From Bamiyan to Delhi: The BJP’s Hypocritical Embrace of the Taliban

 

From Bamiyan to Delhi: The BJP’s Hypocritical Embrace of the Taliban

How India’s Ruling Party Shifted from Condemning Buddha’s Destruction to Hosting Taliban Leaders — and Why Questioning It Makes You an Enemy

In March 2001, the world watched in horror as the Taliban regime in Afghanistan dynamited the ancient Bamiyan Buddhas — two towering statues carved into cliffsides in the 6th century, symbols of Afghanistan’s rich Buddhist heritage. The act was not just cultural vandalism; it was a deliberate erasure of history by religious extremists. India, under the BJP-led government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, was among the loudest voices in condemnation. The Ministry of External Affairs issued statements urging the Taliban to protect the relics, and India co-sponsored a UN General Assembly resolution decrying the destruction.

Protests erupted across the country, with Sangh Parivar affiliates — often vocal defenders of Hindu heritage — taking to the streets to decry the Taliban’s barbarism. Fast forward to October 2025, and the same BJP government, now led by Narendra Modi, is hosting a high-level Taliban delegation in Delhi. Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar shakes hands with Taliban FM Amir Khan Muttaqi, and India announces the reopening of its embassy in Kabul.

What happened to the outrage? Apparently, it’s all “diplomacy” now.

This isn’t just a policy shift; it’s a glaring example of political hypocrisy, where principles bend to the winds of power. The same “sanghis” who once burned effigies of the Taliban are now defending the regime’s visit as strategic necessity. Question it, and you’re dismissed as ignorant of geopolitics — or worse, anti-national. But let’s unpack this turnaround, because it reveals a deeper rot: the demand for unconditional loyalty to the government, no matter how contradictory its actions.

The 2001 Outrage: When the Taliban Were the Ultimate Villains

Back in 2001, the Taliban’s edict to destroy “idols” like the Bamiyan Buddhas was met with global revulsion. Mullah Omar’s regime justified it as Islamic purity, but it was widely seen as an assault on shared human heritage.

In India, the BJP government didn’t mince words. On February 27, 2001, it condemned the decree and called for the protection of the statues.

Reports from the time describe widespread protests, including in Buddhist communities and among right-wing groups who framed it as an attack on ancient Indic civilization.

The Sangh Parivar, with its emphasis on cultural preservation, was particularly vocal. RSS affiliates organized demonstrations, drawing parallels to historical invasions that targeted temples. It was a moment of unity: the Taliban were the bad guys, pure and simple.Even years later, BJP leaders referenced the Bamiyan destruction as evidence of the Taliban’s fanaticism. In a 2021 speech, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath equated support for the Taliban with anti-humanity and anti-India acts, warning against sympathizers and even jailing people accused of celebrating the group’s takeover of Kabul.

The message was clear: The Taliban represented everything the BJP claimed to oppose — religious extremism, destruction of heritage, and threats to India’s security.

2025: From Protests to Protocol

Cut to October 2025. Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi arrives in India for a groundbreaking week-long visit — the first by a senior Taliban official since the 2021 takeover.

He’s greeted warmly, meets with Jaishankar and NSA Ajit Doval, and discusses trade, humanitarian aid, and regional stability.

India upgrades its Kabul mission to a full embassy, signaling deeper ties.

Muttaqi even visits Deoband in Uttar Pradesh, home to a prominent Islamic seminary, under heavy security provided by the state government.

The irony? This is the same Yogi Adityanath who, in 2021, accused Deoband clerics of backing the Taliban and arrested Muslims on flimsy charges of Taliban sympathy.

Now, his administration is rolling out the red carpet, complete with Z-plus security and transportation for the delegation.

Critics like PDP leader Mehbooba Mufti have called out the hypocrisy, noting how the BJP embraces the Taliban abroad while targeting Indian Muslims at home.

When questioned, the response is predictable: “It’s diplomacy.” “Geopolitics demands it.” India needs to counter China’s influence in Afghanistan, secure trade routes via Chabahar, and isolate Pakistan amid its tensions with the Taliban over the Durand Line.

Fair points, perhaps. But why the selective amnesia? The Taliban hasn’t changed — women’s rights are still curtailed, minorities persecuted, and terror groups like TTP find safe havens. Engaging them might be pragmatic, but pretending the 2001 outrage never happened? That’s gaslighting.

Yogi’s U-Turn: From Jailing Supporters to Guarding Leaders

Yogi Adityanath embodies this flip-flop. In September 2021, he declared, “Supporting Taliban means backing anti-India, anti-humanity acts.”

His government cracked down, arresting young Muslims for alleged pro-Taliban posts or celebrations.

