preservance of earth and our duties (karma) as a human being. The Mughals who ruled India were the exact same people who first attacked and killed Arabs and after conversion to Islam were diverted to hindustan. The rule of the moghals was brutal and no different from the ISIS we know today, the hindus were afraid to teach their own religion to their children for fear that they will be killed, kidnaped or raped. 1000 years of disconnect from own religion is long time for superstitions to be introduced, when the mughal went the British corrupted the vedic scripts using the Germans. Today sanskrit is more studied in Germany then in India. And to the muslims of Indian, Pakistani and Bengali descendants I want to say with sadness you are our brothers and sister who were victims of rapes and forcefully converted by arabs and mongol invaders, some of you infact agreed to convert out of fear and due to rewards. But your faith is least of my worry, so long that you understand the difference between the preachings of prophet Mohammed vs corruptions introduced subsequent to his death.

    Infact I want to assure there is no conflict between original preachings of prophet Mohammed (before it got corrupted by the caliphate) and that of vedic ways of sanatan dharma followers. Infact Prophet Muhammad declared, “There was a prophet of God in Hindustan who is dark in color and his name was Kahan [Krishna]” (History of Hamadan Dailmi Chapter Al-Kaaf). Some critics allege this is not a Sahih (authentic) hadith, and while their assessment could be valid, their conclusion that the hadith should be discarded is invalid. Basic Islamic jurisprudence holds that if a hadith does not contradict the Quran, then it may be accepted as valid. Islamist deny this important hadith which was written 1000s of years ago, which shows unity of all religions, including christianisty and buddhism. People with vested interest want to retain power hence want to deny. I whole heartedly believe that we are all children of one allah also called iswar, prabhu, god, yhwe (pronounced as yahweh), allohem and by many other names.

    All religions including islam, christianity face corruptions and people like zakir Naik took over as solicitors of relgion and added hatred against followers of other religions, for the sake of power. They introduce us against them concept which was never the purpose of religion. The purpose of religion was always global cooperation and brotherhood. Help others without need to know their religion.

    Due to our population in India we are bound to be targeted by people with vested interests for understanding how wahabhis organizations preach their brand of islam through peace tv and zakir Naik and conversely there are others who want their version of Christianity to be spread across the world for better understanding read. As far I understand Islamist and Christianity are those who go with a purpose to convert while hinduism or dhamic relgions like sikhi and budhhism are those who are giving message of god without asking to convert to their own religion, here the message of god is important not the relgion. for better understanding how hinduism is under attack read.

    listen to this man. Is he describing a religion or a blue film. how people like him can even represent a relgion , how can they spoil the name of religion, how blind followers ever follow such people, it is duty of good muslims to expose such people. this must happen thru mosques and thru Muslim leadership. wahabhi funding in india is spoiling true message of prophet mohd.

    https://www.facebook.com/faizah.airflow.1/videos/133911790880418/?t=193

    how foreign funding is spreading hatred inside india using media

    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/christian-ngo-tops-list-of-foreign-funding-recipients/articleshow/57727649.cms

    Dont we know why there is Persecution of Hindu Gurus Who Challenge Hinduphobia. COngress party is the enemy of hindus and joins hands with foriegn powers who want to weaken India.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvcJI5yAd6M

    understanding why our media acts the way it does

    http://indowave.tripod.com/AntiHinduMedia.html

    understanding how hinduism is under attack read.

    https://joshuaproject.net/help/faqs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvcJI5yAd6M

