In 2014, we had the Modi sarkar observing Good Governance Day (observing Atal Behari Vajpayee’s birthday as the same) on 25th December, which happens to be Christmas, the most important festival of Christians and a festival celebrated, albeit in a non-religious sense even by many non-Christians in urban, cosmopolitan spaces in India and even several Muslim-majority countries like Malaysia (I recall seeing a big Christmas tree in the airport in Kuala Lumpur when I went there many years ago). It was feared that there would be no holiday observed in schools, colleges and government offices in India on this day in 2014, and it has been contended by some that only after much noise from the opposition and media did the government have the Good Governance Day celebrations in a manner such that schools and colleges could observe their Christmas holiday. The government claimed that it had never intended to not have a holiday for educational institutions on that day. This happened on one occasion, and one could possibly give them the benefit of doubt.
However, we are seeing this pattern repeating itself in Rajasthan, wherein Vasundhara Raje wanting to celebrate the birthday of Pandit Deenanlal Upadhyay, a Hindu rightist ideologue (who was indeed a moderate by their standards, having evolved a philosophy of “integral humanism”), would clash with Id-ul-Zuha, one of the most significant Muslim festivals, explicitly mentioning that no employee would be given leave. After some hue and cry, they have backtracked on this, saying that joining in the celebrations was voluntary, but nonetheless, the employees of the colleges chosen for the celebrations have still not been given leave, leading to a petition in the Rajasthan High Court, which I am confident will do justice. After all, it is worth noting that it is the judiciary that upheld that if a sect of Christians, in the practice of their faith, chose to not sing the national anthem but still stood up, they had the freedom to do so (an argument that would obviously apply to Vande Mataram for Muslims and Christians not wanting to sing it, for they have not objected to patriotic songs or patriotic slogans in general, but they believe that they can respect, but not worship, anyone other than God, be it the motherland or their own parents). It is the judiciary, thanks to which many innocent civilians – Muslims, Adivasis and others – wrongly framed as terrorists, have been exonerated. It is the judiciary which has convicted hundreds of rioters in connection with the anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2002 (in cases relating to massacres such as in the Best Bakery, Ode, Sardarpura and Naroda Patiya), hundreds in connection with the anti-Sikh riots in 1984 (though some prominent politicians in connection with the anti-Sikh riots in 1984 are yet to be convicted) and the anti-Christian riots in the Kandhamal district of Odisha in 2008 (for which MLAs of the BJP like Manoj Pradhan were convicted), as also many terrorists killing innocent civilians in the name of religion, and not too long ago, it upheld the right of a Greenpeace activist to travel abroad and even struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional.
Some may point out that the celebrations include a blood donation camp, but can’t it be on some other holiday, like a usual Sunday?
Why is the BJP creating unnecessary resentment among Indian Muslims and Indian Christians, after all those promises of religious pluralism before the elections and thereafter? Are Muslim and Christian soldiers who fight and die for India any less Indian? Can we forget the historical contributions of Muslim freedom fighters like Ashfaqullah Khan and Christian freedom fighters like Madhusudan Das? Shouldn’t we move forward as one nation, respecting the sentiments of all? While rural voters may have had different reasons, have the leaders of the BJP forgotten the drubbing they got from the urban voters in 2004, in the wake of the Gujarat riots of 2002, in spite of their apparently fairly impressive economic and foreign policy performance? Or in 2009, when several blasts by the Indian Mujahidin in major urban centres and the ghastly 26/11 Mumbai attacks (in which some Indian Muslims gave logistic support, and yes, all those believing in conspiracy theories about the same should read this article) led to justifiable resentment against the ruling Congress government for failing to prevent them and could have also led to a Hindu rightist sentiment, but in the wake of Varun Gandhi’s alleged vitriolic hate speech and anti-Christian riots in the Kandhamal district of Odisha, the urban voters shunned the BJP yet again and voted the incumbent government back to power, proving their disapproval of extreme Hindu rightist politics? In 2014, 38.5% of the electorate, including sections of Muslims and Christians, voted for the NDA (even for these national elections, the majority of the electorate, including most Hindu voters, did not want the BJP in power, especially with Modi as PM, but they were not unanimous on an alternative, with a very justifiable anti-incumbency sentiment this time around; it was akin to there being ten candidates, with one candidate getting three votes and seven other candidates getting one vote each, making the candidate with just three votes win) with the hope that they would check corruption and bring the economy back on track, the Hindu rightists always voting for the BJP being inconsequential to electoral outcomes, for if they were consequential, the BJP would win every election, but the BJP yet again got a drubbing in Delhi not too long ago, which was also, in some measure, owing to communal statements by some of its members.
