In the grand narrative of India’s civilizational journey, the role of knowledge and wisdom has been paramount. Among various sections of society, the Forward class has historically drawn strength not from privilege, but from the relentless pursuit of learning, discipline, and responsibility toward society.
It is important to recognize that in ancient India, the classification known as varna was not originally based on birth but on duties and qualities. The group identified as the Forward class emerged predominantly through their commitment to scholarship, administration, religious guidance, and teaching. Their contributions helped shape the philosophical, scientific, and cultural foundations of the subcontinent. The strength of the Forward class was their wisdom — not wealth, not political power — but the ability to lead society through thought, discipline, and guidance.
From composing the Vedas and Upanishads to developing profound concepts in mathematics, astronomy, and logic, the Forward class invested generations in building India’s intellectual capital. They were the teachers, counselors, and reformers — providing direction not just to rulers, but also to generations of learners, regardless of social standing.
Take for example the historical relationship between mentors and their students: Acharya Chanakya, a brilliant strategist and philosopher from the Forward class, recognized the potential in Chandragupta Maurya, who came from a modest background. Through education and rigorous guidance, Chanakya helped him rise to become one of India’s greatest emperors. This is a clear reminder that knowledge, when shared with integrity, has the power to uplift individuals and transform nations.
Centuries later, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, another great reformer who rose above social discrimination, was guided and mentored by several scholars, many of whom came from the Forward class. These mentors helped shape Ambedkar’s academic journey, encouraging his potential in law, economics, and political philosophy — which he eventually used to draft the Constitution of India. The hallmark of these Forward-class mentors was not their social status but their commitment to nurturing talent wherever it existed.
Knowledge Must Remain Our Guiding Force
In today’s democratic and constitutional India, where every citizen enjoys equal rights, the path to national unity must once again be guided by knowledge, merit, and mutual respect. The Forward class continues to contribute meaningfully in fields such as science, education, judiciary, technology, and governance — not as a matter of entitlement, but as a duty they have historically upheld.
However, it’s essential that society moves beyond identity-based divisions and embraces a meritocratic culture. True equality is not just about equal rights but about creating a system where ability, integrity, and effort determine success — values that the Forward class has long stood for.
Forward, Not Divided
Using labels like “upper” or “lower” serves no constructive purpose. Instead, let us recognize and respect the term Forward class for what it represents — a legacy of thinkers, reformers, educators, and nation-builders. Their forwardness is not about status but about their unwavering belief in the power of ideas, discipline, and social progress.
It is time to rise above inherited divisions and embrace inherited values — and if there is one inheritance that can unify this country, it is the heritage of wisdom and learning. Let knowledge be our strength, and forward-thinking be our common ground.
India’s Present Social Context and the Impact of Casteism
India today stands at a juncture where our Constitution, which enshrines the values of equality, liberty, and justice, forms the foundation of our democratic society. Under the Constitution, all citizens are guaranteed equal rights, and no one is to be discriminated against based on caste, class, or gender.
But even now, is the system of caste-based reservation and caste identity in practice not conflicting with the very principles of unity and equality? Can we not look back to the time when caste-based hierarchies restricted people purely based on birth?
Today, as we uphold the constitutional promise of equal rights, are we not ironically dividing society once again through caste-based advantages? India’s foundation, which speaks of equality and justice, is it still being affected by the remnants of casteist systems? Are we forgetting that the original objective of reservation was to expand opportunity and equality—not to reinforce caste divisions?
Caste in India: History, Current Realities, and Steps Toward Equality
India has a deep and complex history of caste. In ancient times, there existed a varna system which classified society into four primary groups — Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras. This system was originally based on function, not birth. Brahmins were responsible for knowledge, teaching, and religious duties; Kshatriyas for protection and governance; Vaishyas for trade and agriculture; and Shudras for service-related roles.
However, over time, this functional classification gradually turned into a rigid, birth-based caste hierarchy, dividing society into higher and lower classes based on lineage rather than merit. This transformation led to severe inequality and discrimination that marginalized large sections of the population.
While we now live under a Constitution that promises equal rights for all, we must ask — have we truly eliminated the outdated caste mindset from our society? Are we, as a nation, fully implementing the principles of equality and justice, or are we still bound by old prejudices?
