In a recent speech to young Hindus in New Delhi, the Indian National Security Advisor Ajit Doval urged his audience to "avenge history". He talked about the looting and destruction of Hindu temples and many centuries humiliation suffered by Indians. Though he did not specifically say it, there was no doubt in the minds of his audience that he was talking about invaders like Mahmud of Ghazni, an Afghan Muslim ruler, who is said to have destroyed a Hindu temple in Somnath.
 |
| Indian Prime Minister Modi (Left) with NSA Ajit Doval |
Anti-Muslim rhetoric like Doval’s has made Indian Muslims fear for their lives. It has also put India among top countries with greatest likelihood of mass atrocities, and raised security concerns among India’s neighbors. In its latest warning, the US Holocaust Museum has put three countries scoring higher than India. Myanmar holds the top spot, followed by Chad and Sudan. However, many high-ranking nations including Myanmar and Sudan are already dealing with ongoing mass killings, making India’s position particularly noteworthy as a potential new flashpoint.
For those interested in real history, it is important to understand that eminent Hindu Indian historian Romila Thapar has rejected the Hindu-Muslim framing of the destruction of Somnath. In her book "Somatha", she challenges the simplified story of purely Hindu victims and Muslim invaders, focusing on local Indian sources such as inscriptions, merchant biographies and court epics to reconstruct events. Other sources indicate that several Hindus, including Hindu generals, were part of Ghaznavi's army. Some sources also cite that Arab Muslim traders who had settled in Gujarat during the 8th and 9th century died to protect the Somnath temple against Ghaznavi's Army.
Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, demonized by Hindu Nationalists, employed several high-ranking Hindu generals, most notably Raja Jai Singh I (of Amber) and Maharaja Jaswant Singh (of Marwar), who served as powerful mansabdars (military commanders) and held significant administrative posts, commanding large forces and participating in key campaigns against rivals like Shivaji Maharaj and Dara Shikoh.
Shivaji Maharaj, held by the Hindu Nationalists as an icon of Hindu resistance against Muslims, was crowned as the king despite opposition from local Brahmins. He had several Muslim generals in his army. In fact, he employed people of all castes and religions, including Muslims.
Hindu kings often attacked and looted temples built by other Hindu kings for the wealth stored inside the idols. Just three years before Ghaznavi's raid on Somnath in 1022, a general under Rajendra I, Maharaja of the Chola empire (848–1279) marched 1,600 kilometers north from the Cholas’ royal capital of Tanjavur. Chola warriors defeated Mahipala, maharaja of the Pala empire (c.750–1161), who was the dominant power in India’s easternmost region of Bengal. The Chola's celebrated their victory by carrying off a bronze image of the deity Shiva, which they seized from a royal temple that Mahipala had patronized. In the course of this long campaign, the invaders also took from the Kalinga Raja of Orissa images of Bhairava, Bhairavi and Kali. These, together with precious gems looted from the Pala king, were taken down to the Chola capital as war booty. This raises the question: Why is Mahmud Ghaznavi demonized but not Rajendra Chola's plunder of Hindu temples?
The real history contradicts Doval's assertion that Hindus have never invaded others, ignoring the fact that an unprecedented number of people were killed in the Kalinga massacre by emperor Ashoka. He also did not mention how the Buddhist and Jain temples were destroyed and Hindu temples built on their ruins. nor did he acknowledge the long-running and ongoing oppression of Hindus by Hindus in the name of caste.
Ajit Doval does not appear to be a serious man worthy of holding the sensitive office of India's national security advisor. He has no sense of history, nor does he understand how damaging his speech is for a diverse country like India. By parroting the divisive Hindutva narrative, Doval has alienated not only Indian Muslims but also India's neighbors. He is a total failure. India's failed national security policy is hurting India and Indians more than anyone else.
Related Links:
Haq's Musings
South Asia Investor Review
Pakistan Downs India's French Rafale Jets in a Major Aerial Battle
Has Modi Succeeded Diplomatically or Militarily Against Pakistan?
