Mecca & Medina Shake Hands with Israel, Yet Frenzy Grips India
Following news of the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in an alleged American-Israeli attack, protests and mourning assemblies were organized by sections of the Muslim community—particularly Shia Muslims—across several Indian cities. In these demonstrations, deep resentment was voiced against the 'silence' of Prime Minister Modi and the Indian government. In some places, anti-national rhetoric surfaced. Leaders from the Congress, the Left, and other opposition parties demanded that the Indian government explicitly condemn the attack and express support for Iran. Sonia Gandhi even penned an article for a newspaper, not only criticizing the government but appearing to back a radical perspective.
Faith vs. National Policy
Extremism does not stem from guns alone; it begins with the language of protest. Today, knowingly or unknowingly, we are digging the same trench in which great civilizations like Persia were once buried. Respecting faith is democracy, but holding national policy hostage in the name of faith is anarchy. India’s foreign policy should not be based on love or hatred for any religion, but on the security and economic future of 140 crore Indians—not on the appeasement of vote banks.
It is tragic to see that while the Arab world talks of 'Mars Missions' and 'AI technology,' a section in India remains trapped in the mindset of 7th-century conflicts. Opposing Israel or America has become a 'fashion' pursued at the expense of national interest. If Gulf nations can shake hands with Israel for their own national interests, Indian Muslims need to reflect: whose battle are they fighting—Iran’s 'proxy' agenda or the progress of their own country, India?
Geography vs. Transnational Politics
We must understand that Iran has its own politics, and India has its own geography. When a citizen disparages their own elected government based on foreign conflicts, they are effectively weakening their own democratic roots. Those shedding tears for Khamenei in India must also remember that Iran, besides Israel, is currently launching missile attacks on several Muslim nations in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, causing massive loss of life and property. Nearly 10 million Indians live in these regions. In such a scenario, is this one-sided display of affection for Iran not reminiscent of the 'Khilafat Movement' style of outrage against the Indian government?
There is no doubt that an attack on a sovereign nation or the assassination of a political/religious leader—as alleged against the U.S.—is wrong. However, a nation that builds terrorist organizations, provides them with resources, orchestrates terror attacks in rival countries, and carries out kidnappings and killings of civilians cannot be justified either. These are heinous crimes against humanity, which Iran has been committing for years. Who is more "wrong" may be a matter of debate.
The Intersectional Reality
Although Khamenei was a supreme religious leader, he held no constitutional post; therefore, there is no justification for official government condolences. This is especially true given that he periodically issued controversial statements regarding India’s internal matters. Khamenei repeatedly compared Kashmir to Palestine, Gaza, and Yemen. In August 2019, when India abolished Article 370, he demanded that the Indian government end its "repressive policy" in Kashmir. He termed the March 2020 Delhi riots a "massacre of Muslims" and criticized the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)—a direct interference in India’s internal affairs. For a sovereign nation to express grief after such "unacceptable interference" is to wound its own self-respect and national identity.
Strategic Autonomy and Energy Security
In the current situation, the war between Iran, Israel, and the US is extremely challenging for India. India must stick to its policy of "Strategic Autonomy." The Modi government has elevated ties with Israel to a 'Strategic Partnership,' the warmth of which was visible during the PM’s visit to Israel in February 2026. Simultaneously, India must maintain trade ties with Iran, even though the bridge between the two ancient civilizations has largely become history since Iran became an Islamic state. India’s official stance must be that of a "skilled balancer," seeking peace through "dialogue and diplomacy."
India fulfills a large part of its energy needs (crude oil and gas) through this region. Tensions in the Strait of Hormuz have disrupted the supply chain. Although the U.S. has granted India a 30-day waiver to purchase Russian oil to stabilize the economy, supply remains hindered as insurance companies refuse to provide cover.
The Shared Roots of Rigveda and Zend-Avesta
The ties between ancient Sanatan India and ancient Persia live in the pages of the Rigveda and the Zend-Avesta. These civilizations are considered two branches of the same Aryan stock. Linguistically, Vedic Sanskrit and Ancient Avestan are like "twin sisters." What is called 'Yajna' in Sanatan tradition is 'Yasna' in Parsi tradition. Both civilizations revered 'Agni' (Fire) as sacred.
A unique philosophical divergence is also visible. In India, 'Devas' became worshipful while 'Asuras' became symbols of demonic tendencies. In Iran, the opposite occurred: 'Ahura' (Asura) became the Supreme God (Ahura Mazda) and 'Daevas' became symbols of evil. This suggests that these groups were once together and split due to ideological differences, though their roots and rituals remained identical.
The 3,400-year-old Boghazkoi inscription found in Turkey proves that Rigvedic deities (Indra, Varuna, Mitra, Nasatya) were worshipped as far as the Near East. This debunked the myth that Sanatan Dharma was the product of a small, isolated region.
From Persia to the 1979 Reversal
The journey from "Persia" to "Iran" was a quest to rediscover roots. The word 'Iran' comes from the Avestan 'Airyanam,' meaning "Land of the Aryans." It was formally recognized internationally on March 21, 1935, under Reza Shah Pahlavi, who wanted the world to see his country’s 'Aryan heritage' rather than just the colonial lens of 'Persia.'
However, the 1979 Islamic Revolution pushed it into a 'Stone Age' of radicalism. It didn't just change the government; it altered a centuries-old identity. Law was based on Sharia, co-education was abolished, and strict censorship was imposed. Hijab became mandatory, and pre-Islamic culture was suppressed.
A Gentle Warning: The Choice is Ours
The history of Iran teaches us that radicalism always arrives in the name of 'religious reform,' but it ultimately annihilates civilization. India’s shield should not be its 'tolerance,' but its 'vigilant democracy' and 'civilizational pride.' If we allow our national identity to be buried under religious identity, we will move toward the same Stone Age that takes civilizations centuries to escape.
"India’s strength lies not in its diversity, but in that diversity being bound by the thread of 'Indianness.' If this thread breaks, we too will become part of those historical pages that we are currently reading as a 'warning'."
Do you want to give your next generation a modern, progressive India, or merely a shadow of a foreign ideology? The choice is yours.
— Shiv Mishra
No comments:
Post a Comment