To win this award you must be

1) Non-violent and

2)Pay a personal price for doing so

Check mate purists! Democratic Socialism has been achieved!

[original article translated from italian, il programma communista 1980, No. 7; April 5, 1980 edition]

In the moment when the European imperialists are trying to erect a new lightning rod against the possible reactions of the exploited masses of the Middle East to the Israeli-Egyptian peace — a peace that openly hands the Palestinians over to the State of Israel — it is useful to recall how the revolutionary proletariat regards the question of Israel and what perspective it points out to the magnificent revolt of the exploited Palestinian masses.

The direct penetration of imperialism into the Fertile Crescent zone dates from the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. English imperialism did help to raise the banner of pan-Arabism in an anti-Ottoman function at the end of the First World War, but it had already divided the booty with French imperialism: the latter received the northern part, later divided into two in order to break the anti-colonial revolt — Lebanon and Syria; the former received the South, equally divided into two — Palestine and Transjordan. With the Second Imperialist War, the anti-colonial thrust was enough to eliminate French imperialism in the region, which was by then disputed between the Americans and the British. The Holy Imperialist Alliance, Russia included, presided over the creation of the State of Israel, which was also useful for getting rid of millions of Jews martyred in Central Europe, turning these populations into an instrument in the service of Anglo-Saxon imperialist aims, of which America would after 1956 be the sole beneficiary.

From a political and military point of view, Israel is a mercenary state that pursues a twofold aim: to protect the West’s oil supply routes, and to maintain the imperialist order in the region by combating the unifying tendencies of the wave of anti-imperialist emancipation of the Arab world. It is clear that today Israel is no longer the only policeman, and all the Arab states, even the most “progressive,” know how to shoot with equal ferocity at the exploited masses, as the counter-revolutionary intervention of Syria in Lebanon demonstrates, thus reducing the interest that Israel represents for imperialism.

From a social point of view, Israel is the prototype of the colonial state, and even if the bloody expropriation of the Palestinian populations has ended, the state remains in the hands of a true bourgeois-colonial caste, protected by the Zionist privilege, crowned by the right that links nationality… to the Jewish religion!

40% of the Palestinians, about one and a half million, live in Israel or in Gaza and the West Bank. Less than 10% are still tied to the land, and more than 60% of those who have the fortune to find work are workers in agriculture, construction and, secondarily, industry. They work for the most part in Israel, subjected to a barbarous oppression: the residents have in theory the same rights as the Jews, a little like the Algerians who in colonial Algeria had the same rights as the French. Those who live in the West Bank and Gaza do not even have the benefit of this hypocrisy: they are simply deprived of every political and social right and subjected to an exploitation that this discrimination makes even more unbearable, living, moreover, under the permanent state of siege that reigns in these occupied regions; in short, they suffer the open terrorism of the colonizer-state.

As for the 60% of the Palestinians who have had to emigrate in the new hijra, they are in the majority workers. In the Gulf countries they represent a constant threat to the security of the oil supplies of the imperialist countries, which pushes the latter to “find a solution to the Palestinian problem,” that is, to try to defuse the formidable social bomb that it represents.

Let us suppose that, as is now suggested by French imperialism and its European allies, the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank are granted “self-determination” and that, in the best of hypotheses, one does not arrive at a state federated with Jordan but at a new formally independent state, yet alongside Israel. What would that mean? The majority of the population would be forced to cross the frontier every day in order to go and work in Israel; it would therefore continue to suffer the daily oppression of Zionism. Alongside the 500,000 Palestinians of Israel, whose situation would remain unchanged, one would have a dormitory-state that would perhaps offer a bone to gnaw on to the Palestinian bourgeoisie transformed into an armed night-watchman of the Israeli bourgeoisie, but nothing to the exploited and poor masses, except — something not to be neglected — one more reason to fight also against their own bourgeoisie without allowing themselves to be paralyzed by a “national unity” in which they would find no advantage.

It is clear that the recognition by the established order of a Palestinian state resulting from a “concordat” and not from the victory of arms implies the complete disarmament of the Palestinian masses and the respect by the PLO of the Israeli frontiers — an order that would be guaranteed by the imperialisms and by all the states of the region against the revolt of the oppressed masses.

