Subscribe to Himal SouthAsia for reading such articles.

Himal Interviews: India’s politics of fear and division

The politician Manoj Jha talks to Harsh Mander about how the moral compass of India’s political class has been destroyed

By The Editors

In June 2025, Himal Southasian launched a podcast series titled Partitions of the Heart in collaboration with Karwan-e-Mohabbat, hosted by the peace activist Harsh Mander. The inaugural season, called ‘Muslim Life – and Death – in Modi’s India’, focuses on the deepening crisis of Muslims in the country. Since 2017, Mander and Karwan-e-Mohabbat have done the extraordinary and difficult work of documenting a rising wave of hate and crimes against India’s Muslims, and of lending support and solidarity to victims of communal atrocities. In Mander’s words, “We live in deeply troubled times of visceral, everyday hate, violence, fear and division. The first step towards healing our growing fractures is to talk and listen to each other.”

This series is part of the effort to bring forward meaningful conversations on the increasing marginalisation and vilification of Muslims in India. In this conversation with Harsh Mander, we hear from Manoj Jha, a politician and member of India’s upper house, the Rajya Sabha. He is the rare politician who has spoken up about the persecution of Muslims in India and their being pushed into being second-class citizens of the country. Jha believes and has written that Muslims are not mere footnotes but co-authors in the story of India. Jha says that the craving for peace that was once the default template of India has been warped into a politics of hate.

Jha attributed many factors to this change. For instance, he says, “the prosperity or the non-prosperity of the middle class, the shift from a public sector to a liberalised economy. The market can sell anything. If it finds that love has few takers, hate has more takers, it will package hate.”

This interview was recorded on 27 May 2025. It has been edited for brevity and clarity.

You can listen to audio versions of this conversation on YouTube, Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

Harsh Mander

I have great pleasure in this session for multiple reasons; Professor Manoj Jha is here. I’ve known Professor Jha for I think some decades now. I looked at him as a very close comrade in terms of values and politics and so on. In his more recent incarnation as a member of India’s parliament, I’d say quite categorically that he is my single sort of favourite public representative that we have in parliament. His articulation of our country’s deepest concerns is honest, brave, eloquent and in this incarnation, we have even more reason to admire and love Manoj Jha.

So I’m really grateful that you’ve joined us. Interestingly, in this entire season where we are trying to reflect on being Muslim in India today, you are the only person that I have included who is of non-Muslim identity. And for many reasons, you’re a representative of the Indian people of every faith, caste, identity, and the constitution itself. So Manoj, there was so much that I want to talk about and I don't know where to start and where to end, but I recently read an article that you wrote in which you spoke about Muslims in India. You said Muslims are not the footnote of the India story. They are co-authors of the India story. I found that exquisite in its articulation and also in the idea behind it. Where do you see: , the idea of India incorporated, the idea of the Muslim being a co-author of the India story. They have been pushed into, not just the margins of the India story, not even to the footnote, but they’re being expelled from the India story in many ways. So, just a reflection on what place was imagined and promised for India’s Muslims in the India story and where have we come.

Manoj Jha

Harsh, thank you very much. When you say I am probably the only non-Muslim in this series of conversations which you are having on behalf of Himal, I feel proud. But at the same time, I also believe it means lots of responsibility. I don’t know, so far, what I have been able to do. Today is the death anniversary of our first prime minister. So normally, either on his birth anniversary or death anniversary, I imagine writing to him. The last one which I wrote, I wrote on behalf of Jawaharlal Nehru to our prime minister, Modiji, what kind of India we should have. Anyway, why I say this, that when I had to write that they are not in the footnotes – they are the real co-authors, of India’s journey or India’s genesis, in fact. I never thought I’d have to write this one day. There lies the problem. We never thought we’d have to.

And that is such a brave thing to say in today’s times.

That worries me not only as a member of parliament or as a university teacher, [but] as a citizen, because I believe we have had scuffles, violence, but I have been repeating it that craving for peace was a default template of this country. Dog-whistle politics was always there, but it was on the margin. We are seeing mainstreaming of dog-whistle politics. I mean, it worries me that a section of our population is aiming at political disenfranchisement, legal disenfranchisement, and social disenfranchisement and the most is psychological. We always had bridges across communities, between two communities or three communities or multiple communities. Bridges are being burnt and it is being celebrated that we have burnt one more bridge.

We have increased the distances by then deepening the chasms between.

Creating distances has become the hallmark of contemporary politics, largely carried by the ruling party, which rules, which governs several states, including centre. And as I said earlier, not only distances are created, they are put on as the badge of honour. ‘We did this today.’ So, if you look at the legislation, if you look at the discourses, it tells you very clearly where Muslims have been relegated and they can’t even complain because their complaint will be given a communal colour. So, it’s a kind of situation [of] ‘you push me to the corner and you can’t even [tell me] why I am put in the corner’.

In my conversations with Indian Muslims, people of Muