Andrew Bates Profile picture
Apr 26 • 6 tweets • 8 min read • Read on X
🧵 [1/5] Have you ever wondered why “apostates” from the radical Left and other totalitarian regimes treated like traitors who deserve destruction, the same way radical Islamists treat anyone who leaves their faith?

Both ideologies have a death sentence for dissenters.

It’s not a bug.
It’s the feature.
History has lessons for us.

In this thread đź§µ, we dive deep into this.

Communism has always crushed “ideological deviation” with the same brutality radical Islamists reserve for "riddah" (apostasy).

Let's look at the Red (radical Left/Communism) first.

Remember the Stalin’s Great Purge (1936–38)? Stalin executed the old Bolsheviks themselves. Lifelong revolutionaries such as Bukharin, Zinoviev, and Kamenev were shot or gulaged for the crime of “deviating” from the party line.

Leon Trotsky, founder of the Red Army, was hunted across continents and murdered in Mexico in 1940 with an ice pick.

Mao’s Cultural Revolution turned children into execution squads against teachers, parents, and party veterans guilty of “bourgeois” or “revisionist” thoughts.

Today, ex-leftists who break ranks face doxxing, career annihilation, and social exile.

“Cancel culture” is the Western gulag.

Now let’s turn to the Green (Radical Islamism).

Apostasy is explicitly a capital crime in classical Islamic jurisprudence, backed by hadiths: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”

The Ridda Wars after Muhammad’s death slaughtered tribes trying to leave Islam.

Today, 13 countries still prescribe death for leaving the faith. In nations such as Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and others, the punishment for apostasy is death, and thousands have been executed or killed under these laws and proxy charges like blasphemy and “enmity against God.”

Ex-Muslims live under fatwas, in hiding, or are murdered (think Rushdie or honour killings).

Note: The attached image is the cover of the book Icon of Evil: Hitler’s Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam by David G. Dalin and John F. Rothmann, showing Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini in private conversation with Adolf Hitler, a chilling historical snapshot of the alliances that still echo in today’s Red-Green axis.The attached image is the cover of the book Icon of Evil: Hitler’s Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam by David G. Dalin and John F. Rothmann, showing Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini in private conversation with Adolf Hitler, a chilling historical snapshot of the alliances that still echo in today’s Red-Green axis.
đź§µ [2/5] Red and Green are married: a toxic alliance of convenience.

They march together, share platforms, fund causes, and scream “solidarity” against the West, Israel, and liberal democracy.

The radical Left defends Islamist grievances and imports Islamist voters while ignoring Sharia’s stance on apostasy, gays, and women.

Islamists adopt leftist “oppression” language as camouflage.

This isn’t new.

History is littered with Red-Green pacts, tactical marriages of sworn enemies against a common foe.

Let's start with the 1920 Baku Congress.

Soviet leaders (Zinoviev and others) summoned Muslim delegates to a “true people’s holy war” against British imperialism, an explicit early attempt to fuse communist revolution with jihad.

Then there’s the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem’s Nazi ties and enduring legacy. Haj Amin al-Husseini forged a direct alliance with Nazi Germany.

Contacts began in 1933 when he praised Hitler’s anti-Jewish policies. In 1941, after backing the pro-Axis coup in Iraq that sparked the Farhud pogrom against Baghdad’s Jews, he fled to Berlin as Hitler’s honored guest.

On November 28, 1941, he met the FĂĽhrer and declared that Arabs and Nazis shared the same enemies: the English, the Jews, and the Communists.

He broadcast vicious anti-Jewish and anti-Allied propaganda across the Arab world via Radio Berlin, recruited thousands of Bosnian Muslims into the Waffen-SS “Handschar” division, and lobbied relentlessly to block Jewish emigration from Europe to Palestine.

His influence extended far beyond 1945.

The Mufti escaped to Egypt (via French protection) and continued shaping Palestinian rejectionism from exile in Cairo.

He opposed the 1947 UN Partition Plan, formed the Army of the Holy War militia, and in September 1948 presided over the short-lived All-Palestine Government in Egyptian-ruled Gaza, a symbolic rejectionist entity he led as president.

The government relocated to Cairo as a government-in-exile in late October 1948.

In the 1950s, from his villa in Heliopolis, Cairo, the Mufti directed the increasingly fragmented Arab Higher Committee, issued anti-Israel statements, supported "fedayeen guerrilla" activities against the Jewish state, and rallied Arab opposition to any compromise or peace with Israel.

By the 1960s, after leaving Egypt for Beirut in 1959, his once-dominant Cairo-based influence had sharply declined under Nasser’s secular pan-Arab regime and the rise of newer Palestinian leadership. He was increasingly sidelined and discredited after the 1948 defeat, yet he remained a vocal symbolic figure of uncompromising rejectionism, issuing statements against Israel and any negotiated settlement until his death in 1974.

Though his direct political power waned, his uncompromising fusion of Islamist anti-Semitism, Arab nationalism, and total rejection of Jewish sovereignty shaped the Palestinian cause for generations.

Not to also forget the Mufti’s influence on Arafat. Yasser Arafat, his distant relative and “spiritual godson”, explicitly carried forward this legacy. Arafat was the founding member of the Fatah political party which he led from 1959 until 2004, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization from 1969 to 2004, President of Palestine from 1989 to 2004, and President of the Palestinian Authority from 1994 to 2004.

Arafat, who mourned the Mufti as chief mourner at his 1974 Beirut funeral, inherited the PLO leadership and the core rejectionist stance.

Note: This image is from November 1943: Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini greeting Bosnian Muslim volunteers of the Waffen-SS “Handschar” division with a Nazi salute. At right is SS General Karl-Gustav Sauberzweig, chilling proof of the Mufti’s direct role in recruiting thousands of Muslims into Hitler’s elite SS units as part of the Nazi-Islamist alliance.Note: This image is from November 1943: Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini greeting Bosnian Muslim volunteers of the Waffen-SS “Handschar” division with a Nazi salute. At right is SS General Karl-Gustav Sauberzweig, chilling proof of the Mufti’s direct role in recruiting thousands of Muslims into Hitler’s elite SS units as part of the Nazi-Islamist alliance.
đź§µ [3/3] Nazi ties to Arab nationalists ran even deeper.

The Mufti (Haj Amin al-Husseini) closely allied with Iraqi Prime Minister Rashid Ali al-Gaylani, whose 1941 “Golden Square” pro-Axis coup (backed by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) briefly installed a Nazi-friendly regime in Baghdad before British forces crushed it.

Both men fled to Berlin. In Berlin, Rashid Ali was received by Hitler, recognised as the leader of an Iraqi government-in-exile, and collaborated with the Mufti on anti-British and anti-Jewish propaganda while working to rally Arab support for the Axis powers.

They appeared together at events, and Nazi Germany tailored radio broadcasts that fused Koranic verses with Nazi-style anti-Semitism, framing the war as a jihad against Jews, Britain, and Bolshevism.

Another key figure was Fawzi al-Qawuqji, a prominent Syrian Arab nationalist and military commander who fought in the 1936–39 Arab Revolt in Palestine.

After fleeing British pursuit, al-Qawuqji too found refuge in Nazi Germany. Here, he was commissioned as a colonel in the Wehrmacht, recovered from wounds sustained in Iraq, and collaborated closely with the Mufti and Rashid Ali on propaganda and recruitment efforts.

Post-war, al-Qawuqji was appointed field commander of the Arab League’s Arab Liberation Army (ALA) during the 1948 Palestine War, leading volunteer forces in northern Palestine against the nascent Jewish state.

This is another direct link in the chain of Nazi-Arab nationalist collaboration extending into the fight against Israel.

Broader Nazi strategy cultivated Arab nationalists across the region.

Nazis exploited anti-British and anti-Zionist sentiment, supporting pan-Arab movements and recruiting Muslim volunteers while building on earlier German-Ottoman alliances from World War I.

Note: This image is from Berlin during the Second World War, showing Rashid Ali al-Gaylani, the pro-Axis former Iraqi prime minister, and Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, speaking at an anniversary event commemorating the 1941 pro-Axis coup in Iraq. They are pictured before black-white-green banners, symbolically linking Arab nationalist politics with Axis propaganda networks in wartime Germany.This image is from Berlin during the Second World War, showing Rashid Ali al-Gaylani, the pro-Axis former Iraqi prime minister, and Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, speaking at an anniversary event commemorating the 1941 pro-Axis coup in Iraq. They are pictured before black-white-green banners, symbolically linking Arab nationalist politics with Axis propaganda networks in wartime Germany.
đź§µ [4/5] Then came the Cold War Arab-Soviet axis.

The USSR poured weapons, training, and propaganda into “Islamic socialist” regimes and Palestinian fedayeen.

Groups like the PLO became a Red-Green hybrid.

Yasser Arafat (who admired the Mufti) worked hand-in-glove with Soviet intelligence while Islamist networks operated alongside.

And don’t forget the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

Marxists (Tudeh Party, Fedayeen) and Islamists united to topple the Shah.

Once victorious, Khomeini’s Green faction purged their Red allies. Thousands of communists executed or imprisoned as “enemies of God.”

This is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of our era.

Signed on August 23, 1939, by Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression treaty between two mortal ideological enemies, National Socialism and Communism.

It included a secret additional protocol that carved up Eastern Europe into spheres of influence: Germany would take western Poland, the Soviets eastern Poland, the Baltic states, Finland, and Bessarabia.

The cynical deal enabled Hitler’s invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, with Soviet forces invading from the east on September 17, triggering World War II.

The “alliance of convenience” lasted less than two years.

On June 22, 1941, Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa and betrayed Stalin, invading the USSR.

The two totalitarian regimes shook hands against the liberal West, shared tactics of terror, propaganda, and Manichaean “us vs. them” framing.

But, they despised each other’s core ideology.

When the common enemy was sufficiently weakened, the knives came out.

Note: This (attached) image shows Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov signing the German–Soviet Treaty of Friendship in Moscow on September 28, 1939, shortly after Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had jointly dismantled Poland under the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Standing behind him are key Nazi and Soviet officials, including Joachim von Ribbentrop and Joseph Stalin, symbolizing one of the most consequential and cynical diplomatic alignments of the early Second World War. The agreement formalized cooperation between two totalitarian regimes and helped redraw the map of Eastern Europe before the Nazi–Soviet alliance collapsed in 1941.This image shows Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov signing the German–Soviet Treaty of Friendship in Moscow on September 28, 1939, shortly after Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had jointly dismantled Poland under the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Standing behind him are key Nazi and Soviet officials, including Joachim von Ribbentrop and Joseph Stalin, symbolizing one of the most consequential and cynical diplomatic alignments of the early Second World War. The agreement formalized cooperation between two totalitarian regimes and helped redraw the map of Eastern Europe before the Nazi–...
đź§µ [5/5] Fast forward to current times, especially after the October 7 deadly massacre committed by Hamas against the Jewish people.

Red and Green are doing the same: two totalitarian systems shaking hands against their common foe (America, Israel, capitalism, freedom).

They share tactics (propaganda, street agitation, and Manichaean “oppressor vs. oppressed” framing) but despise each other’s core (atheism vs. theocracy).

The alliance is tactical, not genuine.

When the common enemy weakens, the knives come out.

We’ve already seen it in Iran.

We see it today in “Queers for Palestine” marches, BDS campaigns, campus encampments, European far-left parties marching with Islamist networks, and even modern "Red-Green-Brown" overlaps where Islamists, communists, and far-right fringes converge in a toxic alliance of anti-Western, anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, and anti-India/Hindu hatred.

The bottomline is:
Totalitarian minds, Red or Green, cannot tolerate exit.
They need heretics to hunt.
The only real question is: when the common enemy is gone, who gets the ice pick first?

If you found this thread đź§µuseful and want more such deep dives, follow, share, and leave your comments or additional references below.

FACTS >>> NARRATIVES.