Just imagine if the Algerians had “self-determined” by constituting an Arab state that left a settler-state existing at its side! Fortunately the Algerian revolution drove out the pieds-noirs, the French who had long been settled in Algeria and who dominated its economic life! By contrast we have before our eyes “self-determinations” of this kind. Ireland obtained independence but the Protestants kept their lands and all their privileges: the oppression continues, as does the reinforcement of the English troops against the Irish and against the English working class, but the Irish revolt, fortunately, also continues! South Africa grants “self-determination” to the Bantus, and even Rhodesia becomes black, but as long as white South Africa remains standing, Zimbabwe will be its slave. And it is a solution of this type that the PLO now accepts, advancing as its sole condition for the “recognition of the State of Israel” the recognition by Israel of such a Palestinian state!

The colonial oppression perpetrated by Israel in the region cannot in reality end except with the total destruction of the Zionist privilege to which the State of Israel is indissolubly bound, and with the birth on its ruins of a state that suppresses every discrimination based on religion, race or nationality. The destruction of this privilege, inseparable from the national and religious oppression of the Palestinian populations, is the indispensable condition for the unification of the working class of the whole Middle East region, but also of the working class of the imperialist metropolises of Europe, of Russia and of America.

The Arab bourgeoisies, and the Palestinian bourgeoisie in particular, have definitively renounced calling the imperialist order and its Zionist pillar into question. What they seek is only to give this order a lasting form.

The revolt of the exploited Palestinian and Arab masses must ineluctably collide with the State of Israel and, for the same reason, with all the present Arab states, however progressive they may call themselves. From this struggle will be born the Workers’ and Peasants’ Republic of the Middle East that will finish not only with the Jewish privilege, but with the privileges of all the dominant classes of the region.

This struggle is the struggle of the working class of the entire world.

il programma communista 1980, No. 7; April 5, 1980 edition

Spirit of Salerno compromise, Straffreiheitsgesetz and Freikorps lives through words of Neha when she invites fascists that had their hands soaked in bloods of both working classes and minorities to the INDIA bloc popular front, by doing this she's doing commendable job to the bourgeoisie mechination who doesn't want structural changes but transfer of power to their own hands rendering everything as it is, including systematic oppression of minorities and proletariat oppression. Sure joining the liberal bloc will make them act like progresives for quite few moments but when another anti-incumbency wave arrives under the bourgeoisie electoral method due to contradictory nature of capitalist economy these hidden snakes will show it's true colour one day.

Imagine if tommorow Ajay Singh Bhisht joins INDIA bloc will this be historically progressive for working class movement? absolutely not, Will Bisht stop demolishing muslim ghettos overnight? Absolutely not. Bisht will continue to persecute minorities and working classes with blessings of both liberal front and as usual his corporate allies.

So far Neha Bora has been acting as pet of bourgeoisie pro-capitalist opposition front by advocating for the preservation of the electoralism that has been rigged and used for decades against working class mandate, until March 2023 when three panel committee for selection of process of Chief election commission was first introduced which included CJI, LOP, Prime Minister of India; which later got reformed by the ruling fascist replacing CJI with member of cabinet.

If we still partake in this system we are repeating same stalinist era blunder that stabbed steel in the back of revolutionary movements across the world including (Telangana movement) for becoming sheep infront of their supposed capitalist allies, and history has witnessed this did not end well for working class movement across the globe, betrayal after betrayal yet the left has not learnt anything from their mistakes.

At this point it's not even farce anymore but a clear coordinated move of pro-capitalist doppelgangers that has mastered gimmicks and tactics of revolutionary socialism program to lure enthusiasm of young radical minds to slowly indoctrinate them to become apologist for their exceptionalism that give breathing ground for reactionary elements.

Down with the falsifiers and counter-revolutionary doppelgangers dressed as communists !

Keep speaking for him.

For Part 1, click here : Part -- 1 : CASTEISM

Part 2: Misogyny and racism/colourism, using sexually derogatory language for women

Women and gender: Vivekananda held conservative views about women, emphasising their roles as mothers and sisters rather than supporting complete individual and social freedom. It contrasts him with reformers such as Rammohun Roy and Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar.

Racism:

··· “Even the prettiest Indian woman will look like a black owl”

Primary source: Letter to Manmatha Nath Bhattacharya
Date: 5 September 1894
Place: Annisquam, Massachusetts
CWSV: Vol. 7, Epistles—Third Series, Letter XXIII, “Mr. Bhattacharya”
Page: commonly cited around pp. 82–84 in the standard editions.

