Who is Hindu Nationalist?
There are two ways people view India’s history with invaders, whether invader is Chugtai Turk aka Mughal or British.
Group 1 believes those invasions had some justification. They see Mughal rule as bringing “syncretism” and British rule as “modernization.” This group includes leftist historians, communists, and others who rationalize foreign rule. They downplay atrocities to fit secular or globalist narratives.
Group 2 sees invaders as illegitimate aggressors with no moral justification. Often labeled “Hindu nationalists,” they view this stance as defensive, not supremacist. They’re reclaiming agency against centuries of subjugation.
The Nazi Equation
Group 1 has a favorite weapon. Call anyone who rejects invaders a Nazi.
You say Mughal rule was illegitimate conquest? You’re a Hindu nationalist, basically Hitler.
You say British extraction drained India? You’re pushing supremacist ideology.
You question why India should accept unlimited immigration from Pakistan and Bangladesh? Fascist.
The equation is deliberate. It shuts down conversation. Nobody wants to defend positions that get compared to genocide, so legitimate historical grievances get buried under the weight of that comparison.
But here’s what Group 2 actually says. Foreign invaders had no moral justification for their conquests and atrocities. Turks destroyed temples. British drained wealth. These weren’t civilizing missions. They were extraction and subjugation.
That’s not supremacism. That’s refusing to rationalize conquest.
The difference matters. Nazis believed in racial superiority and systematic extermination. Group 2 believes in not justifying people who invaded their land and committed atrocities against their ancestors.
Group 1 conflates the two because the Nazi label discredits without requiring argument.
Merit is Nationalism
Critics call BJP a Hindu supremacist party. The facts say otherwise.
Sridhar Vembu runs Zoho. He’s Christian. The government gave him a ₹1,600 crore contract for email infrastructure. He created Office Suit which is an answer to Microsoft Word. Critics screamed cronyism, then discovered he wasn’t Hindu. The narrative collapsed.
Harish Salve is also Christian. He’s been the government’s top lawyer for years. They offered him Attorney General multiple times. He declined but still handles their most sensitive cases. He argued the Kulbhushan Jadhav case at the International Court of Justice. His fee? One rupee.
Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam was Muslim. BJP made him President of India. Prime Minister Modi paid homage to him today. Kalam wasn’t token diversity. He was competence personified. Missile Man. People’s President. The nation loved him.
Three people. Three different faiths. All chosen for the same reason. They serve India’s interests. The pattern destroys the supremacist claim. If BJP only favored Hindus, these appointments make no sense. But they make perfect sense if competence matters more than religion.
Vembu, Salve, and Kalam aren’t exceptions. They’re the rule. Hindu nationalism, properly understood, means Indian nationalism. It means refusing to apologize for India’s civilization. It means defending borders. It means choosing capability over identity politics.
The critics can’t handle this. They need BJP to be religiously exclusionary because that fits their Nazi equation. Reality keeps contradicting them. So they ignore reality.
Salve argued for Jadhav for one rupee. That’s not religious favoritism. That’s patriotism. Kalam inspired a generation of Indian scientists. That’s not token diversity. That’s merit recognition. Vembu built India’s answer to Microsoft. That’s not cronyism. That’s sovereignty.
Hindu nationalism isn’t about excluding non-Hindus. It’s about including everyone who puts India first. The three examples prove it. Critics assumed discrimination, found excellence instead.
The Article 370 Irony
Here’s where Group 1’s hypocrisy becomes obvious.
Article 370 gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir, India’s only Muslim-majority state. Different rules for one state based on religious demographics. Privileges that other Indian states didn’t get.
This special status mirrors historical oppression systems. The Ottoman Empire prescribed special rules for non-Muslims. Dhimmi status. Different treatment based on religion. Nazis prescribed special rules for Jews. Different treatment based on identity.
In all three cases, special status for one group based on identity. Yet Group 1, who call everyone Nazis, wanted Article 370 maintained.
The logic breaks down completely. They invoke Nazi comparisons to silence opposition, but they support a system that mirrors Nazi methodology. Special rules for specific religious demographics.
When Article 370 got revoked in 2019, making Kashmir subject to the same laws as the rest of India, Group 1 exploded. They called it oppression. But applying uniform citizenship rules across India? That’s not oppression. That’s ending differential treatment based on religious identity.
The pattern reveals itself. Group 1 doesn’t oppose Nazi-style differential treatment. They oppose ending it when it benefits their preferred demographics.
The Contemporary Invasion
Group 1’s problem isn’t just with history. They support invasion in real time. Look at borders.
Democrats in America opened borders. Group 1 in India wants the same. Open borders with Pakistan and Bangladesh. Let populations flow freely. Ignore that the forefathers of these immigrants demanded and got a separate country based on religious identity in 1947.
Hindus who stayed in Pakistan and Bangladesh faced systematic persecution. Their population dropped from 22% to 8% in Bangladesh. From 14.6% to 2% in Pakistan. Forced conversions. Violence. Exodus.
But when those same Hindus/Christians seek refuge in India? Group 1 opposes giving them citizenship.
Meanwhile, they want citizenship for Rohingya. Economic migrants who refuse to integrate, who decline free food from temples and Gurudwaras, who beg on roadsides while avoiding rehabilitation.
The pattern is clear. Group 1 opposes helping persecuted minorities from neighboring Islamic nations but supports citizenship for groups with no historical or cultural connection to India.
This isn’t humanitarianism. It’s demographic strategy dressed as compassion.
The Infiltration Numbers
The data tells the story Group 1 doesn’t want told. India’s Muslim population grew from 9.8% in 1951 to 14.2% in 2011. Some of that is fertility rates, but border states show the infiltration pattern.