Note: This (attached image) 1938 satirical illustration, “Carriers of the New Black Plague” by William Cotton, warns of a “Totalitarian Eclipse” threatening democracy. Using the metaphor of a “black plague,” Cotton portrays dictatorships and authoritarian regimes as a contagion threatening free societies through censorship, intimidation, and state control.This (attached image) 1938 satirical illustration, “Carriers of the New Black Plague” by William Cotton, warns of a “Totalitarian Eclipse” threatening democracy. Using the metaphor of a “black plague,” Cotton portrays dictatorships and authoritarian regimes as a contagion threatening free societies through censorship, intimidation, and state control.
@threadreaderapp unroll, danken!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Andrew Bates

Andrew Bates Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @andrewbatesnc

Apr 25
Has the Red and Green Alliance ruined West Bengal? How did she move from being an Industrial Powerhouse to a State in Decline?

In January, I visited Kolkata after many years, revisiting the places that once defined my memories of the city. It was a flood of nostalgia mixed with deep sadness.

I walked through Thakurbari (Rabindranath Tagore's birthplace), Victoria Memorial, Burrabazar, the iconic Coffee House, College Street, and the Planetarium – spots I had last explored with my family so long ago.

Those visits brought back waves of warmth. But Kolkata has stagnated. The lack of infrastructure and the frail, crumbling buildings were disheartening enough.

What truly broke my heart was going from bookstore to bookstore, unable to find even a single compilation of Tagore’s complete works.

Individual titles were scattered on the shelves, but no collected editions. In stark contrast, massive compilations of Marx, Lenin, and every other left-leaning authors proudly adorned the frontages and display tables.

It was a deeply sad thing to witness – a quiet symbol of how the soul of Bengal has been overshadowed.

For over five decades, West Bengal has been governed by the Red and Green Alliance – first the CPI(M)-led Left Front (Red) under Jyoti Basu (1977-2000, and the Front until 2011), then Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress (with its Green appeasement politics) since 2011.

What was once India’s third-largest economy and an industrial engine of the East has been reduced to stagnation, demographic upheaval, and rising insecurity.

The facts are stark, drawn from official data and published reports. This isn’t rhetoric – it’s the record of ideology over development, appeasement over security, and neglect over progress.

Firstly, economically speaking, from Top 3 to Near the Bottom
In 1960-61, West Bengal contributed 10.5% of India’s GDP – ranking 3rd nationally – with per capita income at 127.5% of the national average.

By 2023-24, its GDP share has plummeted to just 5.6%, and per capita income has fallen to 83.7% of the national average (ranking around 24th). This consistent slide, documented in the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council (EAC-PM) working paper (2024), began under militant unionism and anti-capitalist policies during the Red Front era.

Jyoti Basu famously told struggling industrialists that “capitalists are class enemies” and they should expect “no sympathy.” Factories fled, investment dried up, and the state’s share of registered factory production collapsed from nearly 30% at Independence to under 6% by the early 1990s.

The decline didn’t reverse under the Green phase of the Alliance – it continued, with thousands of industries shuttered and youth forced to migrate for jobs.

Secondly, vis a vis demographics, West Bengal is witnessing a rapid, unchecked shift. Official Census data paints a clear picture of transformation. In 1951, Hindus formed ~78.9% of West Bengal’s population and Muslims 19.85%.

By the 2011 Census (the latest comprehensive official religious data), Hindus were down to 70.54% while Muslims rose to 27.01% (24.65 million out of 91.28 million total). The Muslim population grew by 381.7% between 1951-2011, compared to 210.2% for Hindus – a divergence official Census tables attribute to differential growth rates.

Districts flipped. Murshidabad went from 55.2% Muslim (1951) to 66.27% (2011); Malda from 37.4% to 51.27%; Uttar Dinajpur neared 50%. These are not abstract numbers – they reflect real shifts in social fabric, voting patterns, and local governance in a state with porous borders. (Sources: Census of India 1951 & 2011, as compiled in official tables and Pew Research Center’s 2021 analysis of state religious demography).