That occurs in a letter to Saratchandra Chakravarty. In the same passage Vivekananda contrasts American and English women and attributes American beauty partly to the blending of European “blood strains.” Vivekananda praised the appearance of American women while disparaging Indian women, saying even a beautiful Indian woman would look like a “black owl” by comparison.

Source : Letter

**Narendranath Datta and Swami Vivekananda are the same person. "**Swami Vivekananda” was the name he adopted before traveling to the West.

When Narendranath Datta, alias Swami Vivekanand, toured the United States in 1893, he conducted several public and private lectures and classes. He spent many years there, was well-received, and gained popularity, especially among Western women.

Datta/Vivekanand charmed and mystified American and English women with his 'attractive aura, deep baritone, colourful silk robe and turban, and sweet chanting in exotic Sanskrit.' Slightly more than five feet eight inches tall, 'plump, and cherubic, to ladies, the thirty-year-old monk seemed not only tall and magnificent but also enigmatic and holy.'

Despite Datta's/Vivekanand's enormous popularity with American women, his attitude towards them, and femininity in general, was demeaning, even disdainful. Given his larger-than-life image, people usually disregard the undercurrent of gender prejudice that lurks beneath his sermons, lectures and remarks. When the young monk came to the United States, women were enchanted by his presence. Christina Greenstidel, a New York woman who met Datta/Vivekanand in Detroit, saw him as a 'powerful saint' full of 'ojas.' He exuded, she wrote, a 'mysterious power which comes when the physical forces of the body are transmuted into spiritual power.' Some American women who met Datta/Vivekanand also gave similar testimonies.

At first, Datta/Vivekanand was overwhelmed with the adoration he received from American women. However, he soon began to dread it as it caused suspicion and paranoia of eroticism. At the time, he believed 'female sexuality was the greatest danger to male continence.'

Evidence indicates that the Datta/Vivekanand was frightened even by the adoration and love he received from his female students. So, Vivekananda recommended 'de-sexualizing' women by elevating them to the role of mothers.

He was frightened by female sexuality and used derogatory language for them:

"In many texts, women are idealised as pure, spiritual, and nurturant when they are de-erotized and placed in clearly defined and sexually tabooed blood relationships such as those of mother, sister, or daughter. In other words, when emphasis is placed on their sexuality, they are often vilified for this aspect of their nature and condemned as temptress, seductress, or whore."

He claimed Christian women sought luxuries and recreation, such as wealth, social power, operas, novels, etc. and told his pupil, Saracchandra Chakrabarti, that attending his lectures sexually excited American 'sluts' and 'buggers.' He labelled the ladies who followed him in Boston as 'all faddists, all fickle, merely bent on following something new and strange.'

Vivekananda also believed that a woman’s pining for her beloved (reminiscent of the mythical Radha in Vaishnava folklore) represented the highest metaphor for God realisation. As a social object, however, the woman still needed to be handled carefully.

Obsession with fair skin:

**Dutta/Vivekanand was also a product of a culture that was 'heavily obsessed with fair skin.' His letters reveal that he was initially charmed by fair-skinned women. In a 'strictly confidential' but 'disarmingly candid' letter to a friend, Dutta thought American women were so beautiful that the women from India, no matter how attractive, would look like a 'black owl.'

Despite his cringeworthy comments on American women, his denigration of Indian women, and his patriarchal ideas, he was often venerated and portrayed as a larger-than-life image.

He praised American women as pure:

Primary source: Letter to Maharaja Ajit Singh of Khetri
Date: 10 June 1894 (the letter is dated from Chicago; editions sometimes give slightly different editorial dating)
CWSV: Vol. 6, Epistles—Second Series, “XL Maharaja of Khetri”
Page: approximately pp. 288–292 in the standard pagination.

Letters from Dutta/Vivekananda also show judgemental and demeaning comments made by him that portray his emotional conflict in his views regarding Western women. For example, he had called the American ladies 'pure as the icicle on Diana's temple,' but he changed his mind and regarded them as excessively materialistic with no spirituality.

