Pahadi Sudhir N

My dear Sanatani Hindu patriots,
In Islam, “love” means religious conversion.
Before marrying Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, Sharmila Tagore accepted Islam, after which she was given the name Ayesha Begum.
If the love was true, then why the insistence on conversion to Islam? And if Islam was accepted, why the insistence on continuing to be known as Sharmila Tagore?
Because films would not succeed in the name of Ayesha Begum.
For films to work in a Hindu-majority nation,
a Hindu name is needed.
Often, to fool Hindus and the entire world, Muslim and secular intellectuals propagate that such divorce incidents happen only among the uneducated sections, whereas the reality is quite different.
Were Imran Khan or Nawab Pataudi uneducated?
Then why didn’t Nawab Pataudi abandon Islam and become Hindu in order to marry Sharmila, who belonged to Rabindranath Tagore’s family?
If Saif Ali Khan loved Amrita Singh so much, why didn’t Saif become Hindu?
Then he abandoned Amrita Singh and married Kareena Kapoor and named his son Taimur.
Taimur was one of the greatest enemies of Hindus.
From this one can infer that their ideal is that same bloodthirsty Taimur Lang who carried out massacres in India.
Closing one’s eyes does not make it night.
“Love is blind.”
“All religions are equal.”
“In marriage, religion doesn’t matter, only the heart does.”
“Muslims are also human beings.”
Those who say this should think once.
Hindu girls who believe that something like “love jihad” does not exist should reflect:
Can a Muslim girl marry a Hindu boy in a love marriage and become his Hindu wife?
So-called Islamic scholar Zakir Naik has repeatedly said that Islam is “one-way traffic.”
One can enter Islam, but cannot leave it.
Could both not have followed their own religions while living in the same house?
Why is becoming Muslim necessary?
And this is exactly what raises doubts about Muslim intentions.
In Delhi, Ankit Saxena was murdered on the road in front of his parents because he was going to marry a Muslim girl.
That girl’s parents and uncle slit Ankit Saxena’s throat and killed him on the street.
Jemima Marcelle Goldsmith and Imran Khan:
Jemima, the 21-year-old daughter of British billionaire Sir James Goldsmith, fell into the love trap of Pakistani cricketer Imran Khan, who was 42 years old. In 1995 she married him, adopted Islam, was named Haika Khan, learned Urdu, went to Pakistan, tried to adapt to its culture, and gave birth to two children, Suleiman and Qasim.
What was the result?
Divorce—divorce—divorce.
She returned to Britain.
Again the same question: was Imran Khan uneducated?
Or was he not modern?
In 24 Parganas, West Bengal, Nageshwar Das’s 21-year-old daughter Saraswati married a much older Mohammed Merajuddin in 1997, adopted Islam, and was named Sabra Begum.
After only six years of married life and four children, Merajuddin gave her an oral divorce.
Now you can imagine what happened to Saraswati alias Sabra Begum after being thrown out with four children—she could neither return to her father’s home nor even commit suicide.
Renowned Bengali poet Kazi Nazrul Islam and Humayun Kabir (a former Union Minister) also married Hindu girls.
Did any of them become Hindu?
Mohammad Azharuddin too abandoned his Muslim wife Naureen after she bore four children and married Sangeeta Bijlani; after a few years he divorced her as well—without regret or remorse.
Among those who abandoned their wives and children and married again in the above examples, how many were illiterate or poorly educated?
Then where did education play any role?
This is pure love jihad.
Waheeda Rehman married Kamaljeet, who became Muslim.
Arun Govil’s brother married Tabassum and became Muslim.
Former President Dr. Zakir Husain’s daughter married a Hindu Brahmin IPS officer, who also became Muslim.
A lesser-known actress Kiran Vairale married a relative of Dilip Kumar and disappeared; her whereabouts are still unknown.
In this chain, the most surprising name is that of senior CPI leader Indrajit Gupta.
A communist who was an MP from Medinipur, West Bengal for 37 years, who considered religion as opium, educated at St. Stephen’s College, Delhi, and King’s College, Cambridge—at the age of 62 he became Muslim (Iftiar Ghani) to marry a Muslim woman, Suraiya.
Indrajit Gupta had been in love with Suraiya for a long time and waited until her divorce from her husband Ahmed Ali (a social worker and father of Nafisa Ali).
But the result of this devoted love was the same as always:
Yes—“one-way traffic.”
Suraiya did not become Hindu; instead, the communist who abused religion day and night definitely became “Iftiar Ghani.”
Similarly, well-educated advocate Ahmed Khan divorced his wife Shah Bano at the age of 62 after 50 years of marriage; she was the mother of five children.
Here too the reason was a much younger 20-year-old woman—perhaps younger girls are also a weakness for these Muslims.
This case sparked a nationwide debate on Muslim Personal Law.
Shah Bano had to approach the Supreme Court for maintenance.
Rajiv Gandhi overturned the Supreme Court’s decision using his overwhelming majority due to “vote-bank politics,” prioritizing clerics and sidelining liberal Muslims like Arif Mohammad Khan.
The conclusion is that education or being well-educated makes no difference—
for Muslims, Islam, Sharia, and the Quran are paramount; nation and society come later.
Sheikh Abdullah and his son Farooq Abdullah both married English women after converting them to Islam.
If they were truly secular, they would have adopted Christianity themselves and become English.
Even their grandson, current Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, married a Hindu girl “Payal” but did not become Hindu; instead, he converted that Hindu girl to Islam.
This shows that “secularism” and “Islam” have no connection whatsoever, and what is shown is mere hypocrisy and deception.
Another point is that Hindus are always the easy target for religious conversion, unlike Christians.
Consider one more example:
A.L. Dias was a Governor of West Bengal from August 1971 to November 1979. His daughter Laila Dias fell into the love trap of a “love jihadi” Zahid Ali.
Laila expressed her desire to marry Zahid.
Governor Dias summoned Zahid to Raj Bhavan and on 16 May 1974 persuaded him to abandon Islam and become Christian.
All this was done under the supervision of the then Congress Chief Minister Siddhartha Shankar Ray.
Three weeks after converting to Christianity, Laila Dias married Zahid Ali (now Christian) at St. Thomas Church, Middleton Street, Kolkata.
The implication of this example is that even educated, elite, Western-exposed people like Mr. Dias understood the “intentions” of a Muslim love jihadi and insisted on converting him to Christianity, whereas Hindu parents still chant “tolerance” and “secularism.” And if someone exposes these intentions, they are labeled “communal.”
Even many girls are unwilling to learn from their deceived friends.
They will find a hundred faults in a Hindu boy, but consider it “communalism” to even inquire about a Muslim jihadi of no standing.
One among thousands of such tales is from the Maheshwari community of Sironj.
Sironj is a tehsil about 50 miles from Vidisha.
Two hundred years ago, Sironj was under the rule of the Nawab of Tonk.
Once the Nawab visited the area; that same night, a Maheshwari merchant’s daughter was to be married.
By chance, a valuable slipper fell from the bridal palanquin.
Someone delivered it to the Nawab’s camp, telling him that the one who wore it was even more beautiful.
Upon hearing this, the Nawab demanded the merchant’s daughter.
The Maheshwari community was shaken—giving the daughter was unthinkable.
What was to be done?
Through diplomacy, they informed the Nawab that the bride would be sent in the morning, which pleased him.
Meanwhile, overnight the Maheshwaris fled the town with the girl and collectively decided that no one from their community would ever drink water there or reside there again.
They abandoned their home in one night and migrated to another state, but did not compromise their honor and identity.
Even today, this tradition continues: when a Maheshwari visits Sironj, they neither drink the water nor stay overnight, honoring their ancestors’ vow and protesting Muslim oppression.
Muslim rulers competed in abducting Hindu girls, making them victims of lust and filling their harems. Because of this, Hindu society always lived in fear.
Note how Hindu society chose to abandon land, wealth, and property and accept wandering, but never compromised its religion.
If Hindu society today gives such teachings, sacrifices, and inspiring history to its daughters from childhood, no Hindu girl will ever fall prey to love jihad.