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv6tQF8-ffo

    understand ?#?BreakingIndia? forces

    understand who is the target

    https://joshuaproject.net/people_groups/statistics

    http://unethicalconversionwatch.org/unethical-conversions-4/tactics-strategies/

    http://www.cbn.com/tv/2242958532001?mobile=false

    https://www.facebook.com/LAITYVIEWS/videos/658084580985483/

  6. 12. Pakistan never withdrew from Pakistan occupied Kashmir, gilgit , Baltistan as per the UN resolution, which is the main and primary clause due to which UN resolution could not be implemented. Pakistan, instead it gave/ gifted 5800 sq kms of land to China another thing it did was it mixed its own population inside the Pakistan occupied Kashmir, and massacred millions of Hindus and Sikhs. Mass marriages of Pakistani men with Kashmiri women continued. Also Pakistan changed the borders and took away some provinces of Kashmir and included them into Pakistan. In the same period India has never allowed any Indian to buy land in Kashmir, it has not allowed Indians to get Kashmir domicile status. Infact till today a Muslim in Kashmir valley can get resident permit in 15 days where as a hindu even if he is Kashmiri his son can take 2 years of rigorous effort to get the domicile of own home state. In Indian Kashmir the politicians made a rule via Kashmir constitution girls of Kashmir marrying Indian nationals will loose its citizenship and their children have no rights to anchesterial property in Kashmir. But when Kashmiri girls or boys marry Pakistanis, thier spouse is given kashmiri/indian citizenship and their children get ancestral property rights.

    13. Biggest problem has been influx of Pakistanis in India. for 75 years congress and kashmir constitution has left a loop hole Due to this loop hole lot of Pakistanis have got Indian citizenship over the years, we need to reverse this, We need to find out which are the persons who were originally pakistani they married Indian kashmiri girl and then got citizen card of Indian kashmir then they got indian passport. This is a weakness in our law/ kashmir constitution. how this has happened over the years.

    Mass marriages of Pakistani men with Kashmiri women in POK and Indian Kashmir has continued. Also Pakistan changed the borders and took away some provinces of Kashmir and included them into Pakistan. In the same period India has never allowed any Indian to buy land in Kashmir, it has not allowed Indians to get Kashmir domicile status. Infact till today a Muslim in Kashmir valley can get resident permit in 15 days where as a hindu even if he is Kashmiri his son can take 2 years of rigorous effort to get the domicile of own home state. In Indian Kashmir the politicians made a rule via Kashmir constitution girls of Kashmir marrying Indian nationals will loose its citizenship and their children have no rights to ancestral property in Kashmir. But when Kashmiri girls or boys marry Pakistanis, their spouse is given kashmiri/indian citizenship and their children get ancestral property rights. This is how more and more Pakistanis entering Indian kashmir and then into India. This must be stopped and revered, ll those who were pakistanis their kashmir IDs and Indian passports must be revoked.
    Now there is not only infux of pakistanis but in Begal there is also influx of bangladeshis in india. These foreigners have been getting indian voter ids, passports, ration cards with the help of the congress and its allies like TMC.

    14. the number of Love jihad attacks on Hindu and Sikh women by Kashmir boys who have right to enter India freely have increased. Is it safe to have open borders with Kashmir Muslims which exposes India and its Hindu population. No govt in India has done anything to punish these people who do dreadful things in the name of religion. English paid media wont even put this in news cause it is a Hindu girl who is gang raped by Muslims. Updesh Rana in the video below was killed in a targeted accident who was trying to support a Hindu girl gang raped by Kashmirs.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLJLg4uQfIM

    15. Article 35 A was added through a back door entry Bypassing the parliamentary procedures,any article passed by president bypassing parliamentary procedures has an expiry of 6 months after which it is null and void.

    16. Hari Singh did not like Nehru, he was always suspicious of his, he even put him in jail once.

    17. Dr BR Ambedkar, refused to draft Article 370 said anyone who drafts this will be a traitor . But still Nehru he colluded with Dr. Abdullah (Prime Minister of J&K was working for Maharaja Hari Singh) to draft and introduce the Article 370. Article 370 of the Indian Constitution is a 'temporary provision' which grants special autonomous status to Jammu & Kashmir. Under Part XXI of the Constitution of India, which deals with "Temporary, Transitional and Special provisions", the state of Jammu & Kashmir has been accorded special status under Article 370. Such Temporary provisions can be repealed any time but due to not removing this earlier some lobbyist particularly congress are making so much noise , which is why the BJP needs to go to Supreme court. Else like any other article of the Constitution can be changed even this article is no different.