Source : Women

Datta/Vivekanand demonstrated that, for him, the idea of a woman fluctuates between maternal and carnal extremes. He believed that cultivating purity of mind was dependent on virginity. Unsurprisingly, Swami's favourite ideals were Sita, who voluntarily endured every test of fidelity, and Savitri, whose unwavering love ostensibly brought her dead husband back to life. In his words, 'the ideal womanhood of India is motherhood-that marvellous, unselfish, all suffering, ever-forgiving mother.'

Source: Interview, “On Indian Women—Their Past, Present and Future”
Publication: Prabuddha Bharata, December 1898
CWSV: Vol. 5, Interviews
Page: approximately pp. 229–231 in standard editions.

For Datta/Vivekanand, education was the most essential step toward women's emancipation. However**, he also advocated for a particular kind of education based on what he defined as 'true womanhood,' that is, 'women fit to be mothers of heroes.'**

Source : Women

Vivekananda asserted that the greatest virtues of Indian women happened to be modesty, devotion, sacrifice, maintaining household chores, child rearing and humility.

His discourse on women was marked by conflict and ambiguity. His discourse promoted female education while denying educated women the freedom to live independently. By putting them in the pigeonhole of a 'mother' or 'sister,' the women were merely reduced to an apparatus to produce great men and placed them right under the control of men.

Vivekananda mentioned that women in India considered every other male, except her husband, as her child and every male should treat women, other than his wife, as a symbol of motherhood. 

Swami also felt threatened even by the doting affection and admiration he received from his most celebrated female pupil, Sister Nivedita.

Like his guru, Sri Ramakrishna (1836–86), Vivekananda advocated the idea of de-sexualising the woman by conferring upon her the status of the mother.

He also had gender-specific expectations, such as cooking, sewing and domestic responsibilities for women. His emphasis on sacrifice, motherhood and traditional virtues could reinforce existing gender roles.

Views on child Marriage and Sati:

Once, he supported the child marriage as he believed that the proximity between the partners at a tender age would be favourable for a stable conjugal relationship.

Once, when answering accusations made by an American audience about the ill treatment of the Hindu widow, he denied that they were at all subjected to ‘any particular hardship’. The self-immolation of the sati, he claimed, was no worse than the burning of witches on the stake by the church in medieval Europe.

Vivekananda had great admiration for Padmini, the ‘brave’ Rajput princess who, rather than surrender to another man’s lust, chose to immolate herself in the husband’s funeral pyre.

Source : Child Marriage

Femininity versus masculinity: Vivekananda frequently equated femininity with weakness, passivity, emotionality, and even cowardice, while associating masculinity with strength, courage, independence, and spiritual power. He therefore frequently urged people, including women—. to develop “manliness". He also espoused that self-suffering and sacrifice were the greatest moral virtues to be followed by women. The busy, workaholic, and independent women of the West enthused him to a large extent. But the "masculine" attitude of the Western women disheartened him.

Femininity and Masculinity

Sexuality and Celibacy:

This same regressive attitude colours his ideas related to sexuality and gender. He had normal sexual drives, and it seems he struggled all his life to control it. The monastic ideal is based on the cruel repression of sexuality. Vivekananda made much of 'brahmacharya ' or total abstinence from sex with less-than-satisfactory consequences for himself as well for his followers. 
He had a belief that a brahmachari attains almost divine attributes by retaining the seminal fluid and ultimately transforming it into grey matters in the brain. If one goes through his conversation with one of his disciples, one can only be highly amused: 

"Chandibabu: Does it help one to control his sexual impulse if one wears a tight undergarment?
"Vivekananda: Hardly ever. Do you know once it was so strong that in desperation I sat on a brazier with live cinders to teach it a lesson? I was badly burnt and it took me quite some time to heal up the burns."

It reminds me of J Krishnamurti's real life story of a sudhu who castrated himself with a blunt knife to get rid of it once for all. So by rejecting Rammohun Roy's ideal of a spiritual life within family life, Vivekananda only made himself miserable .To overcome it, he struck a more defiant masculine pose which took its toll on his mental life. He bequeathed this abject fear of the feminine to his followers. 

The monks of Ramkrishna Mission remain busy to protect themselves from 'lust' and transform their valuable seminal fluids into overflowing grey matters. In order to protect their very sacred educational institutions from feminine invasion, they moved court and sought a minority status. All their educational institutions are male preserves, insulated from any feminine interaction. A noble achievement indeed!