True, ‘secular’ parties have used the Muslim and Christian minorities as a vote-bank and on many occasions, sought to appease their most regressive elements (though most of their progressive elements are also understandably sceptical of the BJP, given the history of violence by some of its elements against their communities at large), and there are some violent fanatics among Muslims and Christians in India (among Christians, perhaps only in India’s northeast, a region India has neglected for decades), but it is completely wrong and in fact counterproductive to the cause of fighting minority fanaticism to paint the entire communities with the same brush and create divisions in the society, when we do largely coexist very harmoniously in educational institutions and workplaces. And yes, while some Hindus may not have had the opportunity to make many Indian Christian friends, I have, and can assertively state that all claims of them being ultra-westernized and unpatriotic are completely fabricated generalizations, and a certain Malayali Christian friend of mine knows the Hindu epics better than many of my Hindu friends, and it would be interesting for some to know that Malayali Muslims and Malayali Christians observe the harvest festival of Onam, in spite of its Hindu religious connotation, as being their own, some Malayali Muslims preparing the Onam feast even when Onam falls in Ramzan. If we, as Hindus, expect Muslims and Christians to respect our sensibilities, isn’t it fair on their part to expect us to respect theirs? If we want Hindu minorities to not feel victimized elsewhere, don’t we owe the same to non-Hindu minorities here? While most Hindus are not to blame, with many of them (myself included) raising their voice for minority rights whenever the occasion arises (and some even going to the other extreme of exaggerating minority victimhood), the loony religious rightists among the Hindus need to understand this. Majoritarian bullying is something we rightly criticize the Pakistani and Ugandan states for, and these countries went on to have ultra-rightist militias (the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and the Lord’s Resistance Army respectively) wanting to govern their country in a fascist fashion, in which even the majority community would be deprived of the civil liberties underlying a democracy (our current culture minister Mahesh Sharma is already trying to define an “Indian culture” cast in stone). We don’t want to go down that route, do we?
Interestingly, many loony Hindu rightists hide behind the moderate majority of Hindus to claim that any criticism of their (loony Hindu rightists’) actions amounts to insulting Hindus in general as being intolerant when Hindus are actually very tolerant (true for the moderate majority of the Hindu majority, but not the loony Hindu right), while, on the other hand, ridiculing the tolerant Hindus for not being militant enough (calling them cowardly, ‘sickular’ and what not!), thus engaging in the doublespeak of criticising the tolerant but taking offence at being called intolerant! These people often quote this statement of Sardar Patel’s, which he made while addressing the Constituent Assembly of India on 25th May 1949-
“(N)othing is better for the minorities than to trust the good sense and fairness of the majority and place confidence in them.”
In this, Sardar Patel was obviously referring to the moderate majority of the majority. However, the loony rightists quoting this statement overlook the very next statement he made in that address, which is stated hereunder-
“So, also it is for us who happen to be in majority to think about what the minorities feel, and how we in their position would feel if we were treated in the manner in which they were treated.”
Now, think about your having always enjoyed Holi or Diwali as a holiday, and then being deprived of the same!
Also, since we are talking of Id-ul-Zuha, also known as Bakreid, some clarifications would be in order. Sacrificing animals as a religious ritual is not exclusive to Muslims, and ‘bali’ has existed among Hindus too, something Gautam Buddha (who lived centuries before Jesus and Muhammad) had opposed (and even Emperor Ashok the Great consumed meat of peacocks, which he stopped after embracing Buddhism, though interestingly, Buddhists in China, Japan, Bhutan, Vietnam etc. do consume meat!), and still continues in many Hindu temples across India, especially in West Bengal during the Navratri season. Also, it may interest some to know that the story of Prophet Abraham associated with Id-ul-Zuha is found in the Old Testament of the Bible too, which the Jews and Christians also believe in (those regarded as prophets by the Jews are regarded as prophets by the Christians too, with the addition of Jesus, and those regarded as prophets by the Christians are regarded as prophets by the Muslims as well, with the addition of Muhammad). And obviously, not all of Arab cuisine is non-vegetarian either, with Arab vegetarian dishes like strained yogurt using labneh cheese and sweet dishes like zlabia, popular in South Asia as jalebi!
Terrorism, and even terrorism citing a theological basis, is not a Muslim monopoly. As you can see here, very many instances of terrorism globally, even in the name of religion, have been carried out by those identifying themselves as Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and even Buddhists, the victims of the acts of terrorists from each of these religious groupings not always being Muslims. However, just like most people of these religious groupings are not terrorists or supporters of terrorism, and they do not believe that their religion preaches terrorism, the same is the case with most Muslims (and not supporting terrorism applies to even most of those Muslims with other regressive and not-so-liberal attitudes on issues like gender and homosexuality).
It is possible to quote any scripture (allegedly out of context according to its liberal adherents) to justify malpractices, like some verses in the Bible namely Deuteronomy 13:12-15, Samuel 15:3, Leviticus 24:16 and Matthew 10:34 seemingly advocate violence against “non-believers” and the Purusha Sukta of the Rigved, an ancient Hindu scripture, is taken by some to justify caste discrimination, but these verses do not define the entire religion. This article mentioning an anecdote from the British parliament does make an interesting read in this regard, as does this video make an interesting watch in this connection. There are Quranic verses like 2:256, 5:2, 5:8, 5:32, 6:108, 6:151, 10:99, 49:13, 60:8 and 109:6 preaching peace, religious tolerance and human brotherhood, as does the letter from Prophet Muhammad to the Christian monks of St Catherine’s monastery and there are episodes from Prophet Muhammad’s life, as per Islamic lore, indicative of such an approach too, such as his allowing a woman to throw garbage at him daily and his succeeding in ideologically, winning over her by way of humanitarian affection. Those suggesting that peaceful verses in the Quran are superseded by violent verses (which the vast majority of practising Muslims globally regard as contextual) would do well to note that verse 109:6 appears towards the end of the book, and preaches nothing but peace, and the Quran and Hadiths devote considerable space to talking about honesty (there’s an anecdote of Prophet Muhammad punishing a Muslim for stealing from a Jewish gentleman’s house), kindness, forgiveness, humility and striving for socioeconomic egalitarianism.
Very many mainstream Muslims do indeed believe that Islam is the only religion that can lead to God since the advent of Prophet Muhammad, as mainstream Christians believe the same for Christianity since the advent of Jesus, but that doesn’t entail intolerance towards those of other faiths. To explain this with an analogy, if a certain coaching centre (analogous to Islam or Christianity, going by the mainstream interpretation) claims it is the only one that can get students admitted into say, IIT (analogous to heaven), and even encourages its students to get students of other coaching centres and those not taking any coaching to join that particular coaching centre, it cannot be equated with forcing others to join their institute or killing those not willing to do so. In fact, both the Bible and the Quran preach the message of peaceful coexistence with other religious groups (the relevant verses in the context of the Quran have already been cited, and Rom. 12:18 and 1 Tim 2:2 may be cited in the context of the Bible).
Speaking of apostates of Islam (“ex-Muslims”) criticising their former religion, there is a fairly well-known website run by an apostate and basher of Islam who has even offered a cash prize to anyone who can disprove his allegations against Prophet Muhammad (but there are books by apostates of other religions criticizing their former religions too, the most famous one being ‘Why I Am Not a Christian’ by Bertrand Russell, and there’s also ‘Why I am Not a Hindu’ by Kancha Ilaiah, levelling very strong allegations), but practically, he is the judge of the debate, or to go by what he is saying, the “readership” of the website, a rather non-defined entity. In fact, he has acknowledged that he came across a Muslim who “intelligently argued his case and never descended to logical fallacies or insults” and while that Islam-basher “did not manage to convince him to leave Islam”, that Muslim earned his “utmost respect”, which implies that practically, the Islam-basher is the judge of the debate. Likewise, that Islam-basher has mentioned with reference to a scholar of Islam he debated with, that the latter was “a learned man, a moderate Muslim and a good human being” and someone he (the Islam-basher) has “utmost respect for”. So, that Islam-basher’s critique of Islam, whether valid or invalid, has no relevance in terms of making blanket stereotypes about the people we know as Muslims or even practising Muslims. By the way, that Islam-basher bashes Judaism too. And it is worth mentioning that I have encountered several practising Muslims on discussion groups on the social media, who have, in a very calm and composed fashion, logically refuted the allegations against Islam on such websites. Indeed, as you can see here and here, there are several other apostates of Islam who have stated that while they personally left Islam thinking that the extremist interpretations are correct and moderate ones wrong (as is the case with apostates of many other religions), they have equally explicitly emphasized that that does not in the least mean that they believe that most people identifying themselves as practising Muslims support violence against innocent people.