Social Change and Real-Life Examples
Despite the caste-based structure of ancient society, history provides many examples of individuals who rose to prominence based on their merit, courage, and intellect. One such example is Chandragupta Maurya, who came from a Shudra background but went on to rule the Indian subcontinent and establish the Mauryan Empire. His rise symbolizes that ability and leadership are not determined by caste.
Chandragupta’s mentor, the Brahmin Chanakya (Kautilya), played a pivotal role in his journey. Chanakya not only educated him in statecraft and governance but also taught that social standing should not limit one’s destiny. His mentorship proves that success and greatness are founded not on caste, but on knowledge, wisdom, and determination.
Similarly, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, born into the Mahar caste — considered a lower caste in Indian society — faced extreme discrimination and hardship throughout his life. However, a turning point came when he was guided by Brahmin teachers who encouraged him to pursue higher education. Their support helped him realize that education could break the chains of caste.
Dr. Ambedkar used his education as a tool to fight for social justice and equality. He went on to draft the Indian Constitution — a document that stands firmly against caste discrimination. His life proves that birth does not define destiny and that knowledge and hard work can overcome even the most deeply rooted barriers.
Casteism and Reservation in Contemporary India
Today, while the Indian Constitution emphasizes equality, liberty, and justice, caste-based reservation policies still persist in our system. Originally intended to uplift historically oppressed communities, reservations aim to ensure fair access to education, employment, and socio-economic participation.
However, this policy is now the subject of widespread debate. Many believe that reservation has strayed from its purpose and is creating new inequalities in the name of correcting old ones. The fundamental question arises: should caste still be the basis of reservation, or should economic and social conditions take precedence?
In this modern era, does promoting caste-based reservation in the name of social justice not contradict the principle of equality? Has the system truly served its purpose, or has it begun to create new divisions among people?
Moving Toward Equal Opportunities
We must now realize that an individual’s ability and merit should never be judged on the basis of caste or social background. We must build a society where everyone is given equal opportunity — free from the influence of casteism, discrimination, or oppression.
The right to equality is enshrined in our Constitution, and now is the time to truly implement it. We must work to eliminate caste-based discrimination and ensure equal access to education, employment, and social opportunities for all.
The fight against casteism should not remain limited to legal frameworks — it should be embraced in our values, social systems, and collective mindset. Only with sincere and collective effort can we remove inequality and build a society where every citizen is assessed by their merit, not their caste.
Conclusion
Casteism has deep roots in Indian history, but we now have the opportunity to eradicate it and move toward a society that is equal, inclusive, and just. We can achieve true equality only when we eliminate caste-based thinking from all aspects of our lives and guarantee equal opportunities to all, regardless of their background. Let us rise above caste. Let us choose equality.
In a world plagued by violence and ideological conflicts, the provocative assertion that “terrorists are the second most dangerous, seculars are the first” challenges us to confront an uncomfortable question: do those who champion secularism, in their pursuit of political correctness or electoral gain, inadvertently enable heinous acts of terrorism? This article delves into the claim that secular narratives, driven by vote-bank politics or fear of communal backlash, may downplay or justify atrocities committed by Islamist groups targeting non-Muslims. By examining cases like the 2025 Pahalgam attack in Kashmir, the targeting of Jews in Israel, the Yazidi genocide in Iraq, and grooming scandals in Great Britain, we explore whether secular apologism emboldens perpetrators. The role of figures like Priyanka Gandhi, whose symbolic gestures amplify certain narratives, underscores the broader implications of prioritizing political agendas over justice and security.
The Pahalgam Attack: Religious Targeting in Kashmir
On April 22, 2025, a horrific terrorist attack in Pahalgam’s Baisaran Valley, Jammu and Kashmir, claimed the lives of 26 tourists, predominantly Hindus, with one Nepalese national among them. The attackers, reportedly linked to the group Kashmir Resistance, allegedly singled out victims based on their religion, shooting those who could not recite Islamic verses or identified as non-Muslims (News18: ‘Label Pakistan As State Sponsor Of Terrorism’). Survivors recounted chilling details, such as being asked to recite the Kalima or strip to confirm their identity before being executed (Times of India: Pahalgam terror attack). This attack, deemed one of the deadliest since the 2019 Pulwama bombing, reignited debates about targeted violence against Hindus in Kashmir.