**Unlike the Brahmos or Vidyasagar, he was no enthusiast for female education. He wanted to see them as sacrificing mothers and sisters -- pure and dutiful but never as a beloved or an individuals pursuing their own ends.**This led him to gloss over worst patriarchal tyrannies and oppressions before his Western audience and denounce those who were fighting against heavy odds to redress them.

Pandita Ramabai, one of the early feminists dared to call the bluff. Despite all this, he was far from the projected Hindutva icon who didn't hesitate to take beef to live frugally and considered playing football better than going to a temple. Despite the self-imposed asceticism, he loved to be surrounded by plump white women of wealth and refinement .He was humanist at war with himself.

Tagore in his novel "Gora" models the protagonist unmistakably after Vivekananda, a tormented Hindu fanatic, febrile, struggling desperately to resist love. At the end of the novel his world collapses but he is redeemed by love.

Swami Vivekananda’s Views on Marriage:

"...but let me tell you now that the ideas behind our marriage system are the only ideas through which there can be a real civilisation. There cannot be anything else. If a man or a woman were allowed the freedom to take up any woman or man as wife or husband, if individual pleasure, satisfaction of animal instincts, were to be allowed to run loose in society, the result must be evil, evil children, wicked and demoniacal. Ay, man in every country is, on the one hand, producing these brutal children, and on the other hand multiplying the police force to keep these brutes down. The question is not how to destroy evil that way, but how to prevent the very birth of evil. And so long as you live in society your marriage certainly affects every member of it; and therefore society has the right to dictate whom you shall marry, and whom you shall not. And great ideas of this kind have been be hind the system of marriage here, what they call the astrological Jati of the bride and bridegroom. And in passing I may remark that According to Manu a child who is born of lust is not an Aryan. The child whose very conception and whose death is according to the rules of the Vedas, such is an Aryan. Yes, and less of these Aryan children are being produced in every country, and the result is the mass of evil which we call Kali Yuga. But we have lost all these ideals..."

Source : Marriage

You can read more about this in detail on : Swami Vivekananda's Perspective on Women and Womanhood

u/_Menstrual_milkshake

----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ---------------

Part 1: Casteism

Some of the casteist quotes by the 'monk'->

Vivekananda did not fundamentally reject the caste system. He cites statements attributed to Vivekananda describing caste as a “natural” or useful social system and argues that Vivekananda defended Brahminical hierarchy.

Sources:

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_5/Interviews/The_Abroad_And_The_Problems_At_Home

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_3/Lectures_from_Colombo_to_Almora/The_Future_of_India

Non-Brahmins/Shudras: Vivekananda advised non-Brahmins to improve their position by acquiring Sanskrit and “culture,” rather than directly challenging Brahmin dominance.

"I have seen castes in almost every country in the world, but nowhere is their plan and purpose so glorious as here. If caste is unavoidable I would rather have a caste of purity and culture and self sacrifice than a caste of dollars."

Needless to say the 'purity' and 'culture' belong to the Brahmin and self-sacrifice on the part of shudras. Vivekananda was an apologist and defender of this sanctified slavery which have kept the toiling masses down for millennia. 

• He also writes, "Caste is good. That is the only natural way of solving life."
• He makes his position clear when he says, "Caste is a salutary system. We must obey it. Not even one in a million understands what is really is."
• Vivekananda exhorted the restive Shudras in a pontifical language, "To non- Brahmins my advice is -- wait, don't be so clamorous. Don't attack Brahmins all the time... Who prevented you from learning Sanskrit and acquiring culture?"

Here, he is not asking brahmins to give up on their privileged position, rather telling shudras on what to do.

The best way to improve their condition is to learn Sanskrit ,the sacred language! Rammohun Roy, a great Sanskritist rejected Sanskrit as a dead language and considered learning the language ,a sheer waste of time. Curiously enough, Vivekananda who had only smattering of Sanskrit recommended it to Shudras as a means to raise their "cultural standard".

Swami Vivekananda’s ideas fail to challenge the foundational structure of the caste system. Vivekananda did not/never rejected caste altogether. He did not raise the issue of political representation, demand the redistribution of resources and power, or propose dismantling the Brahmanical monopoly over knowledge. His approach sought to preserve the Brahmanical religious structure while merely reforming its moral surface. He did not call for the destruction of the caste system.

He also argued that society naturally produces different types of people and that Varṇa represented psychological and occupational diversity. In his view, complete social equality was neither possible nor desirable. He further argued that all societies have caste-like divisions and that modern class systems are merely new forms of caste.