Fast forward to 2025, and Yogi’s UP police are providing security to Muttaqi’s delegation during their Deoband visit.

Old videos of Yogi’s rants have gone viral, sparking debates on social media.

This isn’t isolated. It’s part of a pattern where past condemnations evaporate when convenient. The Taliban, once equated with terror, are now partners in “regional stability.” And if you point out the inconsistency? You’re told to trust the government’s wisdom.

The Bigger Picture: Trump, China, and the Cult of Unquestioning Loyalty

This Taliban tango isn’t unique. Look at Donald Trump. In 2020, BJP supporters built a temple for him in Telangana and organized havans across India praying for his election win.

Modi called him “my friend,” and crowds chanted “Namaste Trump” at rallies. But by 2025, with Trump back in power and slapping 50% tariffs on Indian imports, he’s the villain.

Relations have soured over trade, Kashmir mediation offers, and energy disputes. Overnight, the narrative flips — no questions asked.

Same with China. For years, Xi Jinping was the enemy — border clashes, economic boycotts, apps banned. Yet in August 2025, Modi meets Xi in Tianjin, shakes hands, and calls for partnership.

“India and China are partners, not rivals,” they declare.

Tomorrow, it could be Pakistan: “Oh, they’re friends now.” And the faithful are expected to nod along.

This is the essence of “andhbhakti” — blind devotion. You’re not supposed to think independently. If the government says Taliban bad, echo it. If it says good, pivot. Spread the WhatsApp forwards, defend the Godi media’s mental gymnastics, and shut down dissent. Questioning isn’t critique; it’s betrayal. The real message: Loyalty to the party trumps principles, history, or logic.

In a democracy, diplomacy should be debated, not deified. The Taliban visit might serve India’s interests, but erasing the Bamiyan memory to justify it insults our intelligence. If “geopolitics” excuses everything, what’s left of accountability? Perhaps it’s time to stop being sheep and start asking why the shepherds keep changing direction.

The CJI Gavai Shoe-Throwing Incident: Unpacking the Controversy, Selective Outrage and Misplaced Anger in India

In a brazen act of courtroom disruption on October 6, 2025, 71-year-old lawyer Rakesh Kishore attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan Ram Gavai during a Supreme Court hearing.

Shouting slogans about the “insult to Sanatan Dharma,” Kishore was swiftly detained by security, but the incident has since spiraled into a national conversation on judicial respect, communal tolerance, and the double standards in India’s socio-political landscape.

This event, rooted in Kishore’s fury over a prior judgment by CJI Gavai, not only exposes the volatility of religious sentiments but also reveals how certain groups weaponize them while others exercise restraint.

Amid this chaos, the Supreme Court has issued numerous judgments in recent years that have been perceived as challenging Muslim practices, yet no Muslim has ever resorted to such violence against the judiciary. This stark difference underscores the Muslim community’s tolerance in the face of adversity. Meanwhile, the lack of stringent action against Kishore — despite his act — highlights how Hindutva fanatics often evade accountability, potentially emboldening further extremism.

The Prior Judgment: A Misconstrued Remark on Lord Vishnu and the Role of ASI

The shoe-throwing incident was not spontaneous but stemmed from simmering resentment over a Supreme Court judgment delivered by CJI Gavai in mid-September 2025, in what has come to be known as the Khajuraho case.

The plea, filed by a devotee, sought directions to reconstruct and reinstall a seven-foot idol of Lord Vishnu, which had been beheaded during the Mughal era and was discovered as an archaeological artifact in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh.

Dismissing the petition, CJI Gavai emphasized that the matter fell squarely under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), an expert body responsible for preserving historical artifacts.

He noted, “It’s an archaeological find, whether the ASI would permit such a thing to be done or not… there are various issues.”

In a light-hearted aside to the petitioner, who professed deep devotion to Lord Vishnu, the CJI suggested, “If you are saying that you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, then you pray and do some meditation.”

This remark was misconstrued by elements within the Hindutva ecosystem as an insult to Sanatan Dharma, with critics accusing the CJI of mocking Hindu beliefs and deities.

However, the comment was far from insulting — it was a pragmatic redirection to the appropriate authority, underscoring the judiciary’s role in deferring to specialized bodies like the ASI for matters involving historical preservation.

CJI Gavai later clarified his stance, affirming, “I respect all religions” and emphasizing his belief in true secularism, while noting that his words had been taken out of context.

The judgment itself was neutral, avoiding judicial overreach into archaeological decisions.The ASI, established in 1861, operates under the Ministry of Culture, which is part of the central government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

As such, any policy on restoring or altering artifacts like the Vishnu idol ultimately falls under the executive branch’s purview. If the Hindutva ecosystem is dissatisfied with the ASI’s potential reluctance — due to guidelines protecting the integrity of historical finds — they should direct their ire toward the Modi government, which has the authority to influence or amend such policies through legislative or administrative means.

