The Test of Art and Extremism — “Allah Rakha Rahman” Failed! |

  

 

 

The Test of Art and Extremism — “Allah Rakha Rahman” Failed!

When music collides with politics, when an artist becomes a pawn in someone else’s game, and when blinded by self-interest, lends his shoulder to others’  — the name today  appears in memory is Allah Rakha Rahman.

Rahman is no ordinary figure. He is India’s global cultural ambassador. That is why when his name gets linked with a controversial international platform like the BBC, every word ceases to be just an interview — it becomes a narrative.

The BBC, steeped in colonial bias, has long sought to establish the narrative that M@lims face discrimination in India, is felt by every Indian today.   After his interview with BBC correspondent Haroon Rashid, Rahman is in the headlines. He claimed he has not been getting work, that in the past eight years power has shifted, and now “noncreative” people decide who gets work and who doesn’t. The implication was clear: since the change of government at the Centre, this has been happening. This is political language. He even suggested that communal bias might be a reason, and went so far as to call the film Chhava divisive — a film for which he himself composed the music.

Taken literally, it sounds as if Rahman is a poor, neglected artist struggling financially. But the truth is that he is among the wealthiest composers in the film industry. He owns a stateoftheart studio in Chennai — something no other composer has built so far. He regularly performs concerts, earns handsomely, and remains busy. Which raises natural questions:

· Does Rahman truly face a problem? If not, why the antiHindu and antiIndia statements?

· Are there forces behind him — extremist or antiIndia — pushing this narrative? If yes, what are the implications?

In a democracy, freedom of speech is undisputed. But the bigger question is not just what he said — it is where he chose to say it. The BBC is not a cultural forum. It is a notorious anti-India narrative builder, leaning toward leftist and I@lamist organizations. Funded by British taxpayers, it often stands against its own mainstream — so what is India to it? When you speak to the BBC, you hand them a weapon against India.

A great artist is not just a citizen — he is a brand ambassador of the nation. India gave Rahman everything: the Oscar stage, countless national awards, Padma Shri, Padma Bhushan, and Padma Vibhushan. But what did he give back to the country? Deep insult.

Moral responsibility toward the nation is a duty greater than any award. I do not say Rahman should remain silent — but he showed no hesitation in speaking against the Nation, majority community (Hindus), Hindi, and  against his own fans. He composed music for Chhava, earned money, and now calls the film divisive. No good self respected person would do this.

Until now, no one could imagine calling Rahman antinational. But today, as his true feelings have surfaced, his name is being condemned in every street. He insulted the Hindu faith in which he was born and lived for 22 years. He insulted his Hindu father. He insulted his Hindu relatives.

No artist in cinema can remain at the top forever. The principle of “survival of the fittest” applies here too. Dilip Kumar, Rajesh Khanna, Amitabh Bachchan — all faced competition with time. Rahman’s claim that he is denied work because he is M@lim is a grave allegation. He cannot be so naïve as to not understand its impact.

Hindi cinema has long been dominated by the Khan trio — Shah Rukh, Aamir, Salman — and their fans have largely been Hindus. M@lims, by sheer numbers and viewing habits, cannot alone make or break stardom. Yet Shah Rukh Khan, when frisked at American airports, returns to India claiming discrimination because of his faith. Aamir Khan once said his wife feared for their children. Naseeruddin Shah’s statements are well known. Many returned awards, some even threatened to leave the country. All this began after the 2014 change of government. Now Rahman has carried that chain forward.

Rahman rose to fame through Hindi songs — Vande Mataram, Jiya Jale, Chaiyya Chaiyya etc. Everything he is today, he owes to Hindi and Hindi cinema. Yet in his BBC interview he insulted Hindi and praised Urdu as the “mother of music.” Either he does not understand India, or he is pushing a sectarian agenda. To truly understand India’s classical music would take him not one lifetime, but many.