    18. Nehru could not add the Article 370 via parliament majority and this is how any changes happen in the Indian Constitution, instead Nehru ignored the parliament majority and got this added via Presidential order of 1954, The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954 came into force on 14 May 1954. So Mr. idiot this is nothing to do with Kashmir it is part of Indian constitution and we can do as we choose with it.

    19. Article 35A was not added to the Constitution by following the procedure prescribed for amendment of the Constitution of India under Article 368. Article 370 does not anywhere confer on the President legislative or executive powers so vast that he can amend the Constitution or perform the function of Parliament. This is why Nehru was following illegal means to add such articles to the constitution of India.

    20. Clause 3 of Article 370 is clear. … In other words, Article 370 can be revoked only if a new Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir is convened and is willing to recommend its revocation. Of course, Parliament of India also has the power to amend its own Constitution to change this provision. So all the provisions are with Indian people not with the Kashmiri separatists as some communists like Arundhati Roy and separatists and even Dr. Abdullah claims.

    Infact as soon that the Article 370 is removed from Indian constitution automatically the Kashmir constitution gets nullified as it is the Article 370 which provides these right to the people of Kashmir allowing them right to own constitution which in itself is a temporary provision.. No Kashmiri can do a damn about it whether you like it or not, all it takes is majority govt to take the necessary decision to remove this article.

  7. Before opening your mouth with hinduphobia and hindu hatred.
    Read and understand below.

    1. Partition was agreed on the following conditions, pakistan will be the land for muslims and india will be land for the hindus. these were the agreed terms of partition.

    2. The constitution of India did not use the word Secular , even the great ambedkar refused to allow Nehru to add the word secular, he said that hindus are already secular and the constitution already uphold the rights of minorities to pray and have minority schools, so there is no further protection needed for the minorities as the constitution already adequately protects the minorities who for whatever reasons could not go to pakistan or uk.

    3. One needs to understand that even that land which was created as Pakistan is a hindu land before even islam was created, this land given to muslims is the most scared land of the hindus and sikhs, but the hindus gave it will fully to be able to live peacefully as hindus in India, we will not tolerate any additional interference or separatism or political hijack by minorities against the interest of hindus.

    4. The muslims historically came to the land of hindus for refuge and shelter before they became invaders and conquerors. It should not be forgotten the family & companions of the prophets mohd's grandson received shelter in the land by hindu kings when they were being persecuted in arabia.

    5. The congress govt teaches us wrong history & now there is an organized effort to call kashmir is not part of India this is being done in a systematic way by congress party & communists in India. nobody should forget that , the partition of India & pakistan happened based on religion, after 90% muslims voted for creating Pakistan this is historical facts, that Pakistan was made for muslims, & India for hindus. Now the hindu majority, being tolerant agreed to give rights of religious freedom to the minorities but they did not agree for secular constitution, infact it was ambedkar who severely opposed to add the word secular in the constitution, this is because the hindu culture is inherently is secular. But in 1971 during emergency, Indira Gandhi (Nehrus daughter) corrupted the constitution, by forcefully adding the word secular without regard for majority votes in the parliament to pass this in a democratic manner. Meanwhile Nehru also did corrupt the constitution by adding anti hindu or anti majority clauses in the constitution without majority vote, which means the constitution was violated & needs to be corrected. Nobody was informed in the parliament that the article 35A was secretly added by Nehru family, it was only when one indian visited pakistan there he learned from pakistan about article 35A which he came and shred with indians, since then the 35A was being challenged, there is no auditable record to know who added this clause secretly int he constitution illegally.

