Recently, the ANI podcast with Smita Prakash released the fourth episode of the Samosa Caucus, and you can watch the full thing here. The Samosa Caucus is named after the remark by Raja Krishnamoorthy for ‘Indian Americans’ and popularized by Shri Narendra Modi in US Congress speech.
The Samosa Caucus is a series on the ANI podcast where Smita Prakash, along with Sushant Sareen, Anand Ranganathan, Abhijit Iyer Mitra and Tehseen Poonawallah, come together to sit down and have a free flowing conversation on politics. The conversations are entirely light-hearted and filled with humor, and all five personalities are experts in their individual fields related to geopolitics.
Table of Contents
The casual format is great for extracting as much information from each party, with Smita Prakash limiting her moderation to simply preventing fights and audience feedback. This is where Anand Ranganathan said something about Israel. Watch the full clip shared by him here:
Probably unaware of the extend of the outrage that the world is going through with the attacks on Rafah, or at least the perspective of the other side, many in echo chambers only have half the facts. While the right wing believes the outrage for ‘All Eyes on Rafah’ is entirely paid, the left wing is unaware that it was a strike in retaliation to a bombing attack on Tel Aviv. As such, we are in tighter echo chambers and do not realize perspectives of the other side.
That is still not an excuse for the hate speech and call to murder of JNU Biochemistry professor Dr. Anand Ranganathan. We saw hate speech like “sar tan se judah” being used, and a call to murder come from people.
While hate speech laws are highly desirable to prevent those from trying to shut down Anand Ranganathan’s right to free speech, that is a separate discussion. For today, let us compare the plight of the Kashmiri Hindus with another nationality: the Palestinians.
History and Comparison:
While Israelis and Indians tend to compare themselves to each other rather than to the “other” side, there is truth to the fact that Israel has a lot more in common with Pakistan than with Bharat.
For starters, in Palestine there was a ‘Palestine Arab Congress’ which was created by the British and had representation from Jews, Muslims and Christians. They were the only organization that could officially represent Palestinian interests. Sounds familiar?
On the other hand, much like the Khilafat movement was demanding for the restoration of the khalifah, the Zionist movement was demanding a restoration of a Jewish state.
This pitting of a communal movement against a secular organization led to the partition of both countries, of Palestine and of Bharat, leading to bloodshed and loss of life.
Further, the name “Palestine” was entirely unknown about 150 years ago. The region was called “Levant” or “trans-Jordan”. The former is the indigenous name of the region, while the latter is a name used to denote a territory of Jordan that was ethnically mixed between Lebanese and Egyptian people. Both Palestine and India were old Roman names for the respective regions, and these names come from there. Meanwhile, both names Israel and Hindustan also come from semi-external factors.
Regardless, one could make the argument for the illegitimacy of both Pakistan and Israel on the basis of them being stolen land. But such rhetoric is futile.
It is also important to note that both Islam and Judaism are Abrahamic religions, and share many similarities in theology, practices and other. For example, the giving of “korbani” or “qurbani” is common to both religions. Both Jews and Muslims women are to wear a black burqa in extreme desert heat. In both religions, men are allowed to have multiple wives.
The greeting “salam alekum” also comes from the Jewish religious greeting “shalom alekheim. The similarities go deeper, with both giving reverence to the same prophets such as Mos (Moses), Adham (Adam), Salman (Solomon), Ibrahim (Abraham), and others are common to both religions, and have similar morals and teachings derived from them. The two religions also have several prayers in common, and the word for “god” in Judaism is “Elohi”, which is the root word for the Aramaic word “Allah”. Both religions also derive from nature worshiping Animist religions, like Canaanism for Judaism and Arabic Paganism (sometimes called Harranism) for Islam.
These similarities are more than the similarities between Buddhism and Hinduism. Yet, these religions do not have the tradition of debate like purvapaksha, so very small differences also lead to large differences.
What can Kashmiri Hindus learn from Palestine?
Just like Palestinians displaced from their homes, Kashmiri Hindus faced a similar exodus in the 90s. While the Palestinians faced exodus almost 60 years before the Israelis, the ability for the Palestinians to use imagery, such as the keys of their homes, or olives, to put build a narrative to express their genocide has been a strong one.
Meanwhile, most Indians do not know about the Kashmiri Hindus displaced, or are not aware of the cultural appropriation of Kashmiri Apples.
Another powerful tool that the Palestinians and the Pakistanis use is the ability to change demographics through religious conversions. The Jews simply lack that. Hindus have a tradition of gharwapsi, but they do not promote it, and frown down upon it. Without changing the demographics of places like Kashmir, we will not be able to rehabilitate Kashmiri Hindus.
Pakistan, along with being stolen land, is also constantly trying to change demographics within and around its borders. This reduces internal aggression from minorities. Meanwhile, Israel, despite being stolen land, does not change the religion of people. Hence, they have a shrinking demographic.
This is why the thinking where Indians compare themselves to Israel is flawed. Our lived reality is closer to the Palestinians. Yet, we see our own selves as the oppressor. This was what movies from 2004-14 fed us as well, like in ‘Shaurya’, or ‘Main Hu Naa’. The Hindus are the displaced Palestinians here, and not the Israelis.
So why the comparison?
The comparison stems from Israel being a civilizational state and Bharat aspiring to be a civilizational state. Israel has done some great things in terms of building military capability in an unfriendly neighborhood, in reviving their ancient Hebrew language, and in their adherence to a rules based order.
If we ever came down to reviving Sanskrit as a language, maybe Israel might be the right place to look. But not in matters of genocide. We are victims of Pakistan, and we deserve the same attention as the attention Palestinians get. We should be able to manufacture our own narrative.
Conclusion – what can Anand Ranganathan learn from this
The blind support for Israel falls into the foreign policy goals of the USA. The USA is quick to propagate funding for Israel, the holy place for Christians the majority of Americans’ faith. Meanwhile, China inherited a pro-Palestine policy from the USSR, which is the root of the Islamo-Communist relationship.
Neither of the pro-Palestine or pro-Israel stances benefit us, just like neither a pro-Britain stance by Nehru nor a pro-Germany stance by Bose helped us. We have to think for ourselves, especially in such polarizing matters.
The government has been a master in handling their relations with this country, calling out genocide and terrorism both. None of this was done to appease either the USA, or China, or the polarized Hindu and Muslim demographic of the country respectively. We saw a similar neutrality in Bharat’s dealings with Ukraine and Russia.
The fellow guests at the podcast also expressed their solidarity with Anand Ranganathan and his right to free speech. You can see them here:
Comments like those made by Anand Ranganathan dilute the efforts of the government to remain non-allied. They drive the image of Bharat towards one extreme pole or the other. Those who view Palestine’s struggle as one of religion do no favors either. For true pluralism to shine, this blind support for either side whenever our news feed is bombarded with news, needs to stop.
As such, those who make podcasts and discuss politics must come out of their echo chambers and stop taking strong stances on polarizing issues. The more polarizing an issue, the softer a country’s stance on it should be. We have to develop a deep and complex understanding of events. It is okay to have controversial opinions, but nuance makes them better informed.