India's Tariffs: Is Modi-Trump Bromance Over?
Pakistan's Aircraft Exports
Pakistan Navy Modernization
India: Caste-Ridden and Ruled by Brahman Minority
Modi's India: A Paper Elephant?
Pahalgam Attack: Why is the Indian Media Not Asking Hard Questions?
Ukraine's Lesson For Pakistan: Never Give Up Nukes!
Hindutva: Legacy of the British Raj?
Rape: A Political Weapon in Modi's India
Riaz Haq Youtube Channel
VPOS Youtube Channel
5 comments:
I watched that video clip of Ajit Doval's speech. He was talking about the history of invasions and colonization of India, the widespread destruction of its temples at the hands of invaders, the need to strengthen the defenses etc., but (as you noted) nowhere did he seem to say anything specific about "Hindu" vs "Muslim", or explicitly ask "Hindus" to take revenge on "Muslims". I do not know what exactly he meant as "revenge" (pratishodh) here, but whatever the events of distant past may have been I'm not a fan of calls to "avenge" them and I wouldn't agree with or defend such an exhortation. But then, Ajit Doval is a political appointee of Modi govt, so I'm not really surprised at such a speech.
It may also be true that Hindu rulers often attacked and looted temples in a rival kingdom during their wars, but such systematic destruction or desecration with overt religious motives as happened under the Muslim invasions was rare. For example, it was mostly the wealth of temples that was the prime target for such attacks during the wars between Indian kingdoms, and the idols that were seized by native Indian kings from the enemy's temples were often installed in their own. Other cases of vandalism during such wars were comparable to a recent event during Thai-Cambodian border clashes were the Thai military demolished a statue of 'Hindu' god Vishnu erected by the Cambodians on contested land. There were no religious or cultural motives in that act as both Thailand and Cambodia are predominantly Theravada Buddhist nations that revere several 'Hindu' deities like Brahma and Vishnu as well. However, ordering the demolition of a temple and construction of a mosque on its ruins clearly reeks of religious prejudice.
And as for Doval's claims about Indians not having invaded others, he evidently meant invasions of lands outside of "India" - i.e. the subcontinent. Its obvious that Indian kingdoms have frequently waged war against one another or invaded each other's lands. After all, that's how kingdoms and empires form and die. But I would consider his claim of Indian kingdoms not having invaded foreign lands as incorrect for a different reason - the Tamil Chola Empire is known to have attacked kingdoms in South East Asia, especially Srivijaya.
Though I have great respect for Marxist historians like Romila Thapar, they do have a political interest in de-emphasizing a religious angle for the destruction of Hindu temples under Muslim rulers as they know it could fuel right-wing Hindutva politics and perpetuate hate against Indian Muslims. Though I am against weaponisation of such past events against present-day Muslims of the subcontinent (who are after all mostly descendents of Indian converts and not foreigners), I do think a selective whitewashing of the past is not the answer either as that would only serve to discredit the liberal political narratives.
I would agree with that final paragraph on Doval though. Directing shadow wars behind the scenes against enemy countries is understandable (both India and Pakistan have been doing this against each other for decades), but such exhortations for "revenge" doesn't befit the position he occupies.
As for the said destruction of temples, they are mostly historical events that happened especially during the early period of Muslim invasions and under the Delhi Sultanate and Aurangazeb's reign. Whether those destructions were primarily motivated by religion or politics is a debatable topic, but a religious motivation was certainly not lacking as Indian religions with its multiple deities, intricate sculptures and ornate temples would have been considered idolatrous and offensive by the Muslim invaders. And it was not just the "Hindu" temples that had to suffer these blows, but the Jain and Buddhist temples and monasteries as well. The Nalanda and Vikramashila Buddhist viharas in Bihar were destroyed by the armies of Bakhtiyar Khilji, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalanda_mahavihara
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikramashila
Qutb-ud-din Aibak himself has reportedly recorded in his inscription on the main eastern entrance of Qutb Minar about how that structure was built out of the ruins of the temples he destroyed in the area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutb_Minar
You would also see plenty of ancient temples across India where sculptures had their arms or heads knocked off or their faces destroyed. As these sculptures were hewn out of hard rock, it would have taken forceful blows to destroy them in this manner. It was certainly not a natural event. If someone find these hard to believe, its perhaps because they haven't seen these sites themselves. I have visited several such ancient temples and ruins in southern India and Maharashtra and have seen the physical evidences of these premeditated destruction with my own eyes.