The response from some global media outlets, such as The New York Times, BBC, and Al Jazeera, drew criticism for using terms like “militants” or “gunmen” instead of “terrorists,” which critics argue sanitizes the ideological and religious motives behind the attack (Times of India: US House panel slams NYT). The US House Foreign Affairs Committee condemned this framing, accusing outlets of “whitewashing” the attack’s religious targeting (Times of India: US House panel slams NYT). Such language, critics contend, reflects a secular tendency to downplay Islamist violence to avoid offending certain communities, potentially driven by political considerations or fear of backlash.
Israel: Targeting Non-Muslims and Hostage Crises
The claim extends to Israel, where terrorist groups like Hamas have been accused of targeting non-Muslims, particularly Jews, in attacks such as the October 7, 2023, assault. This attack killed over 1,200 people, with Hamas taking 251 hostages, many of whom remain in captivity (Reuters: Hamas attack on Israel). The deliberate targeting of Jewish civilians, including at a music festival, mirrors the religious profiling seen in Pahalgam. Michael Rubin, a former US official, likened the Pahalgam attack to Hamas’s tactics, noting that both targeted specific religious groups to sow fear (News18: ‘Label Pakistan As State Sponsor Of Terrorism’).
Some secular voices, particularly in Western media and activist circles, have been criticized for framing these attacks as resistance against occupation rather than terrorism driven by religious extremism. For instance, narratives emphasizing “Justice for Palestine,” as seen in Priyanka Gandhi’s public display of a bag with this slogan in 2019, are accused of overshadowing the plight of victims and hostages ([X Post: @sankrant]). Such rhetoric, while advocating for Palestinian rights, can inadvertently legitimize or downplay the actions of groups like Hamas, which explicitly target non-Muslims, according to critics.
Yazidi Genocide: Atrocities and Sexual Slavery
The Yazidi community in northern Iraq faced unimaginable horrors at the hands of the Islamic State (ISIS) in 2014, with over 5,000 murdered and thousands of women and girls abducted as sex slaves (Radio Times: Will Yazidi women get justice?). ISIS justified these acts by labeling Yazidis as “heretics” due to their non-Muslim faith, claiming that raping non-Muslims was a form of worship (Reuters: Captive Islamic State militant). Survivors like Kovan, who endured a decade of captivity, recounted being sold multiple times, raped daily, and forced into conversions (Radio Times: Will Yazidi women get justice?).
Despite international recognition of these acts as genocide, justice remains elusive. Few perpetrators have faced trial, with many detained in Syrian prisons like Panorama without prosecution for their crimes against Yazidis (Radio Times: Will Yazidi women get justice?). Some secular narratives, particularly in academic and activist circles, have been accused of framing ISIS’s actions as a byproduct of geopolitical failures (e.g., Western interventions in Iraq) rather than religious extremism, thus diluting accountability (Just Security: Rape as a Tactic of Terror). This reluctance to confront the ideological roots of such violence is seen as a form of apologism that enables impunity.
Grooming Scandals in Great Britain: Vote-Bank Politics?
In Great Britain, the grooming gang scandals, particularly in cities like Rotherham and Rochdale, involved the systematic sexual abuse of thousands of minor girls, predominantly by men of Pakistani descent (The Guardian: Rotherham child abuse scandal). Between the 1990s and 2010s, over 1,400 girls in Rotherham alone were abused, with authorities accused of failing to act due to fears of being labeled racist or alienating Muslim communities ([X Post: @sankrant]). A 2014 report by Alexis Jay revealed that police and social services ignored evidence of abuse to avoid “community tensions,” a decision critics attribute to vote-bank politics (BBC: Rotherham child sexual exploitation report).
Secular politicians and institutions, wary of losing support from minority communities, allegedly prioritized political correctness over justice. This inaction allowed perpetrators to operate with impunity for years, reinforcing the narrative that secularism, when driven by electoral motives, can enable heinous crimes. The claim that secularists justify such acts to preserve a “united vote bank” stems from this perceived reluctance to confront criminality within specific communities ([X Post: @sankrant]).