Few know Rahman was born A. S. Dilip Kumar. His father, R. K. Shekhar, was a devout Hindu and a composer in Tamil and Malayalam films. After his father’s death, the family faced economic and emotional hardship. His sister was gravely ill. Seeking relief, Rahman came under the influence of a Sufi cleric, and at around 22 converted to Islam. Today, at nearly 59, his body carries 22 years of Hindu upbringing and 37 years of Muslim identity — and this is the result. He often said: “I see religion not as a wall, but as a bridge.” Yet now, crossing that bridge, he has allied with antiIndia and sectarian forces, proving his conversion was for convenience.

It was Mani Ratnam who gave Rahman his break in Roja. If communal bias were real, how would he have been chosen? Slumdog Millionaire won him the Oscar. Padma Shri was awarded by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Padma Vibhushan by Narendra Modi. If his hint is toward political power shifts, he should remember these facts. Only someone driven by an agenda could be so ungrateful.

This is not just about Rahman. Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan, Salman Khan, Naseeruddin Shah — all have publicly displayed communal bias at times. More importantly, international forces pushing their “GhazwaeHind” agenda lure Indian M@lim celebrities into their net, using them as tools. This pattern continues across fields — cinema, sports, politics, administration. From Azharuddin to Hamid Ansari, anyone can be drawn in.

During the Kargil war, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee invited Dilip Kumar to Delhi to speak with Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, to show how happy M@lms were in India. But Vajpayee was stunned when Dilip Kumar told Sharif over the phone: “For Allah’s sake, stop this. When you do such things, it becomes impossible for us M@lms to step out of our homes in India.” This was the same Dilip Kumar who had hidden his real name, yet India had honored him.

Today Rahman has become a pawn in the hands of extremists. Tomorrow it may be someone else. He has so much wealth that he no longer cares for Hindi or Hindi cinema. Which is why it is hard to believe his actions were accidental — they appear deliberate, even sponsored. Why did he never say such things to Indian journalists? Why only on the BBC? And why now, with no special occasion?

One who betrays the Nation — even if he apologizes — cannot and should not be forgiven.

— Shiv Mishra

Somnath Swabhiman Utsav: Recalling History After 1,000 Years

 

---

Somnath Swabhiman Utsav: Recalling History After 1,000 Years || The Struggle of Somnath – Continuous Hostility from Ghazni to Nehru || Modi’s Presence Sparks New Discourse on Cultural Nationalism

---

From January 8–11, 2026, a four-day “Somnath Swabhiman Utsav” (Somnath Pride Festival) is being organized to commemorate two historic milestones: the 1,000th anniversary of Mahmud of Ghazni’s attack on the Somnath Temple and the 75th anniversary of its modern reconstruction. Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be present at the Somnath Temple on January 10 and 11, participating in the celebrations.

Exactly one thousand years ago, in January 1026, the I@lamic invader Mahmud of Ghazni attacked the Somnath Temple—not merely to plunder wealth but as an act of jih@dist barbarity aimed at propagating Isl@m and asserting Islamic supremacy. This was because the Somnath Temple holds the foremost and most sacred position among the twelve Jyotirlingas dedicated to Lord Shiva. Despite repeated assaults by fanatical invaders thereafter, they could never shake India’s eternal faith—Somnath was rebuilt again and again.

**Nehru’s Letters Expose Questions About Congress’s Secularism**

Even before attending the “Somnath Swabhiman Utsav,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi shared on social media photographs of a ceremony held at the temple after 50 years, stating that India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, opposed the reconstruction of the Somnath Temple and actively obstructed it. The BJP has released 17 letters written by Nehru concerning the Somnath Temple, placing not only Nehru but the entire Congress party under intense scrutiny. Through these letters, the BJP has challenged Congress’s historical policies, reinforcing the narrative that Congress-style secularism effectively meant hostility toward Hindus.

**Patel’s Resolve: Rebuilding Somnath Through Public Donations**

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel took a solemn vow to rebuild the Somnath Temple just after Independence, standing before the sea on November 11, 1947—a resolution unanimously endorsed by the Union Cabinet, even in Nehru’s presence. Though Nehru remained silent during the cabinet meeting, he later vehemently opposed the proposal and tried every possible means to block the temple’s reconstruction. However, Patel’s determination prevailed over Nehru’s resistance. Nehru even complained to Gandhi about his frustration. Gandhi then advised Patel against using government funds for reconstruction. Accepting this suggestion, Patel established the Somnath Trust and raised public donations to rebuild the temple.

