9 Comments
User's avatar
Mumbai || Paused's avatar

Reconquista explains the majoritarianism and Hindutva under Modi quite nicely. This is a good explainer. A few links to books or articles would help people who need to know more and follow the news about the elections coming soon.

Expand full comment
Vedic's avatar

“In the Modi version of Indian history, colonization began with the arrival of Muslim invaders to the subcontinent in the eighth century and includes the rule of the Mughal dynasty. The founder of the latter was from central Asia. However, over the more than 300 years of the dynasty’s (1526 to 1857) sovereignty in India, it became as Indian as turmeric, at least in the historical tellings popularized by Indian nationalists like Mahatma Gandhi.”

That’s not his version of history, its the reality for Hindus.

No, Turkic Muslims who saw Hindus as nothing but slaves and satanic idolators are not “Indian as turmeric”. They didn’t wear the same clothes, they didn’t follow the same religion, worship the same god, make the same art, build the same architecture, for a long while didn’t speak the same language, hardly sponsored anything Indian whatsoever, and even actively destroyed what Indians have built and created, but sure they were as Indian as turmeric.

Maybe Indian means something different to Hindu for some, but speaking from the perspective of Hindus they were not one of ours and were 100% persecutors and colonizers.

Expand full comment
Vedic's avatar

I don’t know why people deny this reality like Gandhi? Maybe to comfort their mind. The truth is harsh lol.

Expand full comment
Karthikeyan Chidambaram's avatar

Regarding this below point.

//

The Reconquista-avatar of Mr. Modi, on the other hand, is as atavistic, as his development face is all about techno-modernity. In a line of reasoning that has been actively encouraged by the Prime Minister and his Party, India is increasingly being cast as a civilization that was not only colonized for 250 years by the British – the trope that was my generation’s gospel – but for over 1,000 years.

//

Well how can only British colonization be colonization and the Islamic/Portuguese regimes not be colonization !

This in itself is discriminatory against the more secular British rather than the religious Portuguese/Islamic rulers who spread religion and decimated native religions and destroyed cultures across the world and even in India for us to see.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Mar 20, 2024
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Aduthaathu Ambujam's avatar

One notes that whilst your ability to debate and argue appear to be close to zero, you seem to believe that your ability to hurl abuse would compensate for said intellectual impotence. Unfortunately it does not.

This is a platform for decent, civilised debate. You can surely disagree with the author without being disagreeable in tone. Alas, that appears to be a skill that is not taught in the Gaurakshak Academy from which you appear to have graduated.

Expand full comment
Karthikeyan Chidambaram's avatar

Her articles come to my inbox.

I always correct them when they make sweeping statements that hide history.

Thanks to you for reading my comment :-)

Don't abuse please.

Expand full comment
Pallavi Aiyar's avatar

My articles do not magically appear in your inbox. They do so because you have subscribed to my newsletter. You are very welcome to unsubscribe.

Expand full comment
Pallavi Aiyar's avatar

And it is a poor reflection on your character that you would thank someone for a comment in which they refer to a woman as a “bitch”

Expand full comment
Karthikeyan Chidambaram's avatar

I don't intend to unsubscribe your article anyways.

Where did you see a "poor reflection" of "my character" ?

Thanks was for reading my comment and not for abusing you.

Didn't you read this comment by my ? > "Don't abuse please."

(i didn't miss the word "bitch".)

I request you to please acknowledge this comment and my objection to that anonymous user.

Expand full comment