And in fact, even speaking of the West, a report submitted by Europol, the criminal intelligence agency of the European Union, showed that only 3 out of the 249 terrorist attacks (amounting to about 1.2%) carried out in Europe in 2010 were carried out by Muslims. Even in the United States, most terrorist attacks from 1980 to 2005 were not carried out by Muslims. And no, I am not in the least seeking to undermine the heinousness of the crimes committed by some in the name of Islam by pointing to others having committed similar crimes under other ideological banners, for a more highlighted wrongdoing is no less of a wrongdoing than a less highlighted wrongdoing, but only to point out that viewing only Muslims as villains, and that too, all or even most of them, would indeed be grossly incorrect. However, despite jihadist terrorists being a microscopic minority of Muslims, Islamist terrorism has become a bigger global threat for its well-coordinated international network since the 1990s, with the US-backed Islamist resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan having signalled its rise.
It is not as though communalists under any banner, except arguably those actually resorting to killing innocent civilians, should be dehumanized or can never be logically made to modify their views, as the must-watch movie Road to Sangam, based on a true story, demonstrates, and to draw an analogy, you can see this video of a Muslim who initially wanted to become a terrorist wanting to blow up Jewish civilians but changed his standpoint about Israel for the better after visiting that country. It is also not as though Muslims are another species that can’t be rationally engaged with, the way some extreme anti-Muslim rightists almost make them out to be, portraying Muslims in general as cruel, slimy, backstabbing and aggressive (many Muslims whom the non-Muslim readers would know personally would not exhibit such traits if the non-Muslim readers were to analyze dispassionately, rather than making baseless presumptions, and indeed, most Indian Muslims are of Hindu ancestry and so, they share the same genes as the Hindus – Hindu religious lore also refers to treacherous human beings like the Kauravas wanting to burn the Pandavas in a wax palace; so, treachery was not unknown to India before the advent of Islam, as royal family feuds among the Nanda and Gupta rulers also demonstrate, and some of the worst atrocities in history have been committed by the likes of Hitler and Stalin, who were not Muslims, nor was Chengiz Khan who was an animist), but like many people in other communities in different contexts, some (not all) Muslims are in the stranglehold of anachronistic ideas like a global pan-Muslim fraternity and the upholding of Islamic law, other than having prejudiced notions of an exaggerated sense of victimhood, and I have dealt with how to ideologically combat Muslim extremism in some depth in this article.
And for those suggesting any marriage between a Hindu boy and Muslim girl as amounting to “love jihad”, they may note that many Muslim women too have married Hindu men, like Katrina Kaif, Sussanne Khan, Zohra Sehgal (formerly Zohra Khan), Neelima Azim (Pankaj Kapoor’s wife), Nargis and leading Mumbai cyclist Firoza, and some have even converted to Hinduism upon marriage, like famous sitarist Annapurna Devi (formerly Roshanara Khan), fashion model Nalini Patel (formerly Nayyara Mirza), Maharashtra politician Asha Gawli (formerly Zubeida Mujawar), South Indian actress Khushboo Sundar (formerly Nakhat Khan) and Bollywood actress Zubeida.
And yes, historically, while many (not all) Muslim rulers have a historical record of intolerance to Hindus, so do many ancient Hindu rulers like Mihirakula and Pushyamitra Shunga have a historical record of intolerance to Buddhists (of course, there can be a debate on the historicity of these allegations, but the point is that religious intolerance wasn’t unheard of even in pre-Islamic times in India). One may add in this context that there is this totally incorrect notion that Muslims are the only ones who stop non-Muslims from entering some of their holiest places of worship like the Kaba in Mecca, but actually, several Hindu temples, like the Pashupati Nath temple in Nepal, too bar non-Hindus from entering them, while many mosques and Sufi shrines have absolutely no problem with non-Muslims visiting them or even praying there. Also, the conspiracy theory about the Kaba being a Shiv temple have their basis in the writings of one Mr. Oak, who was not even a historian, and he is actually not even taken seriously even by those historians, Indian or of other nationalities, who have saffron or other religious right-wing leanings, and in fact, some votaries of this theory claim that Lord Shiv has been ‘imprisoned’ by Muslims, which refutes the logic that God is all powerful! Oak also said that Christianity is Krishna-Neeti (though ‘Christianity’ as a term does not exist in Hebrew, and came about much later in history!) and many other such ludicrous things! There are websites making claims about non-existent Arabic texts to prove their point. While such propaganda (except the bit about Lord Shiv being ‘imprisoned’!) may please the Hindu chauvinist who desperately wishes to imagine ancient India to be the only centre of human civilization, impartially speaking, one ought to thoroughly dissect it before taking it seriously. These are just completely baseless rants being circulated on the social media that don’t have the backing of any serious historian, not even the most right-wing ones. These conspiracy theories are typical of loony religious rightists, including Muslim rightists in Pakistan attributing 26/11 to RAW and many genuine liberal Muslim intellectuals in Pakistan are dismissed by conspiracy theorists as agents of the CIA, RAW and/or Mossad!