**President Rajendra Prasad vs. Nehru: The Consecration Controversy**

When Nehru was invited to the consecration ceremony of the reconstructed Somnath Temple, he coldly declined. He even instructed all his ministers—and notably, the President himself—not to attend the event. Nevertheless, President Dr. Rajendra Prasad decided to attend the ceremony. Nehru went so far as to indirectly order the President not to use any government resources for attending the function. Consequently, K.M. Munshi personally arranged for the President’s travel. Nehru grew so resentful toward Rajendra Prasad over this that he harbored lifelong animosity toward him. Normally, retired Presidents receive lifelong housing and allowances from the government, but Nehru deliberately denied Rajendra Prasad any official residence. In his final days, the ailing former President spent his time in a damp, moldy room at the Congress Party office—Sadaqat Ashram—in Patna, where he eventually passed away.

**Nehru Aligned with Liaquat Ali Against Somnath**

In a 1951 letter to Chief Ministers, Nehru expressed anger over the “fanfare and ceremony” surrounding the Somnath Temple’s inauguration, arguing it would damage India’s secular image abroad. He even directed Indian embassies to ignore requests from the Somnath Trust for holy river water for the consecration rituals. On April 21, 1951, Nehru wrote to Pakistan’s Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan—addressing him as “Dear Nawabzada”—and assured him that nothing like the Somnath Temple’s reconstruction was actually happening. Nehru further instructed Indian embassies not to assist the Somnath Trust in any way, including requests for river water for the abhishek (consecration). In a letter to India’s ambassador in Pakistan, Nehru explicitly ordered formal rejection of using Sindhu River water for the Somnath abhishek. He also directed the Foreign Secretary and Cabinet Secretary to ensure embassies completely disregard any such requests from the Trust.

Releasing Nehru’s letters hasn’t revealed anything new—his anti-Hindu stance was already public knowledge, backed by ample evidence.

**Had Nehru Prevailed, the Ram Temple Would Not Exist**

Nehru’s attitude toward Hindu sentiments is evident from his correspondence regarding the Ayodhya dispute, documented in the Nehru Papers. When idols of Ram Lalla mysteriously appeared inside the Babri Masjid on the night of December 22–23, 1949, Nehru was furious. News of the manifestation drew thousands of devotees to Ayodhya, creating a massive crowd that overwhelmed local law enforcement. Acting on Nehru’s instructions, local Congress workers—led by District Congress President Akshay Brahmachari—launched protests and indefinite hunger strikes, pressuring district authorities to remove the idols. Nehru immediately ordered Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Govind Ballabh Pant to have the idols removed. When Pant failed to act decisively, Nehru directly called Faizabad District Magistrate K.K.K. Nayar and ordered immediate removal of the idols from the sanctum sanctorum. Nayar explained that thousands had gathered at the site, making removal extremely difficult.

**K.K.K. Nayar Saved the Ram Temple**

To counter mounting political pressure, District Magistrate Nayar attached the Janma Bhoomi premises, appointed a receiver, and entrusted him with the responsibility of performing daily rituals to Ram Lalla. These rituals continued uninterrupted until the Ram Temple was finally constructed. An enraged Nehru sent a telegram to Pant on December 29, 1949:

“I am deeply concerned about developments in Ayodhya. I hope you intervene personally in this matter immediately. Dangerous precedents are being set, which will have grave consequences.”

Pant, through the state’s Chief Secretary, issued a written order to Nayar demanding immediate removal of the idols—even if it required force. Nayar firmly refused, warning that such action would provoke mass outrage and lead to large-scale casualties—an outcome both administratively and politically unacceptable. Thanks to Nayar’s alertness and courage, a civil suit over the Janmabhoomi site was filed in Faizabad court on January 16, 1950, bringing the matter under judicial review. Pant told Nehru further intervention would be improper, but Nehru remained adamant about removing the idols—even attempting (unsuccessfully) to pressure the judiciary.

