India is the only country that can protect Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist and Jain traditions, when there are scores of countries that can protect Islam and Christianity. It is India’s duty to protect Indic faiths.
Indian sampradayas have to institutionalise their knowledge and boil it down to essentials for transmission and proselytisation if they are to compete with the major Abrahamic sects.
Several Afghan Sikhs and Hindus fled Afghanistan following the Taliban takeover of Kabul in 2021. Seven community leaders met Muttaqi Monday, he invited them to Afghanistan.
Agra is home to Balochi families, many of whose elders arrived after 1947. Though they consider themselves lucky to escape persecution, yearning of freedom from Pakistan remains.
The decline of Congress is not a simple tale of corruption or regionalism alone. At its core, it is the story of a party that lost the trust of the Hindu masses who once sustained it.
Hindu suffering has often been overlooked. Acknowledging this history is crucial for justice, awareness, and prevention of further atrocities against Hindus.
At a little over $19 billion, pledged investments are primarily in the pharmaceutical sector, with $11.75 billion alone from Sun Pharmaceuticals’ proposed purchase of New Jersey-based Organon & Co
The company claims the fully indigenous system can disrupt drone communications, detect targets up to 15 km away, and track over 100 drones simultaneously.
On counting day, this special edition of National Interest looks at key takeaways from verdicts in West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Assam. You’d err if you credit or blame BJP’s success only on Hindutva. It’s more than that.
Would request the author to define what he means by religious freedom?
Does he mean that social upliftment should only be done adherents of one class of religion as is currently happening in India by choking all NGOs of other religions?
Does he mean that Government should be the ultimate authority in deciding who has the permission to convert as is currently happening?
If US or Europe or Russia passes an anti conversion law similar to India , would be support it where Govt notification is required for any conversion to another religion? And anyone trying to convert is put in prison by government.
By religious freedom does he mean that all people should believe that all religions lead to the same path? And if anyone does not believe in it and believes that there is only one way then that belief is not covered under religious freedom?
Propagation of religion is a fundamental right. It includes the right to make your own theology. And it includes the right to have your theology exclude other theologies. That is true religious freedom. Anything else is just an eyewash in hypocrisy.
Two commenters here fail to distinguish between individual conscience and institutional behavior—a distinction that destroys their entire defense.
Radizzz claims “religious freedom already means individual conscience” and points to Western eclecticism as proof. But the author never argued against individual choice. He argued against organized, funded, systematic conversion campaigns. These are different animals. A person privately converting to Christianity is one thing. A missionary organization with millions in funding targeting vulnerable populations is another. Radizz conflates them to avoid the actual critique.
John Rambo dismisses the author as “historically inaccurate” and “a bigot” without explaining why. No counter-evidence. No clarification. Just character assassination. If the Protestant history is wrong, say how. If the theological analysis is flawed, show where. Instead, Rambo opts for name-calling—which is what people do when they can’t argue the substance.
Here’s what actually matters: The author identifies a real asymmetry. Abrahamic faiths have institutional machinery to convert. Hinduism doesn’t. That’s not bigotry; that’s observation. The presence of individual eclectic believers in the West doesn’t negate this. It just means some people, despite their religion’s exclusivity doctrine, choose pluralism anyway. That’s them resisting their own theology, not proof that the theology permits it.
Radizz then pivots to “but what about Christians in Chhattisgarh?”…classic deflection. Two wrongs don’t make the author right or wrong. If Hindu mobs are persecuting Christians, that’s a separate crime. But it doesn’t rebut the argument that organized conversion campaigns are structurally different from individual faith choice. She’s throwing a stone at a glass house while standing in one herself.
The real question neither commenter addresses… If your religious freedom requires others to give up theirs, is it actually freedom? Or is it just power dressed in the language of liberation? They don’t answer because they can’t
Evangelism in Bharat is colonialism. Conversions must stop.
Westernn evangelical organizations have weaponized billions into systematic assault: hospitals, schools, NGOs, trained indigenous missionaries targeting the broken places—caste oppression, poverty, illness. They offer false salvation. Convert and you erase your lineage. Your children inherit a foreign god and lose the Mahabharata as lived memory. Your ancestors’ rituals stop. The chain breaks.
This is calculated destruction. Evangelicism demands binary choice: my god or damnation. It permits no coexistence. Where Bharat says “Krishna and Jesus can both be honored,” evangelicism says “choose or be damned.” It poisons Bharatiya philosophy at its core and replaces it with exclusivity and domination.
The corruption is complete: Indian courts, Indian secularists, Indian NGOs have weaponized the colonizer’s framework and enforce it as universal truth. “Religious freedom” has become the legal instrument for civilizational erasure.
The plague isn’t foreign missionaries. It’s that Bharat’s own institutions have become agents of its dissolution.
Enough. Conversions driven by institutional machinery, funded by foreign money, targeting communities for erasure—these are not expressions of individual conscience. They are weapons of civilizational destruction. Bharat must recognize this and end them.
The right to convert under the charade of “individual religious freedom” is the right to dissolve your own civilization. Bharat does not have to grant this right. Civilizations that survive refuse to subsidize their own extinction.
Excellent article. Monotheism has no freedom to choose gods.
Religions that impose one god, and destroy other cultures are hypocrites in talking about religious freedom.
Monotheism is the epitome of religious imperialism and fascism.
Hinduism doesn’t say, you should not worship any other gods, but Abrahamic religions have this as their core principle.