Thirdly, growing Islamic radicalisation and appeasement politics that fuels extremism pose a grave danger. Under the Red and Green Alliance, policies perceived as minority appeasement have coincided with rising radicalisation threats, especially in border districts.

The Bangladesh-based Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) has repeatedly used madrasas in Murshidabad, Burdwan, and Malda for radicalisation and recruitment of Indian youth, according to the Union Home Ministry and National Investigation Agency (NIA) probes.

Multiple modules have been busted, with arrests linking JMB to terror plots, bomb-making camps, and cross-border networks.

SATP (South Asia Terrorism Portal) records document ongoing terrorism-related incidents tied to these groups in West Bengal from 2007 onward. Intelligence reports highlight exploitation of porous borders, madrasa networks, and soft policing – a pattern that intensified in the Green phase post-2011.

When ideology trumps security, vulnerable youth become cannon fodder and communal tensions rise.

West Bengal’s story is a cautionary tale: decades of Red and Green Alliance governance - rigid socialism under Basu, followed by populist appeasement under Banerjee - have hollowed out industry, altered demographics through unchecked growth and migration pressures, and allowed radical elements to gain footholds.

Once a beacon of culture, education, and enterprise, Bengal now exports its youth and imports instability.

The data doesn’t lie.

The people of West Bengal deserve better – development, security, and equal opportunity, not ideological experiments of the Red and Green Alliance.

It’s time to confront these facts before the “Red-Green Zones” become the new normal and the state’s decline becomes irreversible.

May 4 may be the turning point we are all waiting for.
Towards "Amar Sonar Bangla".

Share if you believe Bengal needs a real change.
Facts over fear.
Development over decline.

FACTS >>> NARRATIVES

Note: Links to data and evidence used are provided in next tweet.

#BengalElections #assemblyelections2026 #WestBengalLegislativeAssemblyelection2026 #AmarSonarBanglaImage
For data discussed above, and further reading, here are some resources:

1. Census of India (1951, 2011) via censusindia.gov.in

2. EAC-PM Working Paper on Relative Economic Performance of States (2024) eacpm.gov.in/wp-content/upl…

3. Pew Research Center: Religious Demography of Indian States (2021) pewresearch.org/religion/2021/…

4. NIA/Home Ministry alerts & SATP terrorism database satp.org
Here are some photos from the visit earlier this year.

Read 4 tweets
Apr 21
Consider this.

Imagine going back to the 1980s and ’90s.

Flip on the BBC and you’d catch a panel discussion - politicians, journalists, academics - where voices rose and fell but never quite shattered.

Questions were sharp, replies were pointed, yet everyone waited their turn.

No one shouted “gotcha” before the other had finished a sentence.

Switch to Doordarshan, India’s state broadcaster, and the same quiet gravity prevailed: anchors moderated with measured courtesy.

Guests from opposing camps addressed one another with courtesy, and even heated disagreements ended with a nod of acknowledgment rather than a smirk of triumph.

Or step into a school or college auditorium. A debate competition wasn’t theatre for the cameras; it was a ritual.

You stood, stated your proposition, listened to the rebuttal, then replied without once descending into name-calling or caricature.

The adjudicator’s verdict rested on logic, evidence, and delivery - not on who could trigger the loudest applause from the partisan gallery.

Good faith was simply the air everyone breathed.

So where did that air go?

We traded slow, deliberate exchange for the “dopamine hit of instant reaction”.

The screen that once carried a calm BBC studio or a Doordarshan roundtable now streams a thousand simultaneous shouting matches, each engineered to keep you scrolling.

Nuance became a liability.

Charity became weakness.

And somewhere along the way, we stopped wondering aloud together and started declaring at one another.

The question lingers, quiet but insistent. When did we decide that winning the argument mattered more than understanding the person across the table?

Don’t we witness or experience this on social media/spaces?

And more importantly, are we brave enough to choose the older, slower, kinder way again?Image
Ancient Jewish and Hindu theologies offer timeless models for exactly this kind of wisdom.

They converge on a powerful truth: genuine dialogue is a spiritual practice.