On March 5, 1950, Nehru wrote another letter to Pant—originally addressed to the Faizabad administration—reiterating his order for immediate removal of the idols. Nayar expressed inability to comply with the Prime Minister’s directive. In a letter to the Chief Secretary, Nayar stated that if the government insisted on forcibly removing the idols, he should first be relieved of his post, as such action would inevitably cause mass casualties. In response, Nehru accused Nayar of defying orders and even offered to visit Ayodhya himself—but Pant, fearing backlash from Ram devotees, dissuaded him.

On May 18, 1950, Nehru wrote to Bidhan Chandra Roy:

“Thank you for your letter of May 16... A mob led by local priests and orthodox Hindus has seized an old mosque built by Babur in Ayodhya. I say with great sorrow that the UP government showed extreme weakness in handling the situation. You may have noticed the large-scale exodus of Muslims from UP.”

Nehru made every possible effort to preserve the B@bri M@sjid structure over Ram Janma Bhoomi. His numerous letters in the Nehru Papers clearly reveal his deep discomfort with Hindu religious activities and the cultural resurgence of Sanatan Dharma.

**Congress and Allies React Defensively**

Unsurprisingly, Congress and its allies have responded defensively. By questioning Nehruvian secularism, the BJP is exposing Congress’s anti-Hindu mindset while politically championing Hindu cultural revival. Undoubtedly, Modi’s visit aims to place India’s cultural heritage at the center of political discourse—a strategy that leaves the opposition looking increasingly marginalized. The Somnath issue transcends mere temple reconstruction; it symbolizes a deeper ideological clash—between Nehru’s artificial secularism and Sardar Patel’s vision of cultural nationalism.

Since Independence, Congress has consistently pursued M@slim polarization for electoral gains. Now, it faces the challenge of Hindu polarization in favor of the BJP—a trend contributing to Congress’s repeated electoral defeats. If Congress seeks Hindu support, it must understand and respect Hindu sentiments; otherwise, it will never politically rival the BJP.

In 2024, Congress boycotted the Ram Temple consecration ceremony in Ayodhya. Had they participated, they could have blunted Modi’s Hindutva appeal—but instead, they reaffirmed their Nehruvian appeasement policy. Earlier, in 2007, during the Setu Samudram Project case, Congress had even submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court claiming Ram and the Ramayana lacked historical basis and were purely fictional.