Secularism and Vote-Bank Politics: The Role of Priyanka Gandhi
The reference to Priyanka Gandhi carrying a bag with “Justice for Palestine” highlights how political figures can shape narratives around contentious issues. In 2019, Priyanka Gandhi, a prominent Indian National Congress leader, was photographed with a bag bearing this slogan, sparking debate about her stance on Israel-Palestine conflicts ([X Post: @sankrant]). Critics argue that such gestures, while symbolic of solidarity with Palestinians, risk aligning with narratives that downplay or justify violence by groups like Hamas, which target non-Muslims. This aligns with the broader claim that secular leaders, in pursuit of minority votes, may overlook or rationalize acts of violence to maintain political support.
In India, secularism is often equated with protecting minority rights, particularly for Muslims, who constitute a significant voting bloc. Critics contend that this leads to selective outrage, where violence against Hindus, such as in Pahalgam, is underplayed to avoid alienating Muslim voters. For instance, the lack of strong condemnation from some secular leaders after the Pahalgam attack, compared to their vocal support for other causes, fuels perceptions of bias (Times of India: Pahalgam terror attack).
The Psychology of Secular Apologism
The article’s central claim—that seculars are more dangerous than terrorists—draws on the idea that enabling or justifying violence indirectly causes greater harm than the acts themselves. This perspective invokes the concept of Stockholm syndrome, where fear leads individuals to sympathize with or rationalize the actions of oppressors (Hindu Post: Why Liberals Justify Islamic Terrorism). The 2019 Pulwama attack, which killed 40 CRPF personnel, saw some liberal intellectuals framing the attacker’s actions as a response to socio-economic marginalization, a narrative critics argue excuses terrorism (Hindu Post: Why Liberals Justify Islamic Terrorism).
This phenomenon is attributed to a desire to maintain a comfortable narrative that avoids confronting the religious or ideological roots of violence. By focusing on geopolitical or socio-economic factors, secularists may inadvertently provide cover for perpetrators, allowing them to evade accountability. This is particularly evident in media coverage that avoids the term “terrorist” or downplays religious motivations, as seen in the Pahalgam attack (Times of India: US House panel slams NYT).
Counterarguments: The Role of Secularism
Defenders of secularism argue that it promotes equality and protects minority rights in diverse societies. In India, secularism is enshrined in the Constitution to ensure no community is marginalized, particularly in the context of historical communal tensions ([Indian Constitution: Preamble]). Critics of the “seculars are dangerous” narrative contend that attributing terrorism to secularism oversimplifies complex issues. For instance, the Pahalgam attack’s religious targeting may reflect local insurgent dynamics rather than a global secular conspiracy (Al Jazeera: Kashmir attack).
Moreover, secular leaders like Priyanka Gandhi may argue that advocating for causes like Palestine is about human rights, not endorsing terrorism. The grooming scandals in Britain, while a failure of governance, are attributed to institutional lapses rather than secular ideology per se (BBC: Rotherham report). Proponents of secularism emphasize that condemning terrorism unequivocally does not require abandoning minority rights or fostering communal division.
The Broader Implications
The claim that seculars enable terrorism by prioritizing vote-bank politics or political correctness has significant implications:
Erosion of Trust: Perceived double standards in addressing violence (e.g., strong condemnation of Hindu hardliners but softer responses to Islamist terrorism) fuel distrust in institutions and media (Hindu Post: Why Liberals Justify Islamic Terrorism).
Impunity for Perpetrators: Failure to confront the ideological roots of terrorism, as seen in the Yazidi genocide or grooming scandals, allows perpetrators to operate without fear of justice (Radio Times: Will Yazidi women get justice?).
Polarization: Accusing seculars of enabling terrorism risks deepening communal divides, particularly in diverse societies like India, where Hindus and Muslims coexist amidst historical tensions (Outlook India: Post-Pulwama Violence).
Recommendations
To address these concerns, a balanced approach is needed:
Clear Condemnation: Political leaders and media must unequivocally condemn terrorism, regardless of the perpetrators’ identity, to avoid perceptions of bias.
Transparent Justice: Governments should prioritize accountability for crimes like the Pahalgam attack or Yazidi genocide, ensuring perpetrators face trial without political interference (Just Security: Rape as a Tactic of Terror).
Media Accountability: Outlets should adopt consistent terminology (e.g., “terrorist” for ideologically driven attacks) to avoid sanitizing violence (Times of India: US House panel slams NYT).