Who the hell is Jesus trying to save people from? Himself? As if they have the monopoly on “salvation”.
What a contradictory article, religious freedom already means thst one should be able to form religious beleifs as per their own conscience. The presence of eclectic beliefs in the west already proves that there is nothing in the idea of religious freedom that prevents such a thing from happening.
If people who share religious beliefs come together to form an organization then thst is their prerogative as is their prerogative to congregate and create their own theology
If people want to mix and match then that is their prerogative. The state should not interfere in either case whether nor support one. This person ahould see what is happening in Chhatisgah to christians or the numerous gathering where muslims are called to be socially boycotted till they leave islam before attempting to lecture anyone.
Would request the author to define what he means by religious freedom?
Does he mean that social upliftment should only be done adherents of one class of religion as is currently happening in India by choking all NGOs of other religions?
Does he mean that Government should be the ultimate authority in deciding who has the permission to convert as is currently happening?
If US or Europe or Russia passes an anti conversion law similar to India , would be support it where Govt notification is required for any conversion to another religion? And anyone trying to convert is put in prison by government.
By religious freedom does he mean that all people should believe that all religions lead to the same path? And if anyone does not believe in it and believes that there is only one way then that belief is not covered under religious freedom?
Propagation of religion is a fundamental right. It includes the right to make your own theology. And it includes the right to have your theology exclude other theologies. That is true religious freedom. Anything else is just an eyewash in hypocrisy.
Two commenters here fail to distinguish between individual conscience and institutional behavior—a distinction that destroys their entire defense.
Radizzz claims “religious freedom already means individual conscience” and points to Western eclecticism as proof. But the author never argued against individual choice. He argued against organized, funded, systematic conversion campaigns. These are different animals. A person privately converting to Christianity is one thing. A missionary organization with millions in funding targeting vulnerable populations is another. Radizz conflates them to avoid the actual critique.
John Rambo dismisses the author as “historically inaccurate” and “a bigot” without explaining why. No counter-evidence. No clarification. Just character assassination. If the Protestant history is wrong, say how. If the theological analysis is flawed, show where. Instead, Rambo opts for name-calling—which is what people do when they can’t argue the substance.
Here’s what actually matters: The author identifies a real asymmetry. Abrahamic faiths have institutional machinery to convert. Hinduism doesn’t. That’s not bigotry; that’s observation. The presence of individual eclectic believers in the West doesn’t negate this. It just means some people, despite their religion’s exclusivity doctrine, choose pluralism anyway. That’s them resisting their own theology, not proof that the theology permits it.
Radizz then pivots to “but what about Christians in Chhattisgarh?”…classic deflection. Two wrongs don’t make the author right or wrong. If Hindu mobs are persecuting Christians, that’s a separate crime. But it doesn’t rebut the argument that organized conversion campaigns are structurally different from individual faith choice. She’s throwing a stone at a glass house while standing in one herself.
The real question neither commenter addresses… If your religious freedom requires others to give up theirs, is it actually freedom? Or is it just power dressed in the language of liberation? They don’t answer because they can’t
Evangelism in Bharat is colonialism. Conversions must stop.
Westernn evangelical organizations have weaponized billions into systematic assault: hospitals, schools, NGOs, trained indigenous missionaries targeting the broken places—caste oppression, poverty, illness. They offer false salvation. Convert and you erase your lineage. Your children inherit a foreign god and lose the Mahabharata as lived memory. Your ancestors’ rituals stop. The chain breaks.
This is calculated destruction. Evangelicism demands binary choice: my god or damnation. It permits no coexistence. Where Bharat says “Krishna and Jesus can both be honored,” evangelicism says “choose or be damned.” It poisons Bharatiya philosophy at its core and replaces it with exclusivity and domination.
The corruption is complete: Indian courts, Indian secularists, Indian NGOs have weaponized the colonizer’s framework and enforce it as universal truth. “Religious freedom” has become the legal instrument for civilizational erasure.
The plague isn’t foreign missionaries. It’s that Bharat’s own institutions have become agents of its dissolution.
Enough. Conversions driven by institutional machinery, funded by foreign money, targeting communities for erasure—these are not expressions of individual conscience. They are weapons of civilizational destruction. Bharat must recognize this and end them.
The right to convert under the charade of “individual religious freedom” is the right to dissolve your own civilization. Bharat does not have to grant this right. Civilizations that survive refuse to subsidize their own extinction.
Stop the conversions. Defend Bharat.
Excellent article. Monotheism has no freedom to choose gods.
Religions that impose one god, and destroy other cultures are hypocrites in talking about religious freedom.
Monotheism is the epitome of religious imperialism and fascism.
Hinduism doesn’t say, you should not worship any other gods, but Abrahamic religions have this as their core principle.
Who the hell is Jesus trying to save people from? Himself? As if they have the monopoly on “salvation”.
Historically inaccurate as well. Protestants did not flee secularisation of Europe. Author is a bigot – nothing more.
What a contradictory article, religious freedom already means thst one should be able to form religious beleifs as per their own conscience. The presence of eclectic beliefs in the west already proves that there is nothing in the idea of religious freedom that prevents such a thing from happening.
If people who share religious beliefs come together to form an organization then thst is their prerogative as is their prerogative to congregate and create their own theology
If people want to mix and match then that is their prerogative. The state should not interfere in either case whether nor support one. This person ahould see what is happening in Chhatisgah to christians or the numerous gathering where muslims are called to be socially boycotted till they leave islam before attempting to lecture anyone.