Yet, the outrage has been disproportionately aimed at CJI Gavai, perhaps because deferring to the ASI disrupts narratives seeking judicial validation for religious restorations. This misplaced anger ignores the government’s role, raising questions about whether the criticism is truly about devotion or a strategic attack on judicial independence.

Supreme Court Judgments and the Muslim Community’s Restraint

In contrast to this aggressive response, the Supreme Court has handed down several rulings in recent years that have directly impacted Muslim communities, often reshaping their religious and cultural practices. The 2017 ban on instant triple talaq, the 2022 upholding of hijab restrictions in certain educational institutions, and ongoing discussions on a Uniform Civil Code have all been met with criticism from Muslim groups for encroaching on personal laws.

Despite these setbacks, Muslims have channeled their dissent through peaceful protests, legal appeals, and democratic engagement — never through physical assaults on judges.

No Muslim has thrown a shoe at a CJI, even amid judgments perceived as biased or intrusive. This pattern of tolerance, rooted in a commitment to non-violence and institutional respect, stands as a testament to the community’s resilience. As social media users have pointed out, “Muslims face rulings on talaq, polygamy, and more, yet respond with petitions, not projectiles.”

The shoe incident, conversely, exemplifies how some Hindutva proponents resort to extremism when faced with even mild judicial pushback.

Hindutva Fanatics Roam Free: No FIR, Muted Response

Following the incident, Kishore was questioned and released without an FIR being filed, as CJI Gavai personally directed officials not to press charges, opting instead for composure and continuity in proceedings.

The Bar Council of India suspended his license, but Kishore expressed no regret, claiming a “divine force” compelled him.

This leniency is telling: Had the perpetrator been Muslim, the fallout would be immense — multiple FIRs under contempt and assault charges, nationwide condemnations from BJP leaders, and a barrage of dehumanizing campaigns by the party’s IT cell.

In reality, while PM Modi called the act “utterly condemnable,” there have been no statements from the President or governors. BJP figures have issued measured rebukes, but online, Hindutva supporters defend Kishore as a “hero” defending faith. Critics like Nupur J. Sharma have shifted blame to the CJI’s “loose tongue.”

This asymmetry grants a free hand to Hindutva extremists, normalizing violence under religious pretexts.

A Broader Implication: Erosion of Secular Fabric

The episode, intertwined with caste dynamics given CJI Gavai’s Dalit heritage, signals deeper biases.

By targeting the judiciary while sparing the government, the Hindutva narrative risks undermining institutions. India’s Muslims have shown exemplary tolerance; it’s imperative that all communities follow suit to preserve the nation’s democratic ethos. Unchecked, such incidents could pave the way for more “Hindutva terrorism,” where fanaticism trumps law and reason.

The Carrot of Caste Census and the Stick of Anti-Reservation Propaganda

 

The Carrot of Caste Census and the Stick of Anti-Reservation Propaganda

Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the user alone and are shared here for discussion purposes only. No legal liability is assumed, and readers are encouraged to form their own judgments based on independent research.

In the intricate chessboard of Indian politics, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) appears to be employing a classic carrot-and-stick strategy when it comes to caste dynamics and affirmative action. On one hand, the party has dangled the promise of India’s first comprehensive public caste census since independence, slated to begin in 2027, as a sweetener to woo lower-caste voters. 

On the other, a surge in anti-reservation rhetoric — often amplified by the BJP’s IT cell and affiliated social media handles — seems designed to stoke resentment among upper castes and dilute demands for expanded affirmative action once the census results emerge. This duality raises questions about the party’s long-term intentions: Is this a genuine step toward social justice, or a tactical maneuver to maintain power without upsetting its traditional upper-caste base?

The Carrot: Promising a Long-Awaited Caste Census

The BJP-led central government announced in June 2025 that the 16th national census, delayed multiple times due to the COVID-19 pandemic, would commence on March 1, 2027, and for the first time in nearly a century, include a detailed enumeration of castes. This move, described by sources as focusing on “caste, not class,” requires individuals to declare their caste and religion, marking a significant shift from previous censuses that only tracked Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). The process is set to unfold in two phases, with data collection wrapping up by 2030 — conveniently after the 2029 Lok Sabha elections.