    Partition of India Pakistan does not take into account many facts,

    6. The british created fake partitions, keeping 30% seat reservation for muslims, bribed a pork eating, alcohol drinking Jinnah and beef eating Nehru to partition India, using the psyche of muslims when 90% Indian muslims voted to create Pakistan. The British had already planned partition of India soon after 1857, created muslim league themselves in 1906, with agenda to be loyal to the British crown.

    7. Pakistan was created british using fake elections, even the hard core muslim mullahs did not want separate pakistan, it was only the zamindars, but british played a cleaver card via Jinnah to create it into land for islam as until that point there was no country made for a religion only 2 countries israel and pakistan have that distinction.

    8. The fact is if Kashmiris wanted to coexist they would have not found any trouble in India and Hindus. The reality is a few Kashmiris have hijacked Kashmir because they get paid by Pakistan to do these things and create this violence. These people brainwash the others to follow them. Pakistan is almost idiotic and fanatic in their approach about Kashmir. They forget that the land that has been made Pakistan is infact the birth place of vedas and hindu / sikh religion and yet Indians are not fanatic about this. We believe in live and let live. However this cannot be a continuous process of demanding more and more land in the name of a religion. We can be generous but we are not dumb. There are more Muslims in India than Pakistan and Bangladesh put together and yet a few Kashmiri muslim want to join Pakistan, they forget in 75 years of existence Pakistan has killed more muslims than any country in the world. This is a reality we all know how many killed in Bangladesh and Balochistan. Yet no muslim blinked and eyebrow why.

    9. During the partition India and Pakistan, the two countries were divided based on religion although the religious significance of Pakistan territory to the Hindus was like mecca to muslims or vatican to christians , yet still the British forced the partition and gave the 10000 year old hindu lands to the muslims. During the partition the population of Muslims was 92 million muslims in Undivided India. The population of muslims who went to Pakistan from India was 5 million and the Population of muslism that went from India to Bangladesh (East Pakistan) was 5 million. So at the time of partition 82 million muslims stayed back in India and only 10 million muslims went to Pakistan and Bangladesh (East Pakistan). This despite the fact that 90% of the muslim population had voted to create Pakistan. So East and West Pakistan took 10% of the muslim population but took 35% of the land and resources.

    The total population of undivided India in 1947 was approx 390 million. After partition, there were 330 million people in India, 30 million in West Pakistan, and 30 million people in East Pakistan(Now its called Bangladesh)., So after partition there were 9 million HIndus still left behind in Pakistan forming 22% of the population of West Pakistan and 11 million Hindus left behind in Bangladesh (East Pakistan) forming 27% of the population of East Pakistan as per the 1951 census in both these territories, but within 40 years the population of Hindus in these regions killed, exterminated and as per 1991 census only 1.8% hindus were left in Pakistan and 7% Hindus were left in Bangladesh. After that Pakistan stopped counting the hindu population in subsequent census, instead counted them as minorities together with other shia, ahmediya minorities. Where as in India the 82 million muslims who formed just 8% of the population has now increased to 19% muslims where they got opportunity to progress.

    This means we gave away 30 percent of land to muslims as pakistan, when the actual population who went to/ remained in east and west pakistan was less then 5 percent it is not understood, why then we gave 30% land if only 5% actually stayed in east and west pakistan, and large population of muslims stayed back in India. This suggests Nehru and Gandhi were not sincere, and we also noted when reading independence act of india, nehru act, cripps commission that Nehru was never seeking or askingh for independent india he was only seeking a dominion status, on the 14/ 15 August 1947, both India and pakistan got only dominion status not a indepence. Then why did nehru and gandhi mislead india and why did jinnah mislead the pakistanis.

    10. In 1947 90% Indian muslims voted for creation of Pakistan and then later the same muslims stayed back in India and claimed they were loyal Indians. If they were loyal why did they vote for creation of Pakistan. We all now understand your Muslims ancestors were practicing Taqiyya (deception). But when India and Pakistan were divided based on religion, Pakistan a Islamic country and India a hindu country. Yet it was hindu majority that created a secular constitution that allowed all Indian including minorities to practice their religion with full freedom, unlike pakistan and bangladesh were minorities were exterminated the same did not happen in India. Till date they do not tell the muslims you are not belonging in India.