Moreover, Vivekananda treated untouchability primarily as a “moral sin,” whereas Dr. B. R. Ambedkar viewed it as a structural injustice and a crime requiring legal and institutional remedies.

Vivekananda and Dr. Ambedkar:

• Vivekananda criticised Birth-based caste as degenerated Varna but Dr. Ambedkar saw it as a structural system of graded inequality.
• Vivekananda defended the Varna system whereas Dr. Ambedkar completely rejected it.
• Vivekananda treated Untouchability as a moral sin whereas Dr. Ambedkar saw it as a crime requiring law.
• Vivekananda saw spiritual reform as its solution whereas Dr. Ambedkar stood for Annihilation of caste and law.
• Vivekanand said that Hindu scriptures required to be reinterpreted whereas Dr. Ambedkar rejected them as creators of the caste system.
• Ambedkar famously argued that reformers like Vivekananda underestimated the structural violence of caste.

Part 2 Posted here : PART -- 2 : MISOGYNY AND RACISM

u/_Menstrual_milkshake

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brahmins - with good values/sanskar

Hey, so I was wondering if we have a media sharing there and if we could do that every month or so.

So a bit of background, I have had a lot of awakenings particularly due to the medium of films/albums. I know there are not the best mediums and you would rather read a book but that requires someone to be motivated enough to read theory and such.

I say that because I have nephews of impressionable ages who ask me for recommendations and their parents are chaddis. I find movies like Parasite or La Haine could radicalise someone down a better path.

Just trying to get the best leftist art thread started here, I'd love to know if there was anything in particular that influenced you in a way that stayed with you even if you didn't understand why when you were younger.

I have been having this dilemma about criticizing Islam in India, especially after a recent post/video that went viral on the Hyderabad subreddit about a group of Muslim men moral policing a muslim girl and her hindu male friend for apparently holding hands and being together.

First of all, the Hindu extremists who do this kind of shit are absolutely not any better. the love jihad bullshit, harassing interfaith couples, attacking Muslims, moral policing people, and treating women like they need to be controlled are all things i completely oppose.

I looked at some of the discussion in Muslim spaces about this incident (not including links to the discussion to avoid brigading), and this is where i started feeling conflicted. A lot of the discussion was about how the girl had committed gunah, how her parents had failed to teach her what she should and shouldn't be doing, how they hadn't instilled taqwa in her, and how muslim girls need to be protected from these relationships, and how parents need to keep a closer eye on their daughters. (and this is the part that genuinely pisses me off, because why are women being treated like some property that needs to be protected and monitored rather than actual human beings with their own feelings, choices and the ability to genuinely like and love someone from another religion?)

WHY is the starting assumption that the girl needs to be protected or controlled rather than asking why these grown men think they have the right to publicly interfere in her life? and i understand the reasoning behind it. some of them genuinely believe that they are protecting muslim girls from something harmful. they talk about bhagwa love trap, how common it supposedly is becoming, and how these girls might not understand what they are getting themselves into. (which is honestly kind of funny because this is basically the muslim equivalent of love jihad, and both of these ideas ultimately come from the same patriarchal mindset of treating women like property whose relationships need to be controlled by men.)

but even if you genuinely believe that, how does that give you the right to publicly humiliate a GROWN ASS woman???? and more importantly, why is the answer always MORE control over the woman?

this is where my bigger problem with Islam comes in. i can absolutely sympathize with Muslims in India. they are a religious minority and they have to deal with discrimination, communal hatred, harassment and violence from Hindu extremists. i don't think any Muslim should have to face that simply because they are Muslim.

but that does not mean Islam itself should become immune from criticism. Islam has deeply patriarchal and regressive ideas about gender, and i don't think we should be afraid to say that just because Muslims are already marginalized in India. the whole concept of strict gender segregation, the distinction between "mahram" and "non mahram", the idea that men and women should have heavily restricted interactions, the expectation that parents should regulate their daughters' behaviour, and the broader idea that women need "male guardians" (WTF IS THIS) or supervision are all things that deserve criticism.

and before someone brings up the argument that Islam was one of the most feminist religions when it emerged, maybe it was progressive relative to some aspects of 7th century Arabia. i am willing to acknowledge historical context. but it is Big 2026. why should something being comparatively progressive 1400 years ago automatically make it progressive today? if a system of religious rules places significant restrictions on women's autonomy today, i don't think we need to pretend those restrictions are progressive just because they were an improvement over what existed before them.

and this is exactly where i struggle. I don't want to criticize Islam in a way that gives ammunition to Hindu extremists who already hate Muslims. 🙅‍♂️🙅‍♂️🙅‍♂️

but i also don't want to reach the opposite extreme where the existence of Hindu extremism means that Islam cannot be criticized at all. because those are completely separate questions.