There are also misplaced notions of Muslims potentially outnumbering Hindus in India, though the Muslim population growth rate is declining (not the population itself, which cannot decline usually for any community), and the population growth rate of Keralite Muslims is less than UPite Hindus, for instance, and yes, even otherwise, if someone sees Muslims potentially outnumbering Hindus in India as a real problem, they should appeal to the Indian government to legally impose a two-child norm for all Indian citizens, irrespective of religion, rather than just generate unnecessary hatred for an entire community and divide the nation. Many Hindus criticize Muslims for having many children because they practise polygamy as permitted by their faith (though census reports have established that Hindus are more polygamous than Muslims, even though it is illegal for the former, and I myself know a Hindu electrician in Delhi who has engaged in bigamy), even though that actually doesn’t make a difference to the number of children as long as the number of reproductive women remains the same. Four women would respectively give birth to the number of children they would, irrespective of whether they are married to one man or four different men! In fact, polygamy is not prohibited by Hinduism as a faith (and, in fact, it was outlawed for Hindus only after independence, and Nehru faced stern opposition for the same from orthodox Hindus). The Puranic lore is full of multiple marriages by a single man – to quote some prominent examples, Krishna had thousands of wives, prominent among whom were Rukmini, Satyabhama and Jambvati; his father Vasudev had two wives, Devki (Krishna‘s mother) and Rohini (Balram‘s mother) and Ram‘s father Dashrath had three wives, besides even Bheem having a wife other than Draupadi (Gatodkach‘s mother) and Arjun too had several, including Krishna‘s sister Subhadra. In fact, the law mandating monogamy for Hindus was introduced only after independence! Also, Islam mandates a limit of four wives and a responsibility of the husband to look after his multiple wives (if he has multiple wives in the first place) equally well, though I do agree that even this is anachronistic today. As for harems, these too have not been a monopoly of Muslim rulers, and the practice has existed among Hindu rulers too, such as in South India, and even among Buddhist rulers in Sri Lanka. And there are indeed many Hindus too, particularly in rural areas and in several cases, even among the urban educated class, who have several children even if they are monogamous. Many educated Hindus who have been public figures, like former president V.V. Giri, former prime minister Narasimha Rao and our very own Lalu Prasad Yadav have all had many children, and even Narendra Modi is the third of his parents‘ six children.
Also, there are some who accuse Muslims of being the only community that carries out inter-cousin marriages, but that is true for Parsis as well and Hindu lore mentions Abhimanyu marrying his maternal uncle Balram‘s daughter (though this is a South Indian folk adaptation not to be found in the Puranic lore, it shows that the idea hasn‘t always been abhorrent in Hindu societies) and Rajasthani folklore has it that Prithviraj Chauhan too eloped with his cousin and while even this is contested by historians, he has never been looked down upon for the same, and even today, this practice exists in South Indian Hindu societies.
I personally know several Muslims who are unprejudiced and are strongly patriotic Indians, and I see no reason to see Indian Muslims loyal to their country as being exceptions to the general norm. In fact, a Hindu acquaintance of mine, who studied at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), told me that while those cheering for Pakistan in cricket were quite a vocal lot there, most Muslims cheered for India, and this was in a Muslim-majority setting where the apparently pro-India majority did not have to conceal its true feelings, and another friend of mine, who is an Assamese Hindu from Guwahati and who is very resentful of the Bangladeshi Muslim influx in his state, told me that on a train journey, he overheard a conversation between two Muslims from AMU bashing the students who cheer for Pakistan. Also, another friend of mine whose father is an Indian Army officer once told me that he loves the entire Muslim community (though I don’t support any stereotyping, positive or negative!), for once, his father was fired at by militants in Kashmir and his father’s driver, a Muslim, rushed to bear the bullet to save his father’s life! He also narrated another anecdote of how a Muslim once donated blood to save his father’s life and asserted that he was not in the least ashamed of the fact that “Muslim blood” (whatever that is supposed to mean!) runs through his veins!
