Why the Blacks of America and the Muslims of India cannot be compared

When large-scale protests and riots were happening in America in the wake of the killing of a black person called George Floyd by a white policeman, many Muslim activists and Marxist intellectuals in India tried to bring in a false narrative of Muslim victimhood into the chain of events.

They tried to piggyback on the Blacks of America to trigger another spate of violence and rioting in India, as it was happening around the end of the previous year when Muslims all over the country were protesting against CAA, a provision made by the Indian government to expedite the granting of citizenship to the persecuted minorities living in the neighboring Muslim countries.

They even tried to hijack the slogan “Black Lives Matter” by trying to start a similar “Muslim Lives Matter” in India. How dare someone else play the victim card which is their sole right? Many even started having wet dreams about the Muslims of India getting inspired by the happenings in America and kickstarting violence again.

They tried to draw a false, parallel narrative by saying that just as the Blacks are targeted by the white supremacists in America, the Muslims are targeted by the Hindu community in India.

The Blacks of America and the Muslims of India in reality, have nothing in common, aside from the fact that they may be minorities in their respective countries, but the parallel stops right there.

To understand why Blacks of America and the Muslims of India can never be compared, you need to understand some historical and contemporary facts that can help you put in perspective why the comparison is a big nonsense at best and an aggressive victimhood mentality that cannot tolerate someone else being seen as a victim, at worse.

Historically, the Blacks were brought to Europe and the continents of America as slaves.

They were brought to these lands in the most inhuman conditions conceivable. It is said that 80% of the people used to die when they were being brought and the bodies were thrown into the ocean. The remaining 20% who survived were sold in Europe and America.

The Black slaves had no human rights. The person who owned the slave owned him or her completely.

A slave could be kept in any condition. He or she could be starved to death. He or she could be tied to the tree naked. He or she could be killed at a whim or raped as and when convenient or desired.

When a Black slave tried to run away and when he was caught, the owners and the people of the village or town were free to do whatever they wanted to do to the captured fugitive.

A very mild punishment if the owner was kind was cutting off the thumb of the foot or the penis. In worst-case scenarios, the person would be tied at an open place and common folks would go and cut any part of the person. So, someone would cut an ear, someone would cut the nose, someone would cut a finger, and so on, until the slave died.

The children of the Black slaves could be sold or distributed among the friends just as animal babies are randomly taken and sold or distributed. The children of the Black slaves were born slaves.

It was forbidden for the Black slaves to study. If it was found that one of the slaves have been trying to read a book, the entire settlement of the slaves would get lashes.

Anyway, the incidents I have mentioned above are but just a grain in the ocean of cruelties the Black slaves of America and elsewhere were subjected to.

Contrast this with how the Muslims came to India.

To be fair, the current crop of Muslims are mostly the descendants of those who were forcibly converted by the invading armies of Muslims.

An assortment of Muslim historical figures — the Turks, the Arabs, the Uzbeks and such — repeatedly invaded India to loot its riches and capture the infidels as slaves that would be then sold back in their own countries.

Muslims never tire of boasting how they ruled over the Hindus of the country for multiple centuries.

Talking about the capturing of the Hindu slaves, do you know why the Hindu Kush mountain range is known as such? It is called so because millions of Hindu slaves were killed when they were being carried by Muslim invaders, because of the harsh conditions. Soon, the mountain range came to be known as a place where millions of Hindus died or got slaughtered on routine basis and consequently, it was named Hindu Kush.

In Farsi, the word kush means the killer or the slaughterer.

Incidentally, the mountain range is still called Hindu Kush, and so far, no one has objected to it. Can you name one such place in Europe or America that so casually glorifies a human catastrophe and normalizes it to such an extent that people don’t even mind the name being used in official documents and maps, even the Hindu descendants of those people who died in those miserable conditions and gave this macabre name to the mountain range?

Are there cities and towns named after the glorious slave hunters or slave sellers?

In India we have.

I live in a place called Ghaziabad. Do you know who was decorated with the title of the Ghazi? Who had killed a certain number of the infidels, in the case of India, the Hindus. Are there cities and towns in America or Europe named after famous slave capturers. Try to find even one.

The famous, or rather the infamous Babri Masjid. One of the biggest landmark temples was razed centuries ago and a mosque was built over it by a Muslim emperor wanting to spread his religion in the region. The Hindu community still has to fight tooth and nail just to get one temple back. This is the pathetic condition of the so-called aggressive majority. Can’t even lay claim to the temple of its most revered gods with dignity. Even for this, they have to grovel, fight legal battles and submit one proof after another, and still get portrayed as the villain by the international community. Do you ever see the Blacks of America culturally and ideologically subjugating the whites to such an extent?

Can you name one temple that has been built upon a razed mosque?

Just one?

In the neighboring Muslim countries Hindu temples are routinely desecrated, vandalized and demolished. Forget about the neighboring Muslim countries, even within India, in Kashmir that is supposed to be in India, hundreds of temples have been demolished even after 1947.

In North India, you can only find domes — roof structures representing Islamic Muslim architecture. It is very difficult to come across the Hindu architecture because most of the temples were destroyed and mosques and monuments were built over them. Which white Christian churches were destroyed by the Blacks of America? In fact, the Blacks, whatever religion they had before being taken as slaves, converted to Christianity.

In America, the Blacks got converted, in India, the Muslims converted the others, mostly by sword.

Wonder why the Hindus in North India perform their marriage ceremonies at night and not during day? When the Muslims ruled, they wouldn’t allow the Hindus to marry in peace. They would often abduct the bride. Thus began the tradition of getting married at night, secretly. The tradition has been internalized to such an extent that even when the Muslim rule got over, it occurred to no one’s mind that they should start performing marriage ceremonies during daytime. Even the so-called aggressive Hindu right-wing in India has never paid any attention to this aspect and has not endeavored to right this wrong. So much some atrocities have been internalized that they have become the norm.

In South India where Muslims couldn’t penetrate as deep as in North India, Hindus still get married during the day — all their marriage ceremonies happen in the morning.

In the north, the Sikhs, to assert their strong sense of independence and resistance, continued marrying during daytime.

Talking about the modern-day Sikhism. The roots of Sikhism can be traced to the atrocities committed by the ruling Muslim class. The religious identity of the Sikhs was the manifestation of the resistance against the Muslim tyranny. Their attire, their turban, their long hair and long beards, all made them visible, which meant that they didn’t have to hide. A decapitated Sikh head could easily fetch 20 Asharfis (currency coins of those times) among the Muslims.

Did the Blacks of America have such a tradition?

The history can go on, but I’m going to stop here. Then we come to the contemporary times.

What happened when the Black slaves got free, whether it was after the Civil War or in the early 50s, 60s and 70s? Did they demand a separate land for themselves?

Muslims did, and got it. In the form of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

When the British were about to leave India, Muslims felt that they couldn’t live under a majority Hindu rule. Hence, they carved out a separate homeland for themselves and even after that, many Muslims chose to stay back and later, assert themselves. There is nothing wrong in asserting yourself as a citizen, I must quickly add.

Hence, in terms of history there is no comparison between the Blacks of America and the Muslims of India.

But what about the present? Just because they have been aggressors in the past doesn’t mean they cannot be victims now. Hence, in that sense, if Blacks in America are victimized in America and Muslims in India are victimized in India, isn’t there a parallel?


Muslim victimhood in India is a myth constructed by politicians, activists and intellectuals sitting in the laps of the political class that carries on the British legacy of divide and rule.

India is a poor country. Basic amenities are missing at all levels whether you are a Hindu, Muslim or of any other religion. It has been purposely kept backward to create a strong political class. Just imagine, if the common person feels empowered, how can a powerful person with connections boast privilege?

A police officer can wet his pants when confronted by a politician or a local goon supported by a local politician but he himself becomes a goon and a bully when he confronts a common person on the street.

This state of being has been purposely sustained to make the common person on the street feel helpless and weak. It has got nothing to do with one being a Muslim or Hindu. People from both the communities are victims of the political and ideological system.

It’s just that, the plight of Muslims is highlighted more by our intellectual class because showing Muslims as victims is politically beneficial. Democracy in India is used against its majority community. When Muslims are constantly portrayed as victims, they tend to vote for political parties that pretend to protect their interests.

Hence, a Sikh is victimized, a Hindu is victimized, a Buddhist is victimized, and nobody pays attention. But when a Muslim is victimized, all hell breaks loose. It becomes an international news. Everybody gets to say, “Haww! What a terrible place India is. Such barbaric people. We are so nice and civilized, no?”

The Sachchar Commission found out that Muslims are the least developed community among the minorities. The findings of the report came when the so-called secular government — UPA — was in power. What has been stopping the myriad secular governments all over India from improving the lot of the Muslims?

In West Bengal, the Muslim-friendly Communists ruled for almost 30 years and for the past 10 years, it has been the Muslim-friendly TMC in power. What is the condition of the Muslim community over there?

For multiple decades, the states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have had the so-called Muslim-friendly secular governments. Mulayam Singh Yadav was known to be so Muslim friendly that he was called Mulla Mulayam. Why hasn’t the condition of Muslims in these two states that have been ruled by the so-called secular governments for multiple decades, improved?

Even in South India, they mostly have anti-upper caste Hindu parties in power. So you can say that they are Muslim-friendly governments.

The truth is, they don’t want to improve their lot because if their lot is improved, they will have nothing to complain about and if they have got nothing to complain about, they will cease to be the main political assets.

Recently I read that the only meat that can be exported from India is the Halal meat, prepared according to Muslim religiously sanctioned methods. No other meat is being allowed to be exported. And this is when supposedly there is a “Hindu nationalist” party ruling at the Center.