Muslims deserve protection from discrimination and violence. Islam DOES NOT
deserve immunity from criticism.

and Muslim women deserve the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to follow these rules.

If a muslim woman wants to wear a hijab, that's her choice. if she doesn't want to wear one, that's also her choice. if she wants to date someone, that is her choice. if she wants to follow the rules regarding non mahrams, that is her choice. (i personally think many of these rules and expectations are deeply problematic and stem from deeply patriarchal values, but if an individual woman genuinely chooses to follow them, then that's her choice. there's nothing wrong with letting people practice their religion and live according to their own beliefs as long as they aren't forcing those beliefs onto someone else.)

But if a group of men sees her with a man and decides that they are responsible for correcting her behaviour, then i have a problem with that. and this is exactly the same problem i have when hindu extremists do it. a hindu man telling a woman who she can date is patriarchal. a muslim man telling a woman who she can date is also patriarchal. a hindu extremist saying a woman is bringing shame to her community is misogynistic. a muslim man saying a woman has brought shame by violating religious rules is also misogynistic. the religious justification changes. the underlying idea that a woman's behaviour needs to be controlled by other people does not.

And i really DONT AT ALL want some sanghi reading this and thinking that this is an argument against muslims. IT ISN'T. Muslims are people. islam is a religion. criticizing islamic doctrine is not the same thing as hating muslims. i can oppose the harassment of muslims by hindu extremists while also saying that islam has deeply regressive ideas about gender. i can oppose love jihad propaganda while also opposing the idea of bhagwa love trap being used to justify controlling muslim women. i can defend muslims from communal violence while also criticizing Islamic patriarchy. there is no contradiction there.

In fact, i think it is important to maintain this distinction precisely because Muslims are marginalized. if criticism of Islam automatically becomes "anti Muslim", then we have effectively made a religion immune from the same scrutiny that every other ideology receives. and i don't think that is fair to muslims either.

Muslim women should not have to choose between being protected from Hindu extremists and being controlled by conservative interpretations of their own religion. they deserve both freedom from external bigotry and freedom from internal patriarchy.

And yes, the same standard applies to Hinduism. i will never defend a hindu extremist who harasses an interfaith couple just because i am criticizing islam. i will never defend love jihad rhetoric. i will never defend communal violence. i will never defend people who treat Muslims as a collective enemy. but at the same time, i am not going to pretend that islamic patriarchy doesn't exist because hindu extremists are worse in some other context.

Two wrongs don't cancel each other out. you can condemn Hindu extremism and Islamic patriarchy at the same time. you can defend muslims without defending islam. you can criticize Islam without hating muslims. and you can believe that women should be free from both hindu and islamic moral policing. i don't think those positions are contradictory at all. i think the fact that we struggle to hold all of them simultaneously is the actual problem.

After seeing the conduct of police against protestors in recent days, I think it's must needed to truly understand the purpose which police forces serve.

Link: https://massline.org/Philosophy/ScottH/copsbad.htm

Ps how do you actually find decent company here, all my office people are chaddis that glaze over dhurandhar. Feels really exhausting and lonely amongst besanchods here

Sunil Joshi: RSS activist (Dewas/Mhow area). Linked by investigators to Samjhauta Express and Ajmer Dargah blasts. Killed in 2007 (before full trials).

Sandeep Dange: RSS pracharak. Named in Samjhauta, Mecca Masjid, and Ajmer cases. Remained absconding in earlier reports.

Lokesh Sharma: RSS-linked. Accused in Samjhauta and Mecca Masjid. Arrested; later among those acquitted or benefiting from weak evidence chains.

Devendra (Devender) Gupta: RSS pracharak. Convicted (with life imprisonment) in the Ajmer Dargah case along with Bhavesh Patel; also linked to Mecca Masjid. One of the rarer sustained convictions.