    11. Now let us hear this from the mouth of sardar patel who said in this speech to muslims.and he said , You will killed 5000 muslims in nokhali, 90% of you muslims voted to create pakistan but stayed back in India. Still we the hindu majority will be toerant we will create a secular constitution. so that you have freedom to relgion. He said we are giving you chance to integregrate.but so far even after 75 years of indiependence muslims are doing block voting and violating democracy. Hence muslims should not be given voting rights in India if they are going to destroy secular democracy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3HFNqforiM

    SO based on this Pakistan was already given more land for muslims in 1947, but they never took all the muslims, so why more land needs to be given for muslims. Infact the Kashmiri muslim majority has done exodus of Hindus, and created constitution to discriminate Hindus and Women.

  8. The fact of the matter is there are no Jews left in Arab and Muslim countries, no Buddhist left in Afghanistan, no Hindus left in Pakistan and Bangladesh, no Zoroastrians left in Iran , this itself is evidence of lack of tolerance towards others by Muslims, if you see other side Muslims are flourishing in India a majority Hindu country and non-Muslim country. Infact the history is the first 3 caliph had done betrayal to prophet Mohd so the Muslim today are not even followers of preachings of prophet Mohd the first attack on sysanaid empire Persia in 932 was soon after death of prophet Mohd he would not allow this as they had treaty agreement with each other. Soon after attack it was complete massacre. So no it is not joke it is part of history and factually accurate. In recent times one Muslim state in India and it ousted all the Hindus from there is Kashmir.

    During prophet mohd times there were so many jews, why after prophet mohd death all jews disappeard

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries

    and also prophet mohd family was also killed by muslims. If you lied so much how can we beleive what you say about jew is even true.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkFTddWZEmY

    Where all the jews disappeared from all the muslim countries.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv3y4OrjmPc

    humanity cannot be in isolation for muslims only we need to see this in context of everyone. right now jews are only left with 67 sq km land and now the muslims want to push them into the sea, why no instead 80 muslim countries accept the palestine people, there are no other jew country in the world.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=787H1xsWiKY

    The truth is islam is hijacked soon after death of prophet. this is same like all othert religion hijacked by people with vested interests.

    So when you talk about muslims 90% muslims are actually supporting and following those who killed the prophets family. Lets not forget as soon prophet died his daughter fatima house was burned and she was pushed by caliph umar which caused her miscarriage.

    the event of Ghadir Khumm, which took place a few months before Muhammad passed away. According to both Shia and Sunni sources, Umar was among the many who pledged allegiance to Ali at this event. And yet In Medina, after the Farewell Pilgrimage and the event of Ghadir Khumm, Muhammad ordered an army under the command of Usama bin Zayd.Muhammad gave Usama the banner of Islam on the 18th day of the Islamic month of Safar in the year 11 A.H. Abu Bakr and Umar were among those that Muhammad commanded to join Usama’s army, However, Abu Bakr and Umar resisted going under the command of Usama despite order of Mohammed. However, while a few companions were ready to join Usama’s army, many other companions, including Abu Bakr and Umar, disobeyed Muhammad’s orders. So there was mutinity even as Prophet Mohammed was alive, lead by Abu Bakr and Umar. Umar's political capacity first manifested as the architect of the caliphate after Muhammad died on 8 June 632.

    And you speak lies and hence your ignore these facts

    Surah Al Imran, chapter 3 verse 49,

    Al-Quran 3:49

    Mohd is appointed as the messenger of children of Israel (He is not prophet of Muslims rather he was prophet of Israelites).

    You also ignore. that in Bible which is 5000 year old it says Israel was chosen land for the jews. they crossed the river with Abraham and were given this land by Allah/god.