They emphasise debate not as a battle for ego or victory, but as a sacred path to truth, conducted with humility, respect, and good faith.

Let's dive deep into these two traditions.
Let's first look at the Jewish theology.

In the Talmud (particularly Eruvin 13b), the schools of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai represent one of the most famous examples of rigorous yet respectful disagreement.

These two groups of sages disagreed sharply on hundreds of points of Jewish law (halakha), yet they treated each other as “friendly adversaries.”

They studied each other’s views deeply, quoted each other’s arguments fairly, and never descended into personal attacks or cancellation.

A heavenly voice (bat kol) ultimately declared: “These and these are the words of the living God”.

It affirmed that both sides reflected divine truth, even though the law ultimately followed the more compassionate views of Hillel.

This is explicitly praised in Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers 5:17) as a “controversy for the sake of Heaven” (machloket l’shem shamayim) that endures and elevates everyone.

Controversies not for Heaven (like Korach’s rebellious power grab) crumble into destruction.

There is wisdom from above for today.

Disagreement is not the enemy of truth. It can be its partner.

When we debate with sincerity and mutual respect (rather than to “own” the other side), multiple perspectives can all contain sparks of the divine.

This fosters humility: no one has a monopoly on wisdom.

In our polarised times, it reminds us to ask, “What truth might the other person be seeing that I’m missing?” instead of rushing to silence or shame them.Image
Read 6 tweets
Apr 9
[1/5] Supremacists and bullies often speak the loudest.

But what if that noise is not strength - just a signal of insecurity?

Let’s take a closer look. 🧵

A thread worth your attention, because beneath the noise lie patterns that science has been quietly decoding.Image
[2/5]

A substantial body of social and behavioural science suggests that dominance-driven hostility frequently emerges from fragile self-concepts.

Individuals who feel uncertain about their own worth seek validation by elevating their in-group while demeaning others (suggest reading about Social Identity Theory (?)).

Similarly, the concept of "compensatory narcissism" describes how exaggerated displays of superiority can mask underlying vulnerability, self-doubt, or perceived inadequacy.

In this light, bullying is less about power and more about overcompensation.

Reference:
a. Social Identity Theory In Psychology (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)
b. Trepte S. Social Identity Theory researchgate.net/profile/Sabine…Image
Image
[3/5]

This is why such behaviour often appears performative - even “cringe.”
It is not grounded confidence but a projection.

A defence mechanism attempting to conceal internal instability.

Empirical studies on aggression and prejudice consistently show links to threat perception, low self-esteem, and cognitive rigidity - not genuine strength (Ostrowsky, 2010).

Reference:

Ostrowsky MK. Are violent people more likely to have low self-esteem or high self-esteem? Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2010;15(1):69–75.Image
Read 6 tweets
Mar 31
🚨 BREAKING: New satellite analysis suggests Iran may have moved a large portion, possibly all, of its highly enriched uranium (HEU) to a fortified underground site in Isfahan just before strikes in 2025.

This is revealed in an analysis published in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists @BulletinAtomic authored by François Diaz-Maurin on March 29, 2026.
[Link at the end of the thread]

If confirmed, this changes the strategic picture entirely.

Image: High-resolution satellite image of a truck with containers at Isfahan tunnel entrance.

1/10 đź§µImage
2/10

The imagery shows a heavy transport truck carrying 18 shielded containers, consistent with nuclear material transport systems.

Experts assess the cargo could include hundreds of kilograms of enriched uranium - enough to alter nuclear timelines.

Image: Annotated satellite image highlighting containers and tunnel entrance.Image
3/10

Why this matters:

Uranium enriched to ~60% is already near weapons-grade.

From there, it can be pushed to ~90% - usable for a nuclear weapon - in days to weeks, not years.

This is the difference between program and capability.Image
Read 11 tweets
Feb 24
1/15

In a time when fault lines within a segment of the community seem louder than ever - sect vs sect, ritual vs reform - a question arises:

Have we forgotten the giants who healed these fractures before us?