Assam reported 2-3 million illegal immigrants. West Bengal’s foreigner crime statistics are highest in the nation. Jharkhand districts show 11-30% infiltrators caught in voter rolls.
The Election Commission’s 2025 cleanup deleted millions. One Bihar constituency had 80,000 Muslims removed from voter lists. One fake address in Pipra had 505 registered voters. Muslim names appeared on Hindu homes in Muzaffarpur.
This isn’t organic demographic change. It’s organized infiltration. And Group 1 calls any attempt to address it “Islamophobic” or compares it to Nazi roundups.
Before and After 2014
Before 2014, Group 1 was subtle about supporting infiltration. They framed it as secularism and minority rights. They protected vote banks quietly.
After 2014, they lost that luxury. The new government started talking openly about demographics, citizenship, and infiltration. Amit Shah’s “detect, delete, deport” policy made it explicit.
Group 1 had to respond, so they got vocal. And in getting vocal, they revealed their position. Jairam Ramesh called Shah’s infiltration warnings “hate speech.” Opposition parties protested Election Commission cleanups as targeting Muslims. Human Rights Watch criticized deportations as unlawful.
The mask came off. Group 1 wasn’t just defending historical invaders. They were defending contemporary invasion. And in doing so, they started losing popular support.
When Popular Support Erodes
With masses rejecting their position, Group 1 changed tactics. Now they challenge the Election Commission itself. They question rules that have existed for decades. The same procedures used in every previous election suddenly become suspect when they expose infiltration.
The 2025 voter roll cleanup used standard verification. Aadhaar cards. Address proof. Documents required for any citizen. These aren’t new rules. They’re the same requirements that existed from time immemorial.
But when these rules deleted millions of fake entries, Group 1 cried foul. They claimed bias. They said the process targeted Muslims. They challenged the Commission’s authority.
This is the tell. When you can’t win on facts, attack the referee. When the rules expose your position, claim the rules are unfair.
The Election Commission didn’t change its procedures. It just enforced them. Group 1’s response reveals they relied on those procedures not being enforced. They built vote banks on fake entries, duplicate registrations, infiltrator names on voter rolls. Enforcement threatens that system, so they challenge enforcement itself.
The Hindu Partition Reality
Here’s the fact Group 1 can’t escape.
Pakistan and Bangladesh were created as Islamic nations. Their founders demanded separation based on religious identity. Muslims couldn’t live with Hindus, they said. They needed their own nations.
Hindus accepted partition. Pakistan and Bangladesh became Islamic republics, but Muslims in India got full constitutional rights. Secularism protected them. They thrived.
Meanwhile, Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh faced the “atrocious policies” that decimated their populations. Forced conversions. Violence. Systematic persecution.
Now those same Islamic nations send immigrants to India. And Group 1 says India must accept them. That opposing infiltration makes you a Nazi.
The logic collapses under basic scrutiny. If Muslims needed separate nations in 1947, why should India accept unlimited Muslim immigration now? If Pakistan and Bangladesh couldn’t protect their Hindu minorities, why should India import populations from failed Islamic states? Group 2 asks these questions. Group 1 calls them fascists for asking.
The Real Distinction
Here’s the bright line Group 1 doesn’t want examined. Rejecting invaders is not the same as invading others. Maintaining borders is not the same as erasing them for conquest. Protecting your population from demographic replacement is not the same as replacing other populations.
Nazis invaded Poland. Group 2 says stop Pakistan and Bangladesh from sending infiltrators to India. Those are opposite positions. One is aggression. The other is defense.
But Group 1 corrupted the narration to make them equivalent. They weaponized the Nazi slur to silence anyone who questions unlimited immigration from Islamic nations.
The slur works in Western academic circles where historical context gets ignored. It fails with Indian masses who remember partition. Who know what happened to Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Who see the infiltration in their own neighborhoods.
The Corrupted Narration
Group 1 created a narration to protect their position.
Anyone who opposes infiltration gets called Hindu nationalist. Hindu nationalist gets equated with Nazi. The conversation ends because nobody defends Nazis. But the equation is false.
Group 2 isn’t proposing genocide. They’re proposing borders. They’re proposing that the people who demanded Pakistan and Bangladesh in 1947 should stay in Pakistan and Bangladesh. They’re proposing that Hindu refugees from Islamic persecution should get citizenship in Hindu-majority India. These positions become “Nazi” only through deliberate narration corruption.
And the final irony? Group 1 supports systems like Article 370 that mirror Ottoman and Nazi methodology. Special status based on religious identity. Differential treatment based on demographics.
They’re not opposed to Nazi-style systems. They’re opposed to ending them when those systems benefit their preferred groups.
The Future Pattern
Group 1 will keep using the Nazi equation. They have no other weapon.
They can’t defend infiltration on its merits. They can’t explain why India should accept unlimited immigration from nations created specifically to separate from India. They can’t justify opposing Hindu refugee citizenship while supporting Rohingya citizenship. They can’t defend Article 370’s differential treatment while invoking Nazi comparisons.
So they call it fascism. They invoke Hitler. They challenge the Election Commission when its rules expose their vote banks. They corrupt the narration. But the masses are done listening. The vocal period after 2014 exposed Group 1’s actual position. Popular support shifted.
That’s why the narration had to get corrupted. When your position can’t survive scrutiny, you make scrutiny itself seem evil. You equate questions with Nazism. You make defense sound like aggression. You challenge institutions when they enforce their own rules.
The corruption is complete. The masses see through it. That’s why Group 1 is losing.