  9. indian history is full of deceit. a pork eating alchol drinking ex-hindu Jinnah was made head of pakistan and the beef eating ex-muslim was made pm of India as Nehru. within a year hindu code bill stopped hindus from marrying multiple times and then consitution rticle 28, 29, 30 of Indian Constitution, should be remove or amended or modify. Article 30 of Indian Constitution is biased in nature and inhuman. There is a discrimination against Hindus in it. It is just like Article 370 of Indian Constitution, every Hindu must read and study it. Hindus hands and legs are tied according to it. According to it Hindus cannot open and run their education institute as freely like other minorities. They cannot teach their religious subjects like Bhagavad Gita & Ramayan etc . whereas other minorities like Muslims and Christians can teach their religious subject like Quran, Bilble etc. Even according to it Hindus cannot run & control their religious organization like temples government controls the management of Hindu Religious Organization, Temples etc. while same condition is not applied to other minorities they and run, control and manage their Religious Organizations like Mosques, Churches etc. Government imposes tax on Hindus Temples but gives financial aid to Minority Religious Organizations like Mosques, Churches etc. Government gives aid to Madrasa but same thing is not applied to Sanskrit Vedic Schools and Hindus Religious Institutions. These are things are biased in nature against Hindus. Hindus should be united and jointly protest it. They should raise voice against it. In India Minorities are given special & extra benefits and facilities as compare to Hindus. This thing should be avoided. Hindus are discriminated in India. As per my knowledge India is the only country in world or globe where majority communities like Hindus are discriminated and treated badly than minorities. Due to the vote bank politics and policies of various political parties Hindus are neglected and other minorities expect Hindus are given more preferences. To protest and minimize discrimination against Hindus,

    Both people of pakistan and india have been cheated hard core muslims never wanted partition on rich zamindars wanted pakistan at that time. Yet british created reservation in such a way that partition was eminent. uske liye be RT dalo….why Muslims can become trustee of hindu temples like Siddi Vinayak, yet no Hindu is allowed to be trustee of zaqat committee. what sort of democracy is this if Gandhiji proposed 2 voites of muslims and 1 vote for hindu, can such a democracy flurish anywhere. We have invested a lot for this secular democracy but does the Muslims even value this. Minorities like Parsi, Muslim Bohri community, Sikhs dont have any problems with intolerance yet in Indian muslims are so intolerant that 1 lakh facebook pages are doing non-stop propaganda to give bad name to in India internationally. This is called systematic propaganda run using social media against secular democracy of India where they are trying to show India is intolerant.

  10. Sickularism is a disease introduced in the constitution by Indira Gandhi, Ambedkar did not allow Nehru to add this word in the constitution

    I am am Indian Hindu

    My Great Great Great Grand Parents were forced to migrate from Sindh to Rajasthan when Yazid hejaj al Yusuf the same person who killed 4 companions of Prophet Mohammed sent his general Mohammed bin Qasim to invade India because a hindu king Raja Dahir gave refuge to Imam Hussain family & companions, Mohammed bin Qassim & his army plundered 80 million hindus & buddhists on the way, Until he was driven back by Bapa Rawal whose name till this date given to a city in Pakistan called Rawalpindi.

    My Great Great Grand parents were forced to migrate back from jaisalmer to sindh, when Alauddin Khalji a muslim sultanate, in 1303 CE lay siege to the Chittor Fort of Raja Ratan Sen, the Rajput ruler to steal his wife Rani padmavati, who was forced to perform Johur.

    Meanwhile Our cousins the sikhs were lost thier necks & children trying to protect us.

    In 1947 once again, My Grand Parents were given no choice, Either leave our ancestral home in sindhi over night & flee to India or be killed or forcefully converted to Islam. This happened as our leaders Nehru & Jinnah were both power hungry & were bribed by British to Partition India & Pakistan. The British gave away the birth place of Hindu & Sikh religion, our mecca & vatican & a 10000 year old Vedic heritage was given away to the muslims.