2 days ago | [YT] | 2

Pahadi Sudhir N

Warning: This piece is deliberately uncompromising.
Those addicted to hollow secular platitudes may step away.
What needs to be said will be said—plainly, without euphemism or evasion.
It is often claimed that terror has no religion.
This assertion, repeated endlessly, is not just misleading—it is a complete falsehood.
Religion teaches the justification of bloodshed.
Religion promises rewards for killing.
Religion plants dreams of seventy-two houris in young minds and trains sixteen-year-old boys to strap explosives around their waists and die in the name of faith.
Before we proceed further, let us first dismantle the myth—that terrorism is detached from religious ideology.
Now, let us look at facts.
1993, Kishtwar: A bus was hijacked. Hindus were selectively killed; others were released.
1998, Wandhama: Twenty-three Hindus were identified by religion and murdered in their homes.
1998, Prankote (Udhampur): Hindus were forced to recite the Kalma. Twenty-nine were killed for refusing.
2000, Chittisinghpura: Thirty-six Sikhs were massacred. Soon after, 105 Hindu Amarnath pilgrims were slaughtered.
2003, Nandimarg: Twenty-four Hindus were dragged out of their homes and executed.
2006, Doda: Fifty-four Hindus were butchered—among them four girls barely three years old. The brutality was so extreme that the doctor conducting post-mortems reportedly suffered a heart attack.
2021: A school was attacked. Hindu teachers were identified and killed selectively.
These are not isolated incidents.
They are part of a continuum—stretching not just across Kashmir, but across the country, across centuries.
The list is endless. Writing it in full would take an entire day.
People forgot 1990.
They forgot 2000.
They will forget Pahalgam 2025 as well.
Yet even after knowing all this, while chanting slogans of democracy and pluralism, you will still hesitate to say this openly:
👉 This is not merely about religion.
This is about an imperial, militaristic ideology—one that seeks global dominance and allows no space for any other belief system.
As long as you bury your head in the sand—invoking tolerance, non-violence, humanity, dissent, and coexistence—this militant ideology will continue to label you kafir and kill you.
Iraq.
Iran.
Afghanistan.
Pakistan.
Bangladesh.
Kashmir.
Mumbai.
Murshidabad.
Bengal.
Kolkata.
Kerala.
Pahalgam.
This will continue.
Land will keep slipping away.
Hindus will keep getting killed.
Girls will keep getting raped.
Temples will keep getting demolished.
Slowly, a day will come when you will be left with no land to flee to.
From Iraq—some converted, some fled.
From Iran—some converted, some fled.
From Afghanistan—some converted, some fled.
From Pakistan—some converted, some fled.
From Bangladesh—some converted, some fled.
From Kashmir—they fled.
Now tell me—
from Uttar Pradesh, where will you flee?
Out of India’s states, Hindus remain a majority in barely nineteen.
Even from there, escape routes are vanishing.
So stop trimming leaves and start uprooting the root.

As long as you attack symptoms and spare the source, this poisonous tree will thrive.
Only by destroying the root of terror can survival be ensured.
And who will do that?
The answer is expected—from you.

6 days ago (edited) | [YT] | 1

Pahadi Sudhir N

They say that humans once had a tail. Then humans learned to use both legs and hands, the need for a tail ended. Since it was no longer used, the tail gradually became inactive and one day disappeared.
If humans had a tail today, it would be very useful. If there were a tail, one would have to make a hole in the pants, which would serve as an ideal passage for air. Fresh air going inside would keep many people’s backsides cool. After holding a book in one hand and a computer in the other, an AK-47 could be held with the tail.
If there were a tail, one could pinch a girl and put the blame on someone else. Love letters could easily be delivered to a girlfriend’s high window. By fixing a camera at the tip of the tail, one could peep into others’ houses. Pharmaceutical companies would compete to make medicines to increase tail length, which would also benefit the country’s economy.
But since the tail no longer exists, all this talk is meaningless. What’s the use of rain when the crops have already dried? The tail may have disappeared, but the mark is still there where it once grew. Some of the highest religious posts are also like a tail. Who knows when, after becoming inactive, they too might disappear. Respect for the post, the dignity of the post, and your caste-based faith all have their place—but along with politics, please also perform actions worthy of the post, swayambhu Maharaj....come above the board instead of doing all actions to please a italian waitress..😡
Once the tail is gone, you can keep scratching the mark. Scratching will not make the tail grow back.

2 weeks ago | [YT] | 7

Pahadi Sudhir N

In an earlier judgement the Gujarat High Court has shattered the Sunni Waqf Board’s dream of taking control over two islands of Bet Dwarka. This issue is currently being widely discussed in Gujarat. We came to know about it through social media; otherwise, it might never have come to light…!!
To understand how migration happens, how encroachment takes place, and what “land jihad” means, one only needs to study Bet Dwarka island—the entire process becomes clear. Until a few years ago, almost the entire population here was Hindu. This area falls under the Okha municipality and the only way to reach it is by water; therefore, people use boats to travel in and out of Bet Dwarka. The ancient temple of Dwarkadhish is located here. It is said that 5,000 years ago Rukmini installed the idol here…!!
Surrounded by the sea, this island used to be very peaceful. The main occupation of the people was fishing. Gradually, Muslim fishermen from outside began arriving here. The kind-hearted Hindu population allowed them to stay and fish. Slowly, the entire fishing business came under Muslim control. With funding from outside, they started selling fish at cheaper prices, which made Hindu fishermen unemployed. The Hindu population then began migrating out of the island in search of work.
But another “experiment” took place here. The boat fare from Bet Dwarka to Okha used to be ₹8. Now, since all boats had come under Muslim control, a new rule was introduced: a Hindu traveling by boat to Okha would be charged ₹100, while a Muslim would still pay ₹8. If a daily-wage Hindu had to spend ₹200 just on commuting, what would he save…??
As a result, Hindus began migrating from there for employment. Now only about 15% of the population is Hindu. The two main sources of livelihood—fishing and transport—were taken away from Hindus. As in many other places, about 90% of occupations such as masons, carpenters, electricians, drivers, barbers, and other manual trades have also been handed over to them…!!
Bet Dwarka has a 5,000-year-old temple that Hindus used to visit for darshan. The so-called jihadists then adopted a new method. Since they had control over transportation, they began demanding ₹4,000 to ₹5,000 for a 20–30 minute boat journey from pilgrims. How could an ordinary person afford such an expensive fare? People stopped going there. Once they had complete control, houses started coming up everywhere. Very soon, the ancient temple was surrounded on all sides by mazars. The remaining Hindu population grew tired of repeatedly appealing to the government. Then some Hindu social workers took notice and warned the government. The government began construction of a signature bridge from Okha to Bet Dwarka, and when investigations into other issues started, the investigating agencies were shocked…!!
In Gujarat, the Sunni Waqf Board laid claim to two islands of Bet Dwarka, located in Lord Krishna’s city of Dwarka. In its application, the Waqf Board claimed ownership of two islands of Bet Dwarka. The Gujarat High Court expressed surprise and asked how one could claim ownership over Krishna’s city, and thereafter dismissed the petition. Bet Dwarka has about eight islands, two of which have temples of Lord Krishna…!!
Ancient legends say that while worshipping Lord Krishna, Meera merged into his idol here. About 7,000 families live on these two islands of Bet Dwarka, of which around 6,000 families are Muslim. This is a small island off the coast of Dwarka, located very close to Okha. On this basis, the Waqf Board stakes its claim over these two islands. This conspiracy was exposed at a very early stage. According to security agencies, in this phase some people were occupying land and carrying out illegal construction on sites that could pose a major threat to India’s internal security from a strategic point of view. Now, illegal encroachments and mazars are being demolished…!!
With the grace of Hon’ble Shri Narendra Modi ji, the sea link has now been inaugurated, and the business of transporting people in boats or small vessels by Muslims is also going to collapse…!!
No Muslim who comes to Bet Dwarka is a local; all are from outside. Yet, within just a few years, they gradually took everything away from the Hindus there, and an island of a state like Gujarat in India turned into Syria…!!
Being cautious and vigilant is extremely necessary. Share as much as possible…!!
Hamen apni dhraharon ko wapas lena padega aur basla lena hoga ..zihadiyon ko apne dhaarmik sthanon se bedakhal akrna hoga ...chaahe aseem shakti ka prayog karna pade..

“Nation first.”

2 weeks ago | [YT] | 0

Pahadi Sudhir N

The radical Islamic revolution in Iran is living on borrowed time. Its collapse was inevitable from the moment Islamists erased Iran’s ancient civilizational faith through blood, coercion, and terror. The survival of the Parsis was possible only because they fled to India—history’s permanent reminder of what radical ideology does when it seizes power.
Wherever radical Islam has established dominance, it has either annihilated indigenous cultures or forcibly rewritten them. India was the lone exception—not because the threat did not exist, but because it was resisted. Since that failure, ideological flag-bearers of this extremism have remained fixated on dismantling India from within.
While India’s civilization continues to flow uninterrupted, Iran’s theocratic project is rotting from inside. A regime that murders women for defying dress codes, brutalizes students for asserting dignity, and weaponizes religion to crush freedom has forfeited all moral legitimacy.
The silence of global leftists ; specially the LAMPAT vampanthi in India, over the killings of Mahsa Amini and countless unnamed Iranian women exposes their hypocrisy. They selectively manufacture outrage where it suits their politics, but fall mute when crimes are committed under the banner of a “protected” ideology. Narratives are fabricated, excuses invented, and blame diverted—yet the truth remains unchanged: a single extremist worldview is responsible.
Radical Islamist regimes are graveyards of women’s rights. The same activists who perform moral theatrics elsewhere would never dare practice their slogans there. Their outrage ends where ideological convenience begins.
History is unforgiving to systems that survive by fear, repression, and violence. Iran’s theocratic experiment stands as a warning—not just to Iranians, but to every society tempted to tolerate fanaticism in the name of false secularism or selective morality.
Civilizations endure. Extremist ideologies collapse.

Iran, along with other radical Islamist countries, is hell for women. Feminists will not hold “Kiss of Love” parades there; Arfa Khanum and Rana Ayyub will not be able to smoke hookah there wearing tight clothes. These are sold-out people who betray the nation and culture for petty gains.

In any case, the radical ideology that does not accept the existence of anyone except itself should be destroyed globally.
I wish Pakistan and all countries that follow Iran-style extremist ideology to be included in this war, so that all the garbage is cleaned out at once and the world can breathe in peace, free from terrorism.

3 weeks ago | [YT] | 0

Pahadi Sudhir N

Some of India’s most prominent senior advocates are known to command extraordinarily high professional fees. On an average hearing day, figures frequently mentioned include ₹35–40 lakh for Kapil Sibal and around ₹30–35 lakh for Abhishek Manu Singhvi. In high-stakes corporate litigation, these amounts are often said to rise into the crore range. Other well-known names such as Siddharth Luthra, Siddharth Dave, and Trideep Pais are also reported to charge close to ₹10 lakh per appearance.
Now consider Umar Khalid.
He is widely known as a former JNU student activist, often associated in public discourse with controversial slogans and left-leaning ideological positions. He has been in custody for nearly five years, and once again, the Supreme Court has declined to grant him bail.
At this point, a natural question arises: why list the legal fees of these elite advocates?
The reason given is that all of the above-mentioned lawyers are collectively representing Umar Khalid. He remains incarcerated in connection with allegations relating to conspiracy in the Delhi riots, anti-national sloganeering, and charges including sedition.
Umar Khalid, now 38, was born in Delhi. His father is from Maharashtra, and his mother hails from Uttar Pradesh. He is described as coming from a modest, middle-class background. During his time at Jawaharlal Nehru University, he was pursuing a PhD with the help of a scholarship or fellowship.
This leads to another question that many people raise: how does a research scholar from a middle-class family, dependent on financial assistance for education, manage the services of some of the country’s most expensive and influential lawyers?
Whether bail was granted or denied—and the legal reasoning behind it—is not the focus here, despite extensive debate on social media platforms.
What draws attention instead is the estimated cost of legal representation. When multiple senior advocates appear together before the Supreme Court, the combined professional fee for a single date of hearing is often speculated to be close to ₹1 crore. The puzzling issue, therefore, is not legal strategy but financial logistics: who arranges such a sum for every court appearance?
Is the average Indian middle-class household realistically capable of funding legal expenses of this magnitude? If not, then where does this money come from? Even if one assumes—purely hypothetically—that these lawyers are offering their services pro bono, the question remains: what motivates such exceptional generosity?
It is worth noting, as frequently cited in discussions, that Abhishek Manu Singhvi has allegedly charged substantial fees even from close relatives for court appearances, and Siddharth Luthra is also said to have billed family members for professional services. These references are often used to argue that free representation by such advocates is rare.
Finally, some background frequently mentioned in public discourse relates to Umar Khalid’s family. His father’s name is Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas. He has been described by critics as having had associations with SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India). SIMI was once an Islamic student organization that was later banned by the Government of India on grounds of involvement in activities considered a threat to national security.
The organization has faced allegations of promoting extremism, disrupting communal harmony, and acting against the sovereignty and integrity of the country. According to official assessments, its stated objective included mobilizing youth for ideological indoctrination, with claims that it encouraged radicalization in the name of religion.
In the decades when India witnessed repeated bomb blasts, terror incidents, or communal disturbances, SIMI’s alleged involvement was frequently cited in investigations, supported—according to authorities—by documentary and material evidence.
There is an old saying that to understand a person, one must look at their upbringing and familial influences. For many observers, Umar Khalid’s background is seen as inseparable from the public image and identity he carries today.
Jai Hind 🇮🇳

4 weeks ago | [YT] | 0

Pahadi Sudhir N

As we step into 2026, I express my heartfelt gratitude to everyone who has been part of my journey—family, friends, colleagues, and all those who crossed my path in the professional sphere and beyond.
For me, 2025 passed with relative peace, calm, and balance. I sincerely hope it was gentle for you as well, and if not, may the coming year heal, uplift, and reassure you.
May 2026 make us more spiritual and compassionate, more connected to our work, to humanity, to nature, and to all living beings. May it nurture empathy, kindness, and respect for life in all its forms.
I pray that this year strengthens us in both our professional and personal lives, blessing us with strength, inspiration, peace, good health, prosperity, clarity of thought, and growth in intellectual capacity.
Above all, may peace prevail—in our hearts, in our society, in India, and across the world.
सर्वे भवन्तु सुखिनः
सर्वे सन्तु निरामयाः।
सर्वे भद्राणि पश्यन्तु
मा कश्चिद् दुःखभाग्भवेत्॥

( May all be happy,
may all be free from illness,
may all witness auspiciousness,
and may no one suffer in any way)

Wishing you a meaningful, harmonious, and uplifting New Year. 🌿
Sadar : Sudhir Naudiyal 🙏

1 month ago | [YT] | 9

Pahadi Sudhir N

🟥 𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗚𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗵𝗶, 𝗡𝗲𝗵𝗿𝘂, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘂 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: 𝗔 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

I write this not out of hatred, but out of responsibility. Not to demolish historical figures, but to reclaim intellectual honesty. As a Hindu and as an Indian, I believe reverence must never replace reason, and morality must never be weaponised against one’s own civilization.
For decades, Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru have occupied a space in Indian public life that has been largely insulated from rigorous scrutiny. Questioning their ideas, decisions, or long-term consequences has often been dismissed as malice or communal intent. This intellectual closure has done far more damage to India than honest debate ever could.
Let me state this clearly at the outset: Gandhi was a profound moral thinker, and Nehru was an articulate modernist. Their roles in the freedom struggle are real and undeniable. Yet it is equally undeniable that their worldview and political choices often worked to the disadvantage of Hindu civilizational interests—sometimes unintentionally, sometimes stubbornly, and sometimes tragically.
Gandhi’s philosophy of ahimsa was internally consistent, but its political application was deeply asymmetrical. Hindus were repeatedly called upon to demonstrate restraint, tolerance, and even silent suffering as proof of moral superiority. In contrast, organised aggression or mobilisation from Muslim leadership was frequently contextualised as fear, hurt sentiment, or historical grievance.
Gandhi himself wrote in Young India in 1924 that Hindus must not retaliate even in the face of death. Such words may reflect extraordinary personal spirituality, but when translated into political guidance for a society facing organised communal violence, they impose a moral burden on one side alone. Restraint demanded selectively ceases to be virtue and becomes vulnerability.
A nation, however, is not an ashram. Moral absolutism may elevate the soul of an individual, but it cannot serve as the sole compass of statecraft. States exist to protect life, ensure order, and prevent the repetition of violence. Gandhi once remarked that if India were to perish while adhering to the highest moral law, it would still be a noble end. Spiritually admirable, perhaps—but politically perilous. Civilizations do not survive on moral symbolism alone; they survive on balance—between ethics and power, compassion and firmness, restraint and self-defence.
Jawaharlal Nehru, in many ways, became the political extension of this idealism. His elevation to the prime ministership was not merely the outcome of democratic consensus within the Congress but was decisively shaped by Gandhi’s insistence. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel—a leader with proven administrative strength, political realism, and deep understanding of India’s social fabric—was sidelined.
This decision was not incidental. It shaped the destiny of independent India. Policies on Kashmir, China, internal security, and even civilizational self-confidence might have followed a very different trajectory under Patel’s leadership. History does not permit rewinds, but it does permit learning—if we are willing.
Partition remains the most painful testament to the failure of idealism untempered by realism. It was justified as a tragic necessity, yet its execution revealed catastrophic misjudgments. Muslim League leadership mobilised religion ruthlessly. Hindu and Sikh populations paid the highest price in blood, displacement, and loss of ancestral lands. Congress leadership underestimated the permanence and potency of religious politics in the subcontinent.
Events surrounding Direct Action Day in August 1946 further exposed this miscalculation. What was projected as political protest rapidly turned into organised communal violence, particularly in Bengal. The response of national leadership—marked by hesitation, moral appeals, and reluctance to confront ideological responsibility—set a dangerous precedent: that religious intimidation could extract political concessions.
The same pattern resurfaced in the handling of Kashmir. The decision to internationalise the issue, rather than resolve it decisively, reflected faith in moral legitimacy and global goodwill over strategic clarity. The result has been a dispute that has outlived generations, cost countless lives, and remained a persistent wound on India’s sovereignty.
Over time, this approach hardened into what came to be known as minority appeasement—though rarely acknowledged as such. The state sought to demonstrate secular credentials, but often failed to insist on reciprocity. Equality before the law gradually gave way to differential sensitivity. Protection of minorities is the duty of any civilized state; selective indulgence is not.
Hindus were repeatedly told that their civilization was secure enough to absorb endless compromise. History teaches otherwise. Civilizations survive not because they accommodate endlessly, but because they balance openness with self-respect.
Post-Independence narrative control compounded this imbalance. Textbooks, archives, academic institutions, and acceptable discourse were shaped to preserve a single moral story. Alternative perspectives—especially those critical of Gandhi or Congress ideology—were marginalised or morally stigmatised. This was not confidence; it was insecurity masquerading as consensus.
To critique Gandhi and Nehru from a Hindu civilizational standpoint is not communalism. It is not hatred. It is an overdue inquiry into why Hindus were repeatedly expected to forgive without assertion, why self-confidence was equated with moral failure, and why the Indian state hesitated to articulate Hindu interests with clarity and confidence.
A civilization that cannot question its past cannot secure its future.
Honouring Gandhi does not require sanctifying every decision he made. Respecting Nehru does not require ignoring the long shadows of his policies. True respect lies in honest assessment, not blind reverence.
India today is witnessing the return of long-suppressed questions. This should not alarm us; it should mature us. Only by confronting uncomfortable truths can we move toward a more balanced, self-assured, and dharmic national consciousness—where morality and power walk together, not at each other’s expense.
This reflection is not an end. It is a beginning. ...sudhir naudiyal

Jai Hind l Jai Bharat l Vande Mataram 🙏

1 month ago | [YT] | 4

Pahadi Sudhir N

Unprecedented Electoral Verdict
A Historic Masterclass in Election Management

The recently concluded Bihar elections were truly remarkable and unparalleled.

In living memory, this is perhaps the first election where not a single booth required re-polling, not a single shot was fired, and the entire process remained peaceful. Bihar’s electoral history has long been marred by violence—booth capturing, killings, arson, and bloodshed were once considered routine.

Yet, the two-phase election this time was conducted with such extraordinary calm and precision that the entire credit rightfully goes to Chief Election Commissioner Shri Gyanesh Kumar.