For all residual resentment against Muslims, I’d request you to read carefully (not skim through and judge based on one’s preconceived notions) this e-book of mine available for free download.
It is true that even under this government, we had without any state intervention whatsoever, screenings of movies like pk, a film criticizing Hindu extremists and even questioning several mainstream Hindu beliefs and practices, and Haider, a film supporting the Kashmiri Muslim separatists and critical of human rights violations by rogue elements in the Indian Army (a taboo subject for many Hindu rightists, and those contending that the film was, in any way, biased against the Kashmiri separatists should read this article), with Haider even winning National Awards from the government as also Sania Mirza, a Muslim tennis player, getting the Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna Award, S. Christopher, a Christian scientist, becoming the Defence Research Development Organization (DRDO) chief, and Syed Akbaruddin, a Muslim bureaucrat, continuing as the spokesman of India’s foreign ministry, even getting a further promotion, with their religious identities not coming in the way, and yes, life has continued just as usual for Muslims and Christians, going to educational institutions (my college in BJP-ruled Gujarat inducted Muslim employees under a pro-BJP vice chancellor, and after Modi becoming PM, a Christian teacher became registrar – not to say that the BJP had any proactive role in this, but to say that there wasn’t any negative role either), workplaces and recreation centres, often alongside their Hindu friends. In fact, this BJP government at the centre apologized to the people of Kashmir when two innocents were killed by some rogue soldiers in a fake encounter, and also struck a peace accord with the fanatically Christian Naga rebels. Obviously, India is not turning into a fascist state overnight, which is impossible, given the strength of our civil society, including the media and the judiciary, but unnecessary moves like instances of interference with the minorities’ festivals disturb the harmonious atmosphere, and can initiate a historical process that may be disastrous in the long run, and they cannot be overlooked or condoned.
Also, while I do certainly believe that Hindus in India must care about the genuine concerns of the Muslim and Christian minorities, the same holds true vice versa too, and the religious minorities must not also exaggerate their victimhood as if to suggest perennial oppression, subtly hinting at Hindus in general being their oppressors. I must say to those particular Indian Muslims and Christians who complain of generalised victimhood of any kind (I am certainly not talking about all Indian Muslims or all Indian Christians) that they instead ought to speak up more openly against their own politicians like Azam Khan (who hasn’t even been charge-sheeted for his alleged role in the riots in Muzaffarnagar and Sahranpur, unlike Maya Kodnani and Babu Bajrangi in connection with the anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2002, or Manoj Pradhan and Ashok Sahu in connection with the anti-Christian riots in the Kandhamal district of Odisha in 2008, who were duly convicted, and my point is not with respect to how much evidence is available in which case for what sentence, but whether the narrative of “Hindu riot-instigating politicians always go scot-free and Muslims are only victims, not perpetrators of riots” is true, and I believe that the issue should be “powerful vs. non-powerful”, “vote-bank politics vs. the spirit of democracy” and so on, rather than “Hindu oppressors vs. Muslim oppressed”, which would actually be half-true or even false in many contexts), the forced displacement of the Kashmiri Hindus, also known as the Kashmiri Pandits (as for rebutting the conspiracy theories and rationalizations offered about the exodus of the Kashmiri Hindus from their homeland, have a look at this piece) and even Reang Hindus from Mizoram by some Mizo Christians, Christian-extremist militants who have imposed restrictions on Hindus’ religious freedom in pockets of Tripura, the terrorism unleashed against innocent rail passengers in the name of Christianity by some terrorists in Nagaland, other instances of violence against innocent Hindus, the open religious propaganda of some Christian politicians and bureaucrats who have otherwise declared that they would operate as per the Indian constitution and so on. However, that the wrongdoings of some Muslims and Christians are relatively overlooked by sections of our civil society, in no way, validates the wrongs of the Hindu right, as if a more highlighted wrongdoing is any less of a wrongdoing.
(With inputs from my friend Akash Arora.)