Ultimately speaking, Hindus face Hinduphobia because its own government under the congress was hinduphobic and sanctioned propaganda against Hindus themselves. Hindus face hinduphobia because Hindus themselves accommodate to their own colonizers (muslims, or westerners) with secularism and “democracy” at their own expense.
Muslims face backlash too in the west but at least their own nations back their religion and glorify their own culture. Can’t say the same about Hindus.
Hindus only option is to become more radical. Theres no undoing colonization by dialogue with the colonizers.
I agree that Hinduphobia is on the rise and there need to be concrete steps to tackle it, but there are a few problems with your article.
You take particular issue with William Ward and other British officials of not using accurate sources when reporting about Hindus, but then you fall victim to the same practices in your article where you claim things without sources.
1. On the Manipur issue:
a. You claim that the Kuki community is largely Christian immigrant population without any proof. The only "source" of this "fact" is right-wing leaders who have forever portrayed the North East as a hotbed of illegal immigration without any proof.
b. You claim that it was the Kuki community that started the conflict, again without any amount of evidence to back this claim. Again, the only source here is right-wing leaders claiming that the Kuki community started the conflict while conveniently ignoring the fact that not only is there any evidence to substantiate this claim but that the then chief minister of Manipur, a Meitei himself, has on multiple occasions vilified the Kuki community as 'poppy cultivators' and 'drug smugglers' (again, without proof).
c. You say that the media portrayed the issue as a Christian safety issue without any examples of any legacy media actually doing so. Any newspaper reader can easily tell that the questioning of the government has not been about Christian lives, it's been about Indian lives being lost in an unnecessary conflict and the continuation of instability in a state, especially one that borders one of the largest threats to Indian territorial integrity. If you want to claim that the media is Hinduphobic, you need something to substantiate that claim.
The one (kind of) example you do give for your claim is the BBC's documentary about the Gujarat riots. A few issues here:
1. A documentary portraying an incident is not necessarily Hinduphobic. You need to explicitly mention what part of the documentary you felt was Hinduphobic (by giving quotes, for example) and then let the viewer decide for themself.
2. The documentary does not deem Narendra Modi to be responsible and even if it did, there is no reason to believe that any accusation against Narendra Modi is Hinduphobic in and of itself. Equating Narendra Modi with Hinduism isn't really the sort of behaviour expected from someone trying to make a well thought point, just stinks of the fanatic fanboys of Hindutva that call him a God.
3. Any documentary that informs people about people being killed at the hands of Hindus is not Hinduphobic. By that logic any report that claims 26/11 was carried out Islamic terrorists is Islamophobic.
My biggest problem with this article are the quotes from BR Ambedkar. The first one is a quote by him (agreed, and that is why it does not reek of Hindutva undertones) but the other two (pg. 125 and pg. 123) are parts from his book where he is quoting V.D. Savarkar. Those are not his own thoughts and not something he agrees with (and goes on to debate later in his book). You show Savarkar's views as his trying to convince the reader that Ambedkar was a staunch Hindutvawadi.
There are two possibilities here:
1. You either didn't read the book you were quoting and asked ChatGPT for 'Ambedkar quotes supporting Hindutva' or
2. You deliberately misrepresented the views of Ambedkar, hiding behind his legacy to validate Savarkar's views.
If it's the former, you are foolish and harmful because what you say on the internet has an impact on people and thus you have an obligation to represent the truth.
If it is the latter, you are malicious and a menace that doesn't deserve the right to voice your opinion because you are using to malign others.
Finally, equating liberals with Congress and trying to portray the actions of a party as the actions of the public which might not even support it is as ridiculous as me saying that the readers of this article are idiots because you (the author) didn't bother to give factual information.
Excellent article 🙏🙏
Ultimately speaking, Hindus face Hinduphobia because its own government under the congress was hinduphobic and sanctioned propaganda against Hindus themselves. Hindus face hinduphobia because Hindus themselves accommodate to their own colonizers (muslims, or westerners) with secularism and “democracy” at their own expense.
Muslims face backlash too in the west but at least their own nations back their religion and glorify their own culture. Can’t say the same about Hindus.
Hindus only option is to become more radical. Theres no undoing colonization by dialogue with the colonizers.
I agree that Hinduphobia is on the rise and there need to be concrete steps to tackle it, but there are a few problems with your article.
You take particular issue with William Ward and other British officials of not using accurate sources when reporting about Hindus, but then you fall victim to the same practices in your article where you claim things without sources.
1. On the Manipur issue:
a. You claim that the Kuki community is largely Christian immigrant population without any proof. The only "source" of this "fact" is right-wing leaders who have forever portrayed the North East as a hotbed of illegal immigration without any proof.
b. You claim that it was the Kuki community that started the conflict, again without any amount of evidence to back this claim. Again, the only source here is right-wing leaders claiming that the Kuki community started the conflict while conveniently ignoring the fact that not only is there any evidence to substantiate this claim but that the then chief minister of Manipur, a Meitei himself, has on multiple occasions vilified the Kuki community as 'poppy cultivators' and 'drug smugglers' (again, without proof).
c. You say that the media portrayed the issue as a Christian safety issue without any examples of any legacy media actually doing so. Any newspaper reader can easily tell that the questioning of the government has not been about Christian lives, it's been about Indian lives being lost in an unnecessary conflict and the continuation of instability in a state, especially one that borders one of the largest threats to Indian territorial integrity. If you want to claim that the media is Hinduphobic, you need something to substantiate that claim.
The one (kind of) example you do give for your claim is the BBC's documentary about the Gujarat riots. A few issues here:
1. A documentary portraying an incident is not necessarily Hinduphobic. You need to explicitly mention what part of the documentary you felt was Hinduphobic (by giving quotes, for example) and then let the viewer decide for themself.
2. The documentary does not deem Narendra Modi to be responsible and even if it did, there is no reason to believe that any accusation against Narendra Modi is Hinduphobic in and of itself. Equating Narendra Modi with Hinduism isn't really the sort of behaviour expected from someone trying to make a well thought point, just stinks of the fanatic fanboys of Hindutva that call him a God.
3. Any documentary that informs people about people being killed at the hands of Hindus is not Hinduphobic. By that logic any report that claims 26/11 was carried out Islamic terrorists is Islamophobic.
My biggest problem with this article are the quotes from BR Ambedkar. The first one is a quote by him (agreed, and that is why it does not reek of Hindutva undertones) but the other two (pg. 125 and pg. 123) are parts from his book where he is quoting V.D. Savarkar. Those are not his own thoughts and not something he agrees with (and goes on to debate later in his book). You show Savarkar's views as his trying to convince the reader that Ambedkar was a staunch Hindutvawadi.
There are two possibilities here:
1. You either didn't read the book you were quoting and asked ChatGPT for 'Ambedkar quotes supporting Hindutva' or
2. You deliberately misrepresented the views of Ambedkar, hiding behind his legacy to validate Savarkar's views.
If it's the former, you are foolish and harmful because what you say on the internet has an impact on people and thus you have an obligation to represent the truth.
If it is the latter, you are malicious and a menace that doesn't deserve the right to voice your opinion because you are using to malign others.
Finally, equating liberals with Congress and trying to portray the actions of a party as the actions of the public which might not even support it is as ridiculous as me saying that the readers of this article are idiots because you (the author) didn't bother to give factual information.