    When we arrived in India, we learned Nehru made a constitution that gave muslims & christians right to teach in their respective religion in their convents & Madrassas. But Hindus in a Majority India were not given right to open Gurukuls or even teach Vedas in our schools.

    We were told the partition happened due to religion & so India will be for hindus & Pakistan for Muslims, this happened because the 90% Muslims voted to create Pakistan. But when we came here to India barely surviving our lives, we found during the partition the population of Muslims was 92 million muslims in Undivided India. The population of muslims who went to Pakistan from India was 5 million and the Population of muslims that went from India to Bangladesh (East Pakistan) was 5 million. So at the time of partition 82 million muslims stayed back in India and only 10 million muslims went to Pakistan and Bangladesh (East Pakistan). This despite the fact that 90% of the muslim population had voted to create Pakistan. So East and West Pakistan took 10% of the muslim population but took 35% of the land and resources. We were told Nehru & Gandhi allowed Muslims to stay in India. But hindus who stayed back could not survive the 29% who stayed back in Pakistan were killed, raped & focefully converted.

    Soon after we were barely recovering our lives in refugee camps in India, lost our all our property our loved one, we were told Nehru created Hindu code bill which means Hindu cannot marry multiple wifes, but muslims can marry. This allowed the muslim population to multiple by the hindu population was controlled.

    We noted our temples were controlled by government IAS officers, but churches & mosques were handled by christian & muslim trusts. In 1990 our brothers faced forced exodus from Kashmir.

    We barely survived the 75 years of fake Independence & anti Hindu rule of congress party of India.

    During this time we were scared to stop the Muslims from cutting cow in front of Hindu temples. Muslims posted Beef party videos on the youtube to belittle the hindus. We were being falsely branded as Saffron terrorists, one by one our religious leaders were sent to Jails in false cases. We were scared to be hindu, branded at sanghi. Fed up of this persecution & lies, We voted in large majority to bring Modi as PM, after 65 years of atrocities. The congress bribed News channels, Biased Journalists & English news papers lied non-stop to defame & scare the hindus. We were scared to even implement the beef ban mentioned in the directive principle of the constitution, which congress party never implemented for 65 years.

    In 1984 we seen the sikh riots killings by congress party goons.

    Today 2019 we are so scared that congress party may come back & restart the Persecution of Hindus, the congress party may revive fake saffron terrorism/ Intolerance of India is a imaginary term marketed with the help of Amir Khan & Naseruddin shah.

    I am hindu scared to be hindu in hindu majority India

    Now in 2019, congress is trying to introduce new anti hindu law which allowed minorities to make police complaint against hindu with provision of any proof.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RQUC-_U5UM

  11. This black and brown pseudoEnglish couple ugly as they come forget what happened during the final years of the minority appeasing sickular congress government.these assholes forget with change of ideology comes change in the governance style in other words the Modi government is a right wing not the left wing socialist government therefore the institutions need to change otherwise what is point of having elections if we want just one way of governance. such is the ignorance of these people. This moron picked up one word critical thinking without any iota of understanding . My question is what has your critical thinking of 65 years given to India except for poverty,ignorance,corruption, dirty India,minority appeasement. how many Nobel prize winners did you have in 65 years? this fuck is fixated on intolerance,he is talking about citizen,s being gagged . This motherfucker asshole has a very low intellect.

  12. Siddartha Varadarajan is contributing to our collective consciousness in a very important way through The Wire . It is so vital in today’s times. We all should support such independent media.

  13. i ager with ma'am we have people like subnit putra glorifying the channels…..the three planks on-which the RSS AND COMPANY EXISTS AND WORK ARE SPREAD HATRED SPREAD CONFUSION AND SPREAD INSECURITY AMONG HINDUS AND MUSLIMS AND RULE THE FOOLS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *