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.

1 day 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 🇮🇳

1 week 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 🙏

2 weeks 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 🙏

2 weeks 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.

👍👌👏♥️

1 month 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 🙏

1 month ago | [YT] | 1

Pahadi Sudhir N

Social media may be overflowing with hateful posts about Maithili Thakur, but the irony is delicious: even after losing, the foot soldiers of the Mahagathbandhan have already begun scripting their next defeat.

The same people chanting slogans about “Gen Z–Gen Z” after the Bangladesh upheaval have now been silenced by a simple political truth-Modi fielded a true Gen Z candidate, and the people embraced her.
This is how your talking points evaporate one by one. Self-reflection is needed; outrage won’t save you.

What sets Maithili Thakur apart is not merely that she sings, but what she sings and how she carries herself.
Her voice is steeped in devotion, soaked in the soil of Bihar, and rooted in the ancient Maithili tradition that blends sweetness with spiritual depth.
There is no flamboyance in her art—only sincerity, humility, and the fragrance of home.

Her rise is not the rise of a “singer”; it is the rise of a cultural stream.
She is not a Bollywood performer chasing glamour—she is a carrier of heritage, now the youngest MLA of her state. Whether she succeeds in politics is a question for another day; what matters right now is that a girl from a village, known for her down-to-earth grace and spiritual singing, has been recognized and elevated by the Prime Minister himself.

Those who kept parroting “Gen Z” were answered with the victory of a 25-year-old young woman steeped in culture.
And when the attacks against her intensified, top BJP leaders camped in her constituency. Amit Shah personally stepped in to resolve the rebellion of Pappu Singh.

This is how the future is shaped.
This is how leaders are crafted.
This is how narratives shift, and issues begin to move in your favour.
Jai Hind ❗ Jai Bharat 🙏BJP INDIA Narendra Modi Amit Shah Maithili Thakur

1 month ago | [YT] | 0

Pahadi Sudhir N

Some beautiful clicks (pic courtesy R Davar) at Ranthambore National park

Skip the Carousel

1 2 3 4 5

1 year ago | [YT] | 0

Pahadi Sudhir N

Some beautiful clicks (pic courtesy R Davar) at Ranthambore National park

Skip the Carousel

1 2 3 4 5

1 year ago | [YT] | 0

Pahadi Sudhir N

Some beautiful clicks (pic courtesy R Davar) at Ranthambore National park

Skip the Carousel

1 2 3 4 5

1 year ago | [YT] | 0