There are many such instances where Congress, much like past invaders, repeatedly attacked Hindu faith. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the Hindu public continues to reject Congress from power. If there’s a price to pay for appeasement, there’s also a cost for opposition—one that must now be borne.

~~~~~~~~Shiv Mishra ~~~~~

The Changing Face of Terrorism — Global Overview 2025

 

---

The Changing Face of Terrorism — Global Overview || 2025 proved that terrorism hasn't ended—it has changed its form, geography, and strategy

---

The year 2025 reminded the world that while terrorism may have weakened in its traditional forms in some regions, its threat has not disappeared. Instead, its form, geography, and strategy are evolving. Africa’s Sahel region, South Asia—especially India’s border areas—West Asia, and several Western and developed nations all faced terrorism in some form. For the first time, even a relatively “safe” country like Australia witnessed a major terrorist attack at Sydney’s Bondi Beach. Tragically, the level of radicalism has escalated to the point where a father-son duo from a particular community carried out a massacre of Jews, considering it a religious act.

In 2025, it appeared that the number of terrorist incidents declined in some places, but the attacks became more lethal and spread across more countries. The geographic reach of terrorism expanded. If this trend continues, it could engulf the entire world in the coming years. While many still assert that “terror has no religion,” nearly all major terrorist incidents last year were dominated by extremists from one particular religion.

“Terrorism is no longer a problem of one region—it is a global security challenge driven by technology, proxy networks, and soft-target strategies.”

India’s Security Landscape in 2025

India’s domestic security framework remained strong, but cross-border and Kashmir-sponsored terrorism posed serious challenges. The Pahalgam and Red Fort attacks reshaped the year’s security landscape and highlighted the need for policy and community-level interventions. High-profile, white-collar, and highly educated terrorists underscored the need for radical policy changes and strong political will, as well as the urgent need to eliminate homegrown extremist ideologies.

The Pahalgam attack (22 April 2025), in which 26 Hindu tourists were killed after being asked their religion, was the year’s most brutal and gruesome religious massacre. The Red Fort suicide car bombing (10 November 2025), involving highly educated doctors from a specific community and names linked to Al-Falah University, was a high-profile, white-collar incident allegedly carried out in the name of “Ghazwa-e-Hind.” These events caused immense damage to local citizens and the tourism sector, and sparked serious suspicion toward a particular community in nearly every democratic country.

Global Terrorism Trends and Data

The Institute for Economics and Peace (GTI) 2025 report stated that the geographic spread of terrorism increased, and the number of affected countries multiplied. While some countries saw reduced impact, new hotspots emerged and new technologies were adopted. According to the Global Terrorism Index and other reports, annual deaths from terrorism had crossed 12,000 by 2023. Despite a 10% decline in 2024, the number of affected countries rose from 58 to 80, and the death toll reached alarming levels.

Major incidents included:

• Australia: Bondi Beach shooting at a Jewish gathering (14 December 2025)
• Pakistan: Mastung police bus attack and Islamabad suicide bombing
• Syria: Homs mosque bombing (26 December 2025)
• Nigeria: Maiduguri mosque suicide attack (25 December 2025
• USA: New Orleans truck attack killing 14 and injuring 57
• Sahel, Somalia, Congo, Yemen, Afghanistan: dozens of attacks with thousands of casualties and billions in property damage

Ideological Roots and Community Dynamics

Almost all attacks involved individuals or groups linked to a specific religious ideology, although many followers of that religion worldwide continued to claim that their faith promotes peace and brotherhood. It remains unclear whether these individuals are radicals or defenders of religious extremism. As a result, India’s references to “Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb” and examples of communal harmony are increasingly questioned in the context of terrorism.

Kashmir and Political Response

After the abrogation of Article 370, radical elements in the valley were stunned, and terrorism in Kashmir declined significantly. However, the government left certain amendments incomplete, preventing the return of Kashmiri Pandits and the settlement of outsiders in the region. Governance remained valley-centric, sidelining Jammu and facilitating demographic changes through the settlement of infiltrators.

Anti-national elements continued to dominate local politics, claiming Hindu tourism in Kashmir was a cultural invasion. They ignored Kashmir’s deep Hindu roots, including its origin from Sage Kashyap and its significance in Shaivism and pilgrimage traditions like Amarnath.

Political Silence and National Security

All political parties, including the BJP, remained largely silent. The vandalism of the Ashoka emblem at Hazratbal and the Red Fort suicide attack highlighted the consequences of inaction. The BJP must rise above electoral calculations and take bold decisions in the national interest. Otherwise, public outrage may cost them power and harm the nation.