As for Aurangazeb, he was a conservative religious puritan unlike Akbar (in his later days), Jehangir or Shah Jehan who all had a liberal perspective and appreciation for India's native traditions. (That Shah Jehan's chosen successor was the liberal Dara Shukoh and not the puritan Aurangazeb further illustrates this difference.) Even left-wing Indian historians wouldn't contest the claim that Aurangazeb ordered the destruction of Kashi Vishwanath temple in Varanasi or the Sri Krishna temple at Mathura as there are both historical records as well as physical evidences to support it. The present-day Gyanvapi and Shahi Eidgah mosques were built on Aurangazeb's orders at the sites where these temples originally stood, and it is for this reason that you see the later reconstructed temples standing adjoining these mosques today. The original sutes where these temples stood were regarded as holy by the Hindus. It is also a fact that Aurangazeb ordered the destruction of Somnath temple (which had already been destroyed several times by invaders starting with Mahmud of Ghazni and rebuilt later) and prohibited its reconstruction. In fact, at the time of Indian independence, a mosque was being built on Somnath's ruins when the new Home Minister Sardar Vallabhai Patel ordered the reconstruction of the temple at the site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyanvapi_Mosque
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna_Janmasthan_Temple_Complex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somnath_temple
A new Indian foreign policy consensus is emerging. That India isn’t a great power yet
After exuberance, India must now not only take difficult and costly steps toward industrialisation, but also convert growth into geo-economic leverage and military modernisation.
Sidharth Raimedhi
https://youtu.be/SgRKrybkJZs?si=SBh0i2Ir_3xHKolh
https://theprint.in/opinion/indian-foreign-policy-consensus-great-power/2827383/
After exuberance, India must now not only take difficult and costly steps toward industrialisation, but also convert growth into geo-economic leverage and military modernisation.
A new consensus in Indian foreign and strategic policy thinking has emerged over the past year. It holds that, despite various proclamations, India is not yet a great power, and that its status as a rising power should not be taken for granted either.
Accordingly, India should focus on costly reforms to establish the long-term foundations of power, rather than limiting its policy options to short-term diplomatic or strategic moves. If anything, these priorities require greater restraint and caution in foreign policy, rather than expansion or overt great-power assertion.
Whereas the evolving foreign policy consensus in the US has, understandably, hogged much of the attention in recent months, what is more easily missed is a parallel shift in India’s own broad policy framework, toward what can be termed ‘post-exuberance realism’. As a country’s foreign policy environment becomes more contested and multi-dimensional, it is only logical that its strategic culture adapts accordingly. The shift, therefore, is unsurprising.
The external drivers of post-exuberance realism
As argued earlier, shifts in key equations among the great powers, and in their respective equations with Delhi, have left India occupying a much diminished geopolitical sweet spot from which to bargain. As External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has argued, changes in the global order have made India’s relationships with the system’s major powers — China, Russia, and the US — far more challenging and complex than they were in 2019. Indeed, 2025 proved to be a sobering year for Indian foreign policy. It saw China’s ‘DeepSeek’ moment and a growing appreciation in India of Beijing’s breakneck ascent toward superpower status. In particular, China demonstrated its ability to threaten industrial supply chains in the US, as well as key sectors of the Indian economy, through its still-evolving and coercive rare-earth export control licensing regime.
The year also saw Washington brusquely abandon India-US strategic convergence and pivot toward a softer reconciliation with China, driven by economic rationale but carrying strong strategic implications for Asia’s future. Trump’s trade war against India further exposed New Delhi’s limited stock of deployable geo-economic leverage vis-à-vis both China and the US. As external bottlenecks have hardened, India has been forced to finally confront internal constraints, evident in recent efforts to boost domestic demand and push labour law reforms.
