Why does this ideological battle turn into hate politics when you go outside the country? It becomes clear when you say there’s a big difference between our ideology and another ideology within India. But when this ideological battle extends beyond the country’s borders, why does it turn into hate politics in other countries?

Recently (7th to 10th September), the Leader of the Opposition of India made certain statements abroad. At the very least, when you make a statement, you should ensure that there are no factual inaccuracies. For example, look at this: in Virginia, the Leader of the Opposition said that in India, our struggle is that one day they may not allow Sikhs to wear turbans, or tomorrow they may not allow them to wear a Kara, or they may stop them from going to the Gurudwara.

First of all, tell me this: as of today, who is stopping Sikhs from going to the Gurudwara, wearing a Kara, or tying a turban? Do you see any such restrictions today? This is not happening anywhere.

Secondly, and most importantly, if you are making such statements, it’s clear you haven’t studied history at all. You don’t know that there has always been a relationship of “roti-beti” (intermarriage and familial bond) between Sikhs and Hindus. In Hindu families, there was always a tradition where one son would be raised as a Sikh while the rest of the family remained Hindu. This unity between Hindus and Sikhs, this “roti-beti” relationship—at least, for your selfish purposes, don’t bring this up here.

And the biggest thing is, since when did you become the spokesperson for Sikhs? If there was ever a time when Sikhs were truly in danger, it was in 1984 when it was your government that committed atrocities against Sikhs in this country—a holocaust in which more than 3,000 Sikhs were killed by your own people. So at least, when it comes to speaking about Sikhs, it would be better if you didn’t bring these words to your mouth because you haven’t done anything for Sikhs, and whatever you did is well-known to the world.

Gurpatwant Singh Pannun

And look at this, who has appreciated your statements the most? Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a hardcore Khalistani terrorist, who runs the CIA’s agenda from America to establish Khalistan in India, who wants to hold a Khalistan referendum, and who, through the Khalistan Referendum Commission, is preparing to hold a referendum in India in 2025. This person openly says that they will hold a Khalistan referendum in India and take the case to the United Nations to secure an independent Khalistan state, similar to the Irish and Scottish models. If this person is praising your statements, it says a lot about what your ideology is and what your ideological battle truly is. But the problem is, perhaps you won’t understand this.

Then, in a question-answer session at Georgetown University, you said that we will conduct a caste census in India. Go ahead, who’s stopping you? Conduct the caste census, count the castes. But first, tell us two things: What is your agenda after counting castes? Are you going to bring 90% reservation in India? After counting castes, are you going to give reservation to each caste accordingly? Will you reduce the general category to 2%? The problem is, sir, that you don’t have any vision. When you talk about conducting a caste census in the country, you don’t even know what will happen afterward. You have floated an idea, thinking it will create a wave, and people will become emotional. Today, you have no plans to promote Hindu unity. You only want to use the caste census to divide the entire Hindu society into different castes, so much so that the idea of Hindu unity is completely destroyed.

But it doesn’t stop here. When you went to Washington, you met with some U.S. lawmakers. You took pictures with Ilhan Omar.

Ilhan Omar

In 1995, she fled from Somalia and came to America. At 17, she became an American citizen. The U.S. Justice Department is currently investigating her because, to bypass immigration laws, she allegedly married her own brother and presented a document showing they were a married couple. In those cultures, it’s acceptable to marry your brother. So this is the background of this lady. Afterward, she contested elections in Minnesota on a Democratic ticket and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. This Somalia-born radical Islamist, Ilhan Omar, has a history of promoting radical Islam in modern societies. You are taking pictures with this lady.

One more thing you should know about Ilhan Omar: she has made three very significant statements. Let me tell you these three statements, and you can understand what her objective is, what her ideology is.

First, she said that minorities are being suppressed in India, and to stop this suppression, she introduced Resolution 1196 in the U.S. House of Representatives, calling for India to be categorized as a “country of particular religious concern.” This is her first achievement. So, from this, you can understand her objective.

Second, she said that the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in America happened because “some people did something.” So, according to her, 9/11 was just a mistake by some people. You’re ashamed to call it Islamic terrorism. You’re ashamed to acknowledge that it was because of Islamic terrorism that 9/11 happened. You don’t even dare to say that.

Third, and most significant, she supports a one-state solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict, where the entire region of Palestine should be given to Arabs. She openly gives such statements, saying that she wants to eliminate Israel’s existence.

If you’re meeting with people like her and claim that this will improve India-U.S. relations, it says a lot.

Rohit (Ro) Khanna

Then there’s a photograph of you with Ro Khanna. One crucial thing to know about Ro Khanna: he’s associated with someone named T. Sundararajan, who runs a laboratory in America called Equality Labs. This lab’s sole purpose is to run an anti-Hindu, anti-India propaganda from America. T. Sundararajan, a close associate of Ro Khanna, is often seen in photographs with Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, the Khalistani terrorist in America. So, now you can see the entire link: Equality Labs, Ro Khanna, statements made in Virginia regarding Sikhs—it all starts to make sense.