Strategic Recommendations for India

India’s anti-terror strategy must include:

· Review of madrasa education and foreign funding

· Monitoring of mosque sermons

· Identification and deportation of illegal infiltrators

· Regulation of religious and social organizations

· The strength of a nation lies in the accountability of its political institutions, social inclusion, and active civic dedication. Harsh laws and policies will only be sustainable if political will is balanced with judicial safeguards and human rights.

Conclusion

Every citizen’s contribution—following rules, engaging in dialogue, and public service—can lead to major transformation. The goal of political reform should be to build an ecosystem where accountability, transparency, and national interest replace vote-bank politics. True dedication to the nation is meaningful only when it walks hand-in-hand with tough policies, empathy, justice, and inclusion.

Impeachment Against Madras High Court Judge G. R. Swaminathan

Impeachment Against Madras High Court Judge G. R. Swaminathan || Not an Attack on the Judiciary, but on Sanatan Dharma || Are Indian Politicians Slaves of a communal fundamentalist  ?

                                   

If it is said abroad that Hindus are in danger in India, that Hinduism itself is under threat, many may dismiss it as an exaggeration or even a joke. However, every conscious Hindu living in India knows well that today he is not treated as a second-class citizen, but rather as a seventh or eighth-class one—against whom anyone, anywhere, at any time, can do anything.

On the hill of Thirupparankundram in Madurai district of Tamil Nadu, the tradition of lighting the sacred lamp has existed for centuries. This time, however, the local administration stopped it. On a petition filed by Hindus, the High Court granted permission to light the lamp on the ancient stone pillar under the tradition of “Karthigai Deepam.” Enraged by this, anti-Sanatan elements appeared to lose their mental balance and opened a front against the judge. The reason is obvious—how could a judge possibly deliver a verdict in favor of Hindus at the cost of vote-bank politics?

Blatantly disregarding the Constitution, the Tamil Nadu government failed to comply with the court’s order. Even after the High Court directed that the lamp be lit under the protection of central security forces, the local administration imposed Section 144 in the area and prevented devotees from entering the temple premise. In its report, the Central Industrial Security Force stated that the Madurai Police Commissioner, along with more than 200 police personnel, obstructed their unit from implementing the court’s order. The state government ensured, at any cost, that the tradition of lamp-lighting was not completed.

Not only the DMK government, but leaders of every opposition party—big and small—have been spewing venom against the judge who delivered the verdict, Justice G. R. Swaminathan. This amounts to intimidating the judiciary and issuing a warning for the future. Such an instance of contempt is extremely rare in India’s judicial history. The state government has committed a grave constitutional violation, and such a government ought to have been dismissed immediately by the President. However, keeping the upcoming Tamil Nadu Assembly elections in mind, the BJP-led central government is unlikely to take such a political risk.

Meanwhile, the ruling DMK in Tamil Nadu, along with the Congress, Samajwadi Party, TMC, Shiv Sena (Uddhav faction), Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar), AIMIM, Indian Union Muslim League, and other opposition parties, submitted an impeachment motion bearing the signatures of 120 Members of Parliament against Justice G. R. Swaminathan to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Leaders such as Priyanka Vadra, Akhilesh Yadav, T. R. Baalu, Kanimozhi, and others were present at the time of submission.

Although this motion is unlikely to proceed further due to the BJP’s majority in both houses of Parliament, had the Congress been in power at this time, not only would the impeachment have been passed, but a clear message would also have been sent—that those who respect Hindu faith would not be spared.

What thousands of attacks by fanatical Islamic invaders and centuries of foreign rule could not accomplish, India’s own politics is attempting to do today. The dream of turning India into an Islamic nation through “Ghazwa-e-Hind,” envisioned by extremists, is now being actively pursued by selfish politicians—solely for Muslim votes, through which they can attain power and enjoy royal privileges. Tragically, many among them are Hindus themselves, who have no respect for their ancestors, culture, or civilization. It is difficult to imagine such a profound moral decline in any civilized society.

Even before the controversies surrounding the announcements of Babri Mosque construction and government-backed foundation-laying ceremonies in Murshidabad (West Bengal) and Hyderabad (Telangana) had cooled down, the DMK government of Tamil Nadu, determined not to lag behind in Muslim appeasement, chose to confront the judiciary itself. As a result, Justice Swaminathan’s name came into the limelight in the temple–dargah dispute. At present, opposition parties are competing with one another to prove who is the greatest benefactor of Muslims. The Congress has even openly declared: “Congress means Muslims, and Muslims mean Congress.” It is easy to understand where Indian politics is heading.