Community Engagement: Secular leaders should engage with all communities to address grievances without appeasing vote banks, fostering trust and unity.
Conclusion
The assertion that seculars are more dangerous than terrorists is a provocative critique of perceived apologism for heinous acts. Cases like the Pahalgam attack, Hamas’s targeting of non-Muslims, the Yazidi genocide, and Britain’s grooming scandals highlight instances where secular narratives may downplay religious extremism for political gain. While secularism aims to promote equality, its misapplication—through vote-bank politics or fear of communal backlash—can enable impunity and erode trust. A critical examination of these dynamics is essential to ensure justice for victims and prevent further polarization. By prioritizing accountability and consistent condemnation of violence, societies can address the root causes of terrorism without sacrificing the principles of fairness and inclusivity.
Kashmir, often celebrated as “Paradise on Earth,” remains one of the most controversial and emotionally charged regions in the Indian subcontinent. With snow-capped peaks, serene lakes, and picturesque valleys, the beauty of Kashmir draws millions of tourists every year. But beneath the natural charm lies a complex and dangerous reality that few dare to speak about openly.
For many observers and victims of the region’s past, there’s a chilling analogy: “A Hindu going to Kashmir is like giving a contract to a contract killer to take your life.” This statement, though provocative, reflects the harsh sentiment rooted in history, terror, and socio-economic contradictions that define modern-day Kashmir.
The Irony of Economic Support
It is estimated that over 90% of tourists visiting Kashmir are Hindus—families and pilgrims who come to witness its beauty and visit sacred sites like the Amarnath Cave or Vaishno Devi. These visitors pour crores of rupees into the local economy, keeping hotels, restaurants, transport businesses, and guides financially afloat.
However, the painful irony arises when the same money is allegedly used—directly or indirectly—to support the very forces that are hostile to them.
Multiple reports and firsthand accounts have alleged that a portion of the money earned from tourism is funneled toward harboring and funding militants. Terrorists from Pakistan are sheltered in local homes, fed, clothed, and even married into Kashmiri families under the guise of “religious duty” or “jihad.” In some shocking cases, locals have been said to offer their daughters in marriage to jihadists to show solidarity with their cause.
Jihad and the Targeting of Non-Muslims
The concept of jihad, as interpreted by radical Islamists, is not a philosophical or spiritual struggle—it’s a violent mission against non-believers. And in the context of Kashmir, the primary targets of such radicalism have historically been Hindus and other non-Muslims.
The 1990 exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, when thousands were driven out of the Valley through threats, killings, and intimidation, stands as a testament to this violent intolerance. To this day, many Pandits remain in exile, their properties illegally occupied or destroyed, with justice still a distant hope.
Even in recent years, non-Muslim civilians, including migrant laborers and government employees, have been targeted and killed in terrorist attacks in Kashmir—reminding the nation that the threat is far from over.
The Chilling Analogy: A Contract to Kill
When a Hindu visits Kashmir today, the argument goes, they are:
Spending money in a region where a segment of the population holds deeply radicalized beliefs.
Supporting an economy that has, in many cases, shown silent sympathy for separatists and jihadists.
Financing, indirectly, the same ecosystem that supports anti-India narratives and violence against non-Muslims.
Thus, to many who see this danger clearly, tourism becomes a paradoxical act of self-harm—the same as handing over money to a contract killer to end your own life.
The Harsh Reality We Must Confront
This article is not a blanket indictment of all Kashmiris. Not every resident supports terrorism or harbors radical ideologies. But ignoring the substantial portion that does—either out of belief, fear, or passive acceptance—is willful blindness.
India must address this uncomfortable truth:
Can we continue to send our people into an environment that still harbors hostility toward their identity?
Is the financial benefit of tourism worth the moral and physical cost if it strengthens the hands of enemies within?
And most importantly, can healing and peace truly begin without justice and accountability for decades of violence and betrayal?
Conclusion
Kashmir needs healing, justice, and a reckoning with its past. Until then, Hindus visiting the region must weigh not just the risk to their lives, but the deeper moral consequence of empowering those who, in the name of jihad, once expelled and killed their kin.
In this context, the analogy stands painfully valid: A Hindu going to Kashmir may well be giving a contract to a contract killer—unknowingly, but effectively.
Unmukt 