Strange. Does death for apostasy exist in my mind or in your Holy Book? Do you believe apostates from Islam should be killed, and you don't find this hateful?
Now I get it. Stoning people to death because they changed their religion is not hateful. Asking a question about it, without stoning anyone, is "hate." Makes perfect sense.
China systematically demolished narratives of Islam and Christianity in China. It declared Islam a mental illness and made sure it controlled all Churches and Church appointments, only authorized sermons could be taught.
It colonized Tibet, inter-married, indoctrinated a Chinese-nationalist Tibetan generation.
India fanned separatism. It allowed false histories in Kashmir, separatism of language, promotion of Urdu and Persian script. It allowed mosques to preach hate and separatism. If it were acting like China, it would have outlawed Persian script and controlled every mosque and sermon. It would have taught the history of Islamic conquest and barbarity to every child. China can promote false narratives in Tibet for integration; India cannot even promote true narratives for what was always part of us.
Similarly in Punjab, India treated Khalistan as a law-and-order problem rather than a narrative war. It allowed fake separatist narratives to flourish. Rather than promoting scholars and narratives which show the unity of Sikhs and Hindus it allowed separatist narratives to flourish. What would China have done?
Same story in the North East. India gave a free reign to Baptist missionaries who converted the indigenous people and taught them to hate India. Separatism come downstream of that. There was no attempt by India to reverse the narrative.
The narrative soft war and the hard war must go together. If you ignore the soft war, you get stuck with constantly fighting the hard war. And the hard war victory will only be temporary tell the false narrative is overturned.
Absolutely, Dravidianism is another false narrative.
All great civilizations were bound by a common narrative. "Secularism" is not a narrative that can bind anything. Minoritism and appeasement create centrifugal forces which split the nation apart.
China's new set of XUAR Religious Affairs Regulations, 2024.
In this it is required that religions promote content for social harmony and interpret religious teaching and rules in line with China's requirements for development and "in line with traditional Chinese culture."
What if India said, mosques and Churches can only teach and promote what is in line with traditional Hindu culture of pluralism and teaching hate and separatism is a cognizable offence?
Reading the book "Hindu polity" and remembering that India has tried, experimented with, and forgotten more forms of governments than the West can remember.
And yet we think "democracy" was this great Western innovation to civilize us.
The A-rajak are non-ruled states. There is a Western fantasy of "egalitarian" society where all are equals with no rulers. (It's a fantasy because nowhere in the world it exists).
Well India tried it a few times. It doesn't work. It's where the word "arajakta" comes from.
The "Arajaka" state with the "rule of law" rather than of a person was a subject of derision, because it inevitably failed. But what evidence did we crown it as the best?
Reading "Two Centuries of Silence"—the lament of the Persians in having the barbaric Arab Muslims impose their religion and culture on the advanced Persian Civilization.
We are not the only ones with this lament. This happened across the world. We are the ones who survived.
There was really nothing much of value in Arab lands, and the little that was useful was ruled by the Persians who were looked up to by the Arabs.
This is the environment in which Islam emerges from.
"These Bedouin tribes led predatory lives and on their minds there was nothing but greed, profit worship, and what satisfied their most primitive desire...their life’s sole interests were lust, wine, and fighting."
Christians attacked the ritual classes all over the world, creating atrocity literature.
It had nothing to do with what "Brahmins" in India did. It was simply about Christian theology that the others were "devil worshippers", led astray by wily priests.
Christians have killed more in the name of their god than any other people.
What more does it take for their god to be seen as demonic?