Despite criticism and resistance, the CEC—architect of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)—ensured that this grand festival of democracy was completed flawlessly. The appreciation he deserves is far greater than words can express.

Removing 6 million bogus voters from the rolls is no trivial task.
What is even more remarkable is this: not a single genuine voter came forward claiming that their name had been wrongly deleted.

Such accuracy. Such precision. Absolutely error-free.
Heartiest congratulations and best wishes.

We hope you continue to deliver similar success across the rest of India.

And one more thing—have you ever wondered why Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi, and their loyal supporters harbor such hostility toward Shri Gyanesh Kumar?

Because this is the very officer who drafted the Article 370 abrogation framework and the Triple Talaq legislation.
Out of sheer irritation, they mockingly twist his name to “Gyanesh Kumar Gupta,” attempting to inject caste aspersions and claim he is helping Modi because he is “a Bania”.

But it is officers like him who keep the nation functioning—and allow ordinary citizens like us to sleep in peace.

Thank you, Sir.
We sincerely hope that during the remainder of your tenure, you continue to conduct elections with the same level of neutrality and serenity, and that you expedite SIR across the entire country to purify the electoral rolls.

👍👌👏♥️

2 months ago | [YT] | 0

Pahadi Sudhir N

If you truly want results, learn a lesson or two from the BJP’s social engineering, Amit Shah’s Chanakya-style strategy, and the sheer force of the Modi brand. Want to understand where the real pathways of power run? Just listen to the speech Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivered two nights ago at the BJP headquarters in Delhi after the victory celebrations.
From one single line of his, it was clear: the Ganga that rose in Bihar is now flowing toward Bengal to meet the sea.

Those who understood this are players. Those who didn't, amateurs. Victory and defeat are part of the game, but doing politics part-time is political suicide. Trying to paint others as thieves while boasting of greatness despite barely saving deposits, this is nothing but pushing oneself into a pit of political decline.

After sweeping Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, and Maharashtra, the BJP’s chariot is now rolling toward Bengal. RSS teams that fanned out across Bihar have already begun moving to Bengal without wasting a moment. Just watch, come January, teams of MLAs from every BJP and NDA-ruled state will be walking the lanes and mohallas of Bengal. At the BJP headquarters in Delhi, the blueprint for “Mission Bengal” is literally being drawn on sprawling maps.

And behind this blueprint is the BJP’s strategic think-tank, sharpened and executed by Amit Shah and his team. I told you, didn’t I? This is social engineering, an alloy of mathematics, physics, and chemistry. It’s not easy; it demands sweat, strategy, and relentless hard work. From zero to 88 seats in Bengal, and now to push that 88 toward 188, requires fire in the belly.

PM Modi was right when he said the Congress has abandoned its own ideology and wandered onto the path of Maoism and the Muslim League. It is tragic indeed. A 150-year-old party once guided by giants like Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel, Madan Mohan Malaviya, Subhas Chandra Bose, Lala Lajpat Rai, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Purushottam Das Tandon, and Lal Bahadur Shastri, look whose hands it has fallen into today.

For 11 years straight, Congress has been practising nothing but negative politics. Frustrated by its repeated failures, it has now stooped to the extent of pushing the country toward the conditions of Nepal and Bangladesh.
All this while forgetting what the very Constitution they brandish in their pockets has done, making Indian democracy resilient, robust, and self-confident. The governments of the last 11 years governed through the same Constitution.
People are choosing those who understand the Constitution far better than they do.

Ironically, Congress’s foolish politics has turned its leaders into a super asset for the BJP. Every time Rahul speaks, the Congress loses a few thousand votes.

In such circumstances, the PM is not wrong to say that Congress is heading toward a future split. Thoughtful leaders will walk away. Congress has broken before, don’t forget. Nobody wishes for Congress to collapse entirely, but look,
in Bihar it won the same number of seats as Owaisi.
An opposition is essential; it is the foundation of democracy. But the current Indian opposition is exactly where its own actions have brought it.

And remember, public backlash in politics is brutal.
The same crisis that struck the opposition in Bihar will soon stand before Mamata Banerjee, who has drifted into full-scale authoritarianism.
Jai Hind ❗ Jai bharat 🙏

2 months ago | [YT] | 1