Mamdani’s politics feels unusual compared to India’s current climate. He unapologetically foregrounds Muslim identity at a time when doing so in India invites scrutiny.
On 4 November 2025, NCLAT bench, comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Member Arun Baroka, noted that WhatsApp and Meta are distinct legal entities.
This world is being restructured and redrawn by one man, and what’s his power? It’s not his formidable military. It’s trade. With China, it turned on him.
Mathura and Kashi Vishwanath issues have to be resolved through negotiations and with a view to remove injustice heaped on the Indians by the foreign rulers in the medieval period, based on historical records. Once this principle is accepted, then unnecessary religious color given to the issue is avoided. further, no Act of Parliament can come in the way to achieve this purpose. We should as well rename all cities, monuments, roads all over India by removing their association with the foreign rulers , just as we did in in case of Mumbai for Bombay, Kolkatta for Calcutta, Bengalaru for Bangalore etc. If the issue cannot be resolved through negotiations, then SC should intervene and settle it quickly so that politicization is avoided.
The writer should do proper research before letting lose such an article. In 1991, PVN government brought a law which requires preservation of status qua ante of all places of worship as on 15.8.1947. Now, nobody can change the status of mosques in Varanasi and Mathura to Temple. Even the courts cannot do that. This writer is building a castle in the air by imagining that there will be a Hindu agitation for recovery of these two places and secularism of these parties will be tested.
Cancel Culture, let it begin. When the liberal masses cheered the pulling down of historically held icons of Black oppression, this should be cheered as well. Why the hesitation? Are these mosques not representative of the oppression of Islamic conflict? To the extent they represent this oppression. The historical clock has to be wound back and set right.
the difference you are not noting is that the black lives matter slogan comes as a result of ongoing oppression against African Americans there and by oppression I mean their actual lives. People have lived in harmony in India for centuries now- what is the need to stoke communal tensions? Temples and mosques have been side by side making India the true leader in the world for unity in diversity.
Yadavs voted in large numbers for BJP AND will continue to do so when they feel that their religion is safe under BJP rule.
Can the author please enlighten us on why this issue has at all come up? Why do many Hindus want temples in these two places, precisely where the two mosques are located? Or is that question too uncomfortable for a selective secularist to handle?
Secularism in India has got only one meaning —BEING PRO-MUSLIM . presently You will never find Congress and SP, RJD etc. — abandoning this version of secularism. For them Muslim votes matter more than Hindu unity or nationalism . This policy may have brought some dividend in 1990 s , but is unlikely to bring these Yadavs and Congis to center stage in 2020. 30 or 40 s of 21st century . Even Most of the common people in India are aware dangers of following of this policy to national internal and external security and existence of Indian Nation state as a unified political entity in long run. Sooner or later they will have adopt a version of secularism which means — equal respect for all religions and APEASEMENT OF NONE for their own political existence. The sweet old days of their version of secularism is over.
With due respect to all concerned parties- we must not build statues for Bhagwan Ram in Ayodhya and Bhagwan Krishana in Mathura or elsewhere. They are too big to be measured with the height of statues.
The M-Y days of both Yadav chieftains is over. The Ys are not going to suffice as a votebank without the rest of the OBCs and the Ms vote (for regional parties) will not matter in the Modi era. The smaller parties have only 2 options –
a. join the BJP in majoritarian politics and try to wean away some of the BJP voters (Mayawati and Kejriwal have already started in earnest) or
b. face severe backlash for supporting secular politics like the Congress or the communists and risk getting blown away in the Hindi belt. The strategy of putting the onus on the judiciary to rescue secular politics is not going to work as well. The SC is not going to interfere in majoritarian politics – you have seen what happened with Babri Masjid case, Article 370 and CAA-NRC. The places of worship act 1991 either will get struck off or watered down. When that happens, temple building at Mathura and Benaras will get the same legal sanction that Ayodhya got. Parties better start planning for that eventuality if they do not want to be caught napping.
Well,you know it very well that Yadavas aren’t that secular in nature.These so-called leaders haven’t supported any secularism but the most popular view back then.
So, forget that they are going to fight for most bogus concept of secularism.But as always happens some of the purabiya/Biharis may pop out for this very propaganda.
This Lucy girl is for sure an idiot, whatsoever she writes is just the leftist propaganda.Yadavs aren’t any caste but an ancient tribe.Same is the case with the Abhiras they were also a tribe not any caste. groups.
Ahirs and yadav are two different case. Ahirs adopted yadav surname in 1930s, before they were not using yadav. The people you are talking about are ahirs.
Mathura and Kashi Vishwanath issues have to be resolved through negotiations and with a view to remove injustice heaped on the Indians by the foreign rulers in the medieval period, based on historical records. Once this principle is accepted, then unnecessary religious color given to the issue is avoided. further, no Act of Parliament can come in the way to achieve this purpose. We should as well rename all cities, monuments, roads all over India by removing their association with the foreign rulers , just as we did in in case of Mumbai for Bombay, Kolkatta for Calcutta, Bengalaru for Bangalore etc. If the issue cannot be resolved through negotiations, then SC should intervene and settle it quickly so that politicization is avoided.
The writer should do proper research before letting lose such an article. In 1991, PVN government brought a law which requires preservation of status qua ante of all places of worship as on 15.8.1947. Now, nobody can change the status of mosques in Varanasi and Mathura to Temple. Even the courts cannot do that. This writer is building a castle in the air by imagining that there will be a Hindu agitation for recovery of these two places and secularism of these parties will be tested.
Cancel Culture, let it begin. When the liberal masses cheered the pulling down of historically held icons of Black oppression, this should be cheered as well. Why the hesitation? Are these mosques not representative of the oppression of Islamic conflict? To the extent they represent this oppression. The historical clock has to be wound back and set right.
the difference you are not noting is that the black lives matter slogan comes as a result of ongoing oppression against African Americans there and by oppression I mean their actual lives. People have lived in harmony in India for centuries now- what is the need to stoke communal tensions? Temples and mosques have been side by side making India the true leader in the world for unity in diversity.
Yadavs voted in large numbers for BJP AND will continue to do so when they feel that their religion is safe under BJP rule.
Can the author please enlighten us on why this issue has at all come up? Why do many Hindus want temples in these two places, precisely where the two mosques are located? Or is that question too uncomfortable for a selective secularist to handle?
Secularism in India has got only one meaning —BEING PRO-MUSLIM . presently You will never find Congress and SP, RJD etc. — abandoning this version of secularism. For them Muslim votes matter more than Hindu unity or nationalism . This policy may have brought some dividend in 1990 s , but is unlikely to bring these Yadavs and Congis to center stage in 2020. 30 or 40 s of 21st century . Even Most of the common people in India are aware dangers of following of this policy to national internal and external security and existence of Indian Nation state as a unified political entity in long run. Sooner or later they will have adopt a version of secularism which means — equal respect for all religions and APEASEMENT OF NONE for their own political existence. The sweet old days of their version of secularism is over.
Who will pay for the “talented young journalists” of The Print then?
excellent reply
So nicely articulated…
Best wishes
With due respect to all concerned parties- we must not build statues for Bhagwan Ram in Ayodhya and Bhagwan Krishana in Mathura or elsewhere. They are too big to be measured with the height of statues.
The M-Y days of both Yadav chieftains is over. The Ys are not going to suffice as a votebank without the rest of the OBCs and the Ms vote (for regional parties) will not matter in the Modi era. The smaller parties have only 2 options –
a. join the BJP in majoritarian politics and try to wean away some of the BJP voters (Mayawati and Kejriwal have already started in earnest) or
b. face severe backlash for supporting secular politics like the Congress or the communists and risk getting blown away in the Hindi belt. The strategy of putting the onus on the judiciary to rescue secular politics is not going to work as well. The SC is not going to interfere in majoritarian politics – you have seen what happened with Babri Masjid case, Article 370 and CAA-NRC. The places of worship act 1991 either will get struck off or watered down. When that happens, temple building at Mathura and Benaras will get the same legal sanction that Ayodhya got. Parties better start planning for that eventuality if they do not want to be caught napping.
Well,you know it very well that Yadavas aren’t that secular in nature.These so-called leaders haven’t supported any secularism but the most popular view back then.
So, forget that they are going to fight for most bogus concept of secularism.But as always happens some of the purabiya/Biharis may pop out for this very propaganda.
This Lucy girl is for sure an idiot, whatsoever she writes is just the leftist propaganda.Yadavs aren’t any caste but an ancient tribe.Same is the case with the Abhiras they were also a tribe not any caste. groups.
yadavs are most communal
i asked a yadav about muslims and eventhough i am a hindutva guy
got scared by the answer
According to the Puranas both Ahirs ( abhiras), and Yadavs (Vrishnis), are descendants from King Yadu.
Ahirs and yadav are two different case. Ahirs adopted yadav surname in 1930s, before they were not using yadav. The people you are talking about are ahirs.
can you give more detail
Jai Sri Krishan