Let’s revisit two such figures.

A thread đź§µthat journeys into our spiritual legacy to illuminate the questions of our present.

Here's a deep dive.Image
2/15

In the 8th century, Bharat 🇮🇳was intellectually vibrant; yet fragmented.

Shaiva.
Vaishnava.
Shakta.
Ganapatya.
Smartas.

Each fiercely devoted. Each convinced of exclusive truth.

Into this climate stepped Adi Shankaracharya.

Not to destroy traditions. But to harmonize them.Image
3/15

Adi Shankaracharya did something extraordinary.

He established the system of Panchayatana Puja, worship of five deities (Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti, Surya, Ganesha) on one altar.

A quiet theological masterstroke for its time.

It said:
Diversity in form.
Unity in essence.

This was not merely philosophical abstraction, but a quiet act of social healing.Image
Read 16 tweets
Feb 24
đź§µ 1/10

How did India go from “Maoism is our biggest internal security threat” to “only a handful of districts remain”?

And here’s the real question: was it only about guns and operations—or about roads, rights, and the state finally showing up?

Left Wing Extremism (LWE) didn’t start in 2014.

Its roots go back to the Naxalbari uprising of 1967 and the later consolidation of CPI (Maoist) in 2004.

By 2010, violence had peaked: 1,936 incidents and 1,005 deaths (civilians + security forces).

So when people say “Modi eliminated Maoism,” the accurate claim is: the Modi years oversaw a steep, systematic roll-back of LWE’s geography, funding, and operational space, while pairing security pressure with development delivery.

But let’s unpack how that happened - step by step -because the method matters.

What changed on the ground?
What changed in incentives?
And what changed in state capacity?

This thread you can't miss! đź§µ

Further reading:

PIB (2025): Naxalmukt Bharat Abhiyan: From Red Zones to Growth Corridors pib.gov.in/PressReleasePa…

PIB (2024) National Policy To Combat Left Wing Extremism pib.gov.in/PressReleasePa…Image
Image
2/10

First, the scale. Left-Wing Extremism (LWE) wasn’t merely an ideology; it was parallel control:

extortion,
“taxation,”
intimidation of tribals,
capture of forests and worksites,
disruption of schools,
roads, and elections.

The most revealing metric isn’t speeches; it’s the shrinking map.

In an official Parliament reply, the Government reported that LWE-affected districts fell from

126 → 90 (2018) → 70 (2021) → 38 (Apr 2024) → 18 (Apr 2025) → 11 (Oct 2025),

with only 3 categorised as “most affected.”

And the violence curve is even sharper:
from the 2010 peak to 374 incidents in 2024 (Govt summary) and deaths down to 150 in 2024.

Ask yourself: movements don’t lose territory like that unless something breaks - money, mobility, recruitment, or legitimacy.

So what exactly was targeted?

Not just cadres. The ecosystem.

Further reading: India's Fight Against Maoism (2025; NDTV) ndtv.com/india-news/ind…Image
3/10

The Modi-era approach can be summarised in one idea: stop treating LWE as a “single department problem.”

In 2015, the Centre approved a National Policy and Action Plan to address LWE; explicitly “multi-pronged”:

security measures + development + ensuring rights/entitlements + governance.

And operationally, in 2017, the Home Ministry articulated SAMADHAN:

Smart leadership,
Aggressive strategy,
Motivation/training,
Actionable intelligence,
Dashboard/KRAs,
Harness technology,
Action plan per theatre,
No access to financing.

Read that again. It’s not a slogan.
It’s a management model:

👉 intelligence-led ops (not random sweeps)

👉 measurable district targets (dashboard governance)

👉 tech + mobility (drones/comms/roads)

👉 finance choke (extortion networks disrupted)

Now the uncomfortable question: Why didn’t this happen earlier with the same intensity and coordination?

Because coordination, accountability, and last-mile delivery are everything in insurgency.

The graphics/results below are testimony to the success of this strategy!

Further reading: India's Fight Against Maoism (2025; NDTV) ndtv.com/india-news/ind…Image
Image
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(