As far as the dispute itself is concerned, Thirupparankundram is one of the six major abodes of Lord Murugan (Kartikeya). During the Tamil month of Karthigai, the tradition of lighting a lamp on the hill is extremely ancient. Near the same hill stands a dargah, due to which the matter was made sensitive. Although the Muslim community has no objection to the lamp being lit, the state government seems to be telling them, “You may not know it, but you do have a problem.”

It is tragic and unfortunate that in today’s India, Hindus require judicial intervention to practice their faith and rituals—and even after a judicial verdict, they cannot peacefully perform worship of their deity on their own land. What kind of Constitution is this, which fails to protect the country’s original culture and religion? Due to obstinate anti-Hindu attitudes, the date for lamp-lighting has already passed.

Can any other religious community be told:

“Observe Roza next month, take out the Muharram procession a week later, or celebrate Christmas in January?”

But Hindus can be told:

You will not get permission for Durga pandals; you cannot immerse idols on Fridays; you cannot burst crackers on Diwali; you cannot play with colors on Holi; you cannot play DJs during the Kanwar Yatra; you cannot take out Ram Navami processions; you cannot use loudspeakers during Ganesh festivals; you cannot stop non-Hindus from entering Dandiya pandals; you cannot take wedding processions past mosques; and you cannot raise your voice against love jihad, spitting jihad, or land jihad.

The executive, the judiciary, NGOs, civil society, secularists, reformists, leftists, extremists, so-called moderates, intellectual groups, and both central and state governments—everyone’s target is always the Hindu. But why?

As for Justice Swaminathan, at first glance there is no indication of any particular bias. He has delivered judgments against the BJP’s Tamil Nadu president Annamalai in hate-speech cases. Several of his decisions have gone in favor of the Muslim community as well. He is known for his clear observations and swift judgments. Recently, he released his performance data, which showed that he disposed of nearly 65,000 cases in seven years—an achievement in itself. This is an outstanding example of judicial responsibility.

In reality, this impeachment is not an attack on a judge, but a direct assault on Sanatan Dharma. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. K. Stalin and his family have long been working against Sanatan traditions. Stalin himself once described Sanatan Dharma as “dengue and malaria” and vowed to eradicate it from its roots.

It is heartening that many retired judges, lawyers, and members of the intellectual community have come forward in support of Justice G. R. Swaminathan. Otherwise, the manner in which the opposition is attacking constitutional institutions for its own interests would have placed India’s democratic system in grave danger.

The need of the hour is for all followers of Sanatan Dharma to rise above caste and language and establish unity among themselves. Otherwise, even while being a majority, they will be responsible for their own persecution. A community that cannot protect its religion and culture cannot expect anyone else to protect it—and no one ever will.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shiv Mishra ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Message of the Dharma–Flag at the Ram Temple -Is Modi Truly Like This, or Does He Only Appear So?

 

---

The Message of the Dharma–Flag at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya || Is Modi Truly Like This, or Does He Only Appear So? || Why Does the Opposition Not Stand With the Nation?

The historic day of 25 November 2025 became immensely significant — not just for India, not only for Hindus — but for the entire world and for all humanity, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi hoisted the saffron Dharma–Flag atop the spire of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya and declared:

“The wait of 500 years has finally ended; the sacred offering is now complete — a yajna that never faltered in faith, never diminished in belief.”

After centuries of waiting, struggle, trust, and rays of hope, the moment when the Dharma–Flag fluttered atop the Ram Temple was no longer merely a religious ritual; it became the dawn of India’s civilizational resurgence — a moment whose divine resonance touched the entire world.

The hoisting of the Dharma–Flag holds deep symbolic and inspirational meaning for Sanatan Dharma — affirming its continuity, reinforcing sacred family values, and reminding future generations of the eternal ideals of righteous living. As the Mahabharata proclaims:

“Na dharmo hi aṁśubhiḥ sādhyaḥ”

— The light of Dharma illuminates its own path.

This event is extraordinary not because it is a religious ritual, but because it marks the proclamation of a new national paradigm — one that can be clearly defined as:

“Ram is the soul of the nation, and only through the awakening of the soul can the nation rise.”

A line from the Manusmriti resounds today with renewed meaning, and every Hindu must internalize it:

“Dharmo rakṣati rakṣitaḥ”

— Dharma protects those who protect it.

Thus, the hoisting of the Dharma–Flag at the Ram Temple is not merely a religious act; it is a historic moment intertwined with India’s collective consciousness, civilizational journey, and present national discourse. For the first time since independence, the world witnessed India re-establish its Sanatan cultural identity at the center of national consciousness — when the entire nation became Ram–may.