After this, you made another statement in America, saying that the RSS’s only idea is that Hinduism is superior to all other religions. Sir, please don’t talk about religions because you have no right to speak about Hinduism. During your own government’s tenure from 2006 to 2007, a narrative of Hindu terrorism was crafted. If we get the chance, we’ll make an article on this topic, as many books have been written on it, and today, you can read these books to understand how your government tried to create a narrative of Hindu terrorism to counter Islamic terrorism.

Let me give you one more point. Former Mumbai Police Commissioner Rakesh Maria, a very prominent man, wrote a book—an 875-page book—which you should read. In the book, he revealed that if Ajmal Kasab had not been caught by the Mumbai police during the 26/11 attacks, it would have been framed as an incident of Hindu terrorism, and a narrative would have been created.

These things are in the public domain; there’s no secret information here. So at least, stop saying that you’re a protector of Hinduism. And most importantly, you claim that the RSS believes Hinduism is superior to all other religions. Sir, the RSS is reaching out to the Christian community today. The RSS is even engaging with the Muslim community, which has disappointed some hardcore RSS and BJP supporters. But you need to understand the overall objective of the RSS. It operates on the philosophy of Hindutva, which is a political idea and a geographical construct. Their idea is that a Hindu is not just someone who follows a religion but someone who lives on the land of Hindustan. Whether they are Christian, Buddhist, or Muslim, they are considered Hindu. Anyway, we won’t go into those ideological details. But the way you twisted your statement, there was no logic in it.

Then, you made a very important statement in America, saying that India has lost a lot of territory to China. Okay, let’s say for a moment that India has lost territory to China after the Galwan clash in 2019-2020. But tell me one thing, sir, you made this statement abroad, but did you also tell them about your ancestors’ history? If you wanted to give a complete picture to the international audience, you should have presented the complete picture.

In 1950, India had two situations concerning China. China had declared in 1950 that it was going to illegally occupy Tibet. Tibet was an independent country at that time. Tibet pleaded with you, with Nehru, with K.M. Panikkar, who was the ambassador to China, and with V.P. Menon, Nehru’s lackey, to at least support them. But instead of stopping China’s illegal occupation of Tibet, Nehru focused on Korea. Panikkar’s letters, which are available today, show that he advised against interfering in Tibet because it would provoke China in the United Nations. Sir, that would have been interference if we had done something in Beijing or Sichuan province. But if we had tried to protect an independent country, Tibet could have served as a buffer between India and China today. But you didn’t mention this.

Then, when you were in America, you could have also mentioned that when India was offered a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, you rejected it. And you rejected it because you said India wouldn’t take the seat until China was made a member of the United Nations. Why were you so attached to China? Was China some kind of uncle to you? Whether China became a member of the United Nations or not, whether it survived or not, China seemed more important to you at that time than securing a permanent seat for India on the U.N. Security Council. But you didn’t mention that.

Then you should have also told them that in 1955, General Thayyagrajan prepared a report for V.P. Menon and Nehru, warning them that China was building a road in Aksai Chin, which was Indian territory. He stated that if China completed this road, it would be used to illegally occupy Tibet. But what did V.P. Menon say in response? He called General Thayya’s concerns a CIA conspiracy. This is documented and can be found in books today. So you labeled an army general as a CIA agent just because his report contradicted your love for China. Sir, if you’re going to speak about history, at least tell the complete story.

The problem is, in India, we have two types of media. One is the “godi” (lapdog) media, which everyone knows about—its only job is to pander to the powers that be. The other type is the “Pidi” (puppet) media, which pushes the opposite agenda and promotes only one side of the story. The beauty is that both claim to be impartial. Sir, if you were truly impartial, instead of engaging in political and ideological debates from morning until night, you would discuss the real issues facing the country. You should talk about what will happen after the caste census, how jobs will be created, and how inflation will be controlled. But you don’t have any people to discuss these issues with. All day, these two types of media call in the same few people to hurl insults at each other. No one cares about the country’s problems. Everyone is focused on running their agenda, from both sides.

Sir, you are the Leader of the Opposition. It is not a constitutional post but a statutory one. Nowhere does it state how the Leader of the Opposition should behave or what remarks they can make. But there is an unwritten code, and that code says that when a citizen of India goes abroad, they should not speak ill of their country. You go abroad, hold a significant position, but instead of promoting your political agenda on the international stage as you do at home, at least talk about your vision for the country in front of foreign audiences. Share the strategy for achieving that vision, and perhaps the country will progress.

We hope that after this discussion, after the facts that are presented to you, you can now understand the unfortunate reality of our media and the political games at play.