Can you mention any other country controlling a big branch of exports 100%?

Mosques, churches and gurudwaras (Sikh places of worship) are controlled by these communities, but the Hindu temples are controlled by the government. The money that comes to the mosques, the churches and the gurudwaras goes into the hands of the committees and the boards controlled by the members of these religious groups.

The money that comes to the Hindu temples goes into the hands of the government and in many cases, the government uses this money on minority appeasement schemes specifically benefiting the minorities, mostly Muslims.

This draconian rule was passed by the secular parties and it is still continued by the so-called Hindu nationalist party at the Center.

The minority schools and institutions don’t come under the “Right to Education” act. But the Hindu schools and institutions do.

Whereas minority schools and institutions, mostly Christian and Muslim schools and institutions, are thriving, the Hindu schools and institutions, burdened by the conditions of the RTE, are being routinely shut down all over the country. Even under the current, the so-called Hindu nationalist government at the Center, thousands of Hindu schools have been shut down due to this.

The history, social sciences and political science school and college books openly say that Hindus are bad and Muslims are good — they actually use these expressions. They also teach that the Hindus were savages, and first the Muslims and then the British came and civilized them.

Remember recently there was a great, nationwide outcry when a pregnant elephant was fed a pineapple stuffed with crackers in Kerala? She died a horrible death after a week full of torture.

The person who prepared the deadly fruit was a Christian, supposedly named P. Wilson (according to police records). The two people who fed the elephant the crackers-filled fruit were Muslims named Riyazuddin and Abdul Rasheed (according to police records). Even then, there is no communal or religious angle. Just look below what image is being circulated:

The image shows a Hindu (notice the janeu, the religious thread adorned by pious Hindus) offering the pineapple and the crackers to the elephant. And that too, to Lord Ganesha. This is the level of Hinduphobic propaganda that Hindus have to suffer in their own country. How twisted the mind must have to be to run such propaganda.

Given below is the source of the image:

I have separately posted the image above because Twitter has a history of removing such tweets.

You can very well guess then, if someone can play the victim card, who should deservedly play it.

Entire Bollywood is controlled by Muslims. All our major stars in the past three decades have been Muslims. Our major directors have been Muslims.

Muslim film stars and Muslim intellectuals have been constantly preaching to other communities on how to be tolerant and how to be refined and how to be suave and inclusive and people from other communities hold them in great awe and reverence.

The Muslim culture is the great culture and the Hindu culture is to be reviled and is to be made fun of. The Urdu language is next to English when it comes to commanding respect and awe. People feel embarrassed to use pure Hindi and it is mostly used during comedy scenes in the movies and TV serials.

Take for example

  • Tashreef rakhiye
  • Aasan grahan kijiye

Which among these two expressions are you more likely to hear in a movie or TV serial or even during day to day conversations?

I sure you get my point.

Muslim writers constantly ridicule the Hindu religious beliefs in the garb of “oh I’m so atheist and anti-religion”, and they are constantly applauded by the majority Hindu community.

Just one single law, just one, was passed by the Indian government to bring some respite to the minority communities in the neighboring Muslim countries and the Muslim community in India laid siege to almost the entire country. People were murdered. Properties were burned. There were even calls to create a separate Muslim country, forgetting that they have already had Pakistan. How dare they do something that does not involve Muslims?

Do you ever see the Blacks of America demanding a separate homeland for them? Is it even possible?

Although I’m not sure that the perpetual victimhood of the Black community in America is true or not, I’m pretty sure that the victimhood narrative of the Muslim community in India is outright humbug.

Mark Tully, the BBC journalist who has been living in India almost all his life, had this to say about the Muslims of India:

The false narrative of the interminable Muslim victimhood is mostly spread by the following interest groups:

  • Politicians who use the Muslim victimhood narrative to spread fear psychosis among Muslims for political gains.
  • International interests that want to keep India in a state of unrest for various reasons including Christian missionaries for whom a divided India is better than a united India.
  • The writers and the activists thriving in the victimhood industry because this is the only topic they can write about.
  • The journalists who are nothing but the minions of their political bosses and constantly doing their bidding.

In India, if you don’t have a political clout, if you don’t have money, if you don’t have the “connections” you are a victim. You can be waylaid. You can be humiliated and dehumanized. You can be abducted. You can be lynched (for example the lynching of the sadhus in Palghar). You can be raped. Your property can be taken away from you. You can be harassed and threatened by the police and the bureaucracy. You can be rendered a refugee in your own country like Kashmiri pundits and people in many other towns in India.

This is how the system has been carefully designed — to keep the common folks always in a state of insecurity.

It has got nothing to do with being a Muslim.

I don’t care much about being politically correct. Things are just right or wrong and yes, sometimes there are grey areas in this is why we write, don’t we?