“The name of Ram is not a slogan; it is the life–force of the nation.”

Therefore, this flag-hoisting is not merely the ascent of a flag atop a temple, but a civilizational shift.

In truth, it redefines India’s real secularism. For decades, distancing oneself from Hindu culture and Sanatan identity was considered a badge of secularism. When independent India needed cultural restoration, Nehru played divisive politics over the reconstruction of the Somnath Temple and even barred President Dr. Rajendra Prasad from attending its inauguration. The underlying message was that the ruins left behind by Islamic invaders must remain untouched. It revealed their indifference toward the world’s oldest living civilization and a lack of responsibility toward the Hindu majority.

Yet, ironically, from Nehru and Indira to Rahul — almost every member of the Gandhi family has paid homage at Babur’s tomb in Afghanistan.

Prime Minister Modi personally hoisting the Dharma–Flag marks a profound shift — India has now entered an era where civilizational memory is no longer confined to history but has become the driving force of nation-building. The flag fluttering atop the Ram Temple declares that India is placing its ancient, glorious heritage at the very center of its modern national identity.

The Mahabharata repeatedly affirms:

“Yato dharmas tato jayaḥ.”

— Where there is Dharma, there is victory.

This is precisely what India is announcing to the world today.

PM Modi connected faith with nation-building and public welfare, describing this historic moment as an inspiration for a broader, inclusive, and welfare-oriented vision — one that is timely, necessary, and transformative.

The Congress and much of the opposition boycotting the ceremony was based purely on Muslim appeasement politics — the same old vote-bank arithmetic. But due to rising Hindu awareness and unity, this politics is no longer as effective. It is undeniable that the Ram Temple and Ayodhya have become the epicenter of modern Indian politics, and this flag-hoisting has cemented that status.

This ceremony displayed a remarkable confluence of faith and state power, indicating that in the coming years, India's trajectory will be determined not only by economic progress but also by cultural discourse. This cultural reawakening will strengthen India’s pluralistic structure while enabling India to present its identity on the global stage with clarity and pride.

Internationally, this step gives new direction to the expansion of India’s soft power. Yoga, Ayurveda, and Indian philosophy have already shaped India’s global image. Now, the Ram Temple and its symbols will add a new dimension. Cultural symbolism is powerful in geopolitics. The scene in Ayodhya sent a clear message to many nations — India is advancing toward modernity without severing its roots.

The Dharma–Flag at Ayodhya is not only a national festival of faith but also a symbol of the global Ramayana tradition and cultural diplomacy. It strengthens India’s bonds with countries where Ram and the Ramayana are still part of living culture.

• In Indonesia, Ramayana is celebrated widely.

• In Thailand, the Ramakien is the national epic.

• In Cambodia, the royal dance–drama Reamker is famous.

• Janakpur in Nepal is revered as Sita’s birthplace.

• In Laos and Myanmar, local Ramayana traditions shape folk culture.

Thus, the Ram Temple will also become a major engine of tourism and economic growth. Millions of devotees and tourists will visit annually, giving a long-term boost to religious tourism.

The Ram Temple has expanded cultural nationalism, and its role will only deepen in India’s future politics. This will strengthen national unity, integrity, and security. It is in the nation’s interest that Sanatan symbols and cultural events become central to political discourse — helping end the politics of communal appeasement. If the ideals of Ram Rajya can be integrated with modern governance, politics, faith, and development can progress together.

I am glad that — at least outwardly — Prime Minister Modi is signaling a shift toward Hindutva-oriented politics. It is difficult to say whether he no longer cares about electoral compulsions or whether he is under political pressure. But his repeated emphasis on “500 years” — the same phrase he used during Advani’s Rath Yatra days — clearly indicates that he wants to reaffirm that Hindus have never been as important as they are today, and that Hindus hold special significance for him.

But questions remain:

• Then why are Hindu temples still not freed from government control?

• Why no freedom for Hindus to operate Gurukuls independently?

• Why no effective action against Gazwa-e-Hind conspiracies?

• Why no Uniform Civil Code or a strong national anti-conversion law?

The Hindu community often feels satisfied merely by witnessing Modi’s Hindu-friendly statements or public worship rituals — because before him, no Prime Minister even dared to do that in India’s politically hostile, Hindu-averse environment. Even this is a major step — but it is like watering the leaves of a tree instead of its roots.

For too long, symbolism alone cannot satisfy a community or safeguard a civilization. Modi and the BJP must understand this — and so must we. The Congress and other political parties never will.

~~~~~~~~~~shiv Mishra ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~