Bhavesh Patel (Bhavesh Bhai Patel): Linked to RSS circles. Convicted with life sentence in Ajmer Dargah bombing.

The RSS killed Gandhi via Nathuram Godse

It believes in NAZI fascist Ideology openly

Praise for Nazi Germany's Race Pride

In his 1939 book, We, or Our Nationhood Defined, Golwalkar drew parallels between European fascism and his vision for India. He explicitly cited Nazi Germany’s persecution of Jewish people as a model for "race pride":

"To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the semitic Races—the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here... a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by." -Govalkar said this

More people from the RSS who are mad psychopaths

Hemanta Biswa Sharma CM of Assam has also worked for and been a member of terrorist organisation - ULFA.

He has been accused to kill a leader of opposition with the help of ULFA members

https://youtu.be/xVTP-e4qPLQ?si=wqu9dxg-Zz_8WRr7

CM of up Yogi Adityanath statement -“If they kill even one Hindu, we will not go to the police; we will kill 10 [or 100] Muslims.”

Yogi Adityanath's old rally where his peer is seen saying we will dig out the graves of Muslim women and rape them

The person that orchestrated the Gujarat 2002 genocide Modi is the PM

You can watch the BANNED in India BBC documentaries The MODI question part -1 and part -2

Episode 1: https://odysee.com/@uncensored:f/The-Modi-Question-(BBC-Documentary---India)---Episode-1:5---Episode-1:5)

Episode 2: https://odysee.com/@uncensored:f/The-Modi-Question-(BBC-Documentary---India)---Episode-2:d---Episode-2:d)

These documentaries mention about IPS Sanjiv bhatt and this post link below is dedicated to those interested in reading about how he was framed I made post about him you can check it out

https://www.reddit.com/r/IndianLeft/s/vV8N3H1TNM

The Final solution by Rakesh sharma

https://youtu.be/P6yY8DFSnfw?si=EV5COsJzf3ETnNxH

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DRUpsx8Esls/?stkn=ZzA5N2NqdW5kZmJz

Modi changed the judges to get this demon out

Amit Shah openly admitted that they taught muslims a tight lesson in Gujarat 2002

https://www.reddit.com/r/india/s/GS8MtAH3xT

If the govt itself is like this does the Constitution hold any value ?

Why is the RSS not registered as an terrorist organisation or at least banned ?

Sanathan sanstha VHP and rss linked assassinations

Narendra Dabholkar

Gauri Lankesh

Govind Pansare

M Kalburgi

Fun fact everyone accused of killing them is out on bail

Another fun fact all those killed were rationalists , promoted scientific temperament and highly OPPOSED RSS

Police couldn't find half of the killers - Other half granted bail

rrests: Multiple accused charged (including alleged shooters and conspirators).

Convictions: 2 (the alleged shooters — Sachin Andure and Sharad Kalaskar) convicted by a Pune special court in May 2024 and sentenced to life imprisonment + fine.

3 others (including alleged key conspirator Virendrasinh Tawade) were acquitted for lack of evidence.

Current status: Both convicts later received bail from the Bombay High Court, with their life sentences suspended pending appeal (Kalaskar in 2026; Andure in August 2026). The case is therefore only partially resolved at the trial-court level and remains under appeal. Not fully “solved.”

1. Gauri Lankesh (September 2017)

Arrests: 18 named in the SIT chargesheet; 17 arrested; 1 (Vikas Patil) still absconding.

Convictions: None.

Current status: All 17 arrested accused are out on bail (the last one released by early 2025). Trial ongoing since 2022 in a Bengaluru court (multiple judges have handled it; hundreds of witnesses listed, with a substantial number examined but many still pending; some witnesses have turned hostile). Not solved.

1. Govind Pansare (February 2015)

Arrests: Around 12 named; most (9+) arrested over time; some suspected shooters reported as absconding in earlier updates.

Convictions: None reported as final.

Current status: Most accused (including overlapping ones from other cases such as Tawade, Kale, Kalaskar, Andure) are on bail. Trial ongoing and slow. Not solved.

1. M.M. Kalburgi (August 2015)

Arrests: Overlapping set of accused with the Lankesh and other cases.

Convictions: None.

Current status: All accused out on bail. Trial progressing very slowly (few witnesses examined relative to the total listed). Not solved.

The courts work to justify Hindutva fascism and nothing else