For lower-caste communities, including Other Backward Classes (OBCs), SCs, and STs, this census represents a potential game-changer. It could provide empirical data to address longstanding disparities, potentially justifying demands for increased reservations in education, jobs, and even the private sector. BJP leaders have positioned this as a fulfillment of social justice commitments, with party campaigns in states like Uttar Pradesh emphasizing it as a tool for equitable representation. Critics from opposition parties, such as the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), have claimed credit for pressuring the government into this decision, but the BJP has framed it as a proactive step under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership.Heading into the 2029 elections, this announcement could serve as a powerful electoral carrot. The party might rally lower-caste voters by highlighting its role in conducting the census, portraying it as a pathway to “equitable representation.” Gullible or hopeful sections of these communities might buy into the narrative, believing that post-census reforms will follow. However, with results not expected until 2030, any substantive changes — like raising the 50% reservation cap or introducing private-sector quotas — would come after the polls, allowing the BJP to secure votes without immediate commitments.

The Stick: Fanning Anti-Reservation Flames on Social Media

Contrasting sharply with this promise is the relentless anti-reservation propaganda flooding social media platforms, particularly X (formerly Twitter), which has intensified since late 2024 and early 2025 — coinciding suspiciously with the census announcement. BJP-affiliated accounts and IT cell operatives have been accused of amplifying content that blames reservations for everything from infrastructure failures to societal ills, reaching what many describe as “delusional levels.”

Examples abound: In one viral incident, an Indian-American professor sparked outrage by attributing a deadly Air India crash to India’s reservation policies, claiming “freeloaders are more important.” Social media posts link reservations to brain drain, with users lamenting that talented individuals flee abroad due to “unfair” quotas. Even mundane issues like potholes or bridge collapses are absurdly pinned on affirmative action, as if meritocracy alone could pave roads or build sturdy infrastructure. X searches reveal a pattern: Queries for “anti reservation” or “blame reservation” yield posts tying quotas to unrelated crises, often with high engagement and from accounts echoing BJP narratives.

This rhetoric isn’t organic; it’s amplified by organized efforts. Reports from 2024–2025 highlight a spike in hate speech and divisive content on social media, peaking during elections and policy announcements. BJP IT cell members have been caught sharing edited videos or misleading claims to portray opposition leaders as anti-reservation, while subtly undermining the system itself. The pace has quickened post-census reveal, suggesting a deliberate strategy to desensitize the public to quota demands. By 2030, when census data might reveal stark inequalities, the ground could be prepared for upper-caste outrage to suppress calls for reform, ensuring the status quo persists.

The Underlying Realities: Persistent Backwardness Among SC/ST/OBC

This speculated strategy hinges on ignoring — or downplaying — the harsh realities faced by SCs, STs, and OBCs, who remain economically backward and under-represented despite decades of reservations. Data from recent surveys paints a grim picture.

Economically, these groups lag significantly. In Bihar’s 2023 caste survey (a precursor to the national one), OBCs and Extremely Backward Classes comprised 63% of the population but faced disproportionate poverty. Nationally, indicators from the Mandal Commission and recent reports show higher poverty rates among SC/ST/OBC, with limited access to quality education and jobs. For instance, systemic exclusion manifests in “deep-rooted deprivation,” as argued in a Madhya Pradesh Supreme Court affidavit defending OBC quotas. Estimates suggest that if the census confirms 75–80% of Indians belong to backward classes, demands for breaching the 50% quota cap could intensify — but only if propaganda doesn’t preempt them.Under-representation is equally stark. In central government jobs, OBCs hold about 22% of positions as of 2022–23, below the 27% mandate, while SCs and STs often fill lower-rung roles but remain below 11% and 5% in teaching posts, respectively. Thousands of reserved vacancies go unfilled annually, signaling inequality rather than abundance. In private higher education institutions, representation of marginalized students is “abysmal,” with calls for mandatory quotas unmet. Population-wise, OBCs, SCs, and STs make up over 70% of India, yet their share in elite jobs and education doesn’t reflect this.

BJP’s Balancing Act: Appeasing Bases Without Real Change

Historically backed by upper castes, the BJP has expanded its reach among OBCs and lower castes through figures like Modi (an OBC himself). Yet, this carrot-and-stick approach suggests a desire to placate lower castes with symbolic gestures like the census while using propaganda to ensure upper-caste “savarna” outrage mutes any push for meaningful reforms. In an ideal scenario for the party, the census proceeds, but demands for private-sector reservations or quota hikes are drowned out by anti-reservation noise.

This speculation isn’t without precedent. Past BJP moves, like lateral entry in civil services or privatization drives, have been criticized as anti-reservation. If the pattern holds, the 2027 census could be a masterstroke: Win 2029 votes with promises, then leverage built-up resentment to stall action by 2030.

Ultimately, this strategy risks alienating both sides if exposed. Lower castes might see through the delay tactics, while upper castes grow wary of endless appeasement. As India hurtles toward 2029, the true test will be whether this duality fosters unity or deepens divisions. For now, the carrot dangles enticingly, but the stick looms large.