Meanwhile, India was also confronted with the extent of the maturation of the China-Pakistan strategic and defence relationship in May last year, during Operation Sindoor — something that had faded from public consciousness since 2019-20. China’s continued infrastructure development along the LAC, combined with its growing economic leverage over India, has enabled Beijing to underwrite trilateral cooperation with Afghanistan and Bangladesh, with Pakistan on its side in both cases. The emergence of Turkey as a military ally and defence supplier to several states in the Indian Ocean region has not escaped attention either. Together, these developments necessitate a sober reckoning with the structural weaknesses in India’s armaments policy, as well as a measure of military restraint in the short term. India’s Chief of Defence Staff, General Anil Chauhan, appeared to allude to this last week when he emphasised the need to avoid “attritional warfare” amid increasing geopolitical uncertainty.
India Is the 3rd Largest Economy, So Why Does It Still Feel Weak? | The Quint
https://youtu.be/jx7JP0oU57A?si=rFanZkyQ0fanv1zx
India just posted a stunning 8.2% GDP growth number. At the same time, the rupee slid sharply and interest rates were cut.
Economists argued. Politicians celebrated. Twitter exploded.
But here’s the uncomfortable question: do these numbers actually reflect economic strength?
This video breaks down why GDP, the number we obsess over the most, is a deeply imperfect measure. It’s an estimate, not a hard fact. It can rise even when real lives don’t improve. And it often distracts us from what actually matters.
Instead of debating whether GDP is ‘real’ or ‘cooked’, this conversation looks at something more tangible: economic muscle. Not slogans. Not rankings. Real capacity.
Things like:
– How much countries invest in AI infrastructure
– Industrial automation and robots
– Data centres and ports
– Steel production
– Stock markets and global companies
When India is compared not to the US or China, but to its real peers — Japan, Germany, the UK, and South Korea — a more honest picture emerges.
India is clearly entering the game. In some areas, it’s doing impressively well. In others, it’s still far behind. And simply overtaking countries in GDP size doesn’t automatically make India stronger, richer, or more resilient.
This video isn’t about optimism or pessimism.
It’s about realism.
From exposing misinformation to delivering impactful human rights reporting, our newsroom has relentlessly pursued stories that drive change. We remain committed to asking the tough questions — and we'd love for you to be a part of our journey.
-------------
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
I've tried to think a bit about the meaning of Modi's Naya Bharat branding effort and wound up with some overlapping conclusions with Dhume. Here is an excerpt from a forthcoming academic article, entitled "Hindu Nationalism, Akhand Bharat, and Foreign Perceptions of India."
https://x.com/clary_co/status/2012345251781099817?s=20
---------------
Sadanand Dhume
@dhume
Over more than a decade, India has cultivated a self-congratulatory tone in foreign policy—basically the opposite of hide your strength, bide your time—but a series of brutal reality checks over the past year has exposed the limits of Indian economic, technological, and military power.
Shouting $4T economy at the top of your lungs every five minutes means little when you face a hostile $20T economy at your doorstep, and a $30T superpower with only one question: What have you done for me lately?
Personally, I doubt that the hubris can be dialed down. It has become too deeply entwined with domestic politics. Nobody is going to win an election by saying, “actually, you know what, nobody sees us as Vishwaguru. India is a middle power in a rough neighborhood, and in some ways less secure than it was three decades ago.”
https://x.com/dhume/status/2012171714872918154?s=20
@muzamil_45
We are seeing that Pakistan’s importance in the world is increasing.
Now, people are not talking negatively about Pakistan, but positively.
For Pakistan, words like “net security provider” (security provider) and “peace guarantor” (guarantor of peace) are now being used, which is a major change.
https://x.com/muzamil_45/status/2014674184962797727?s=61&t=mgTxrmITUbpo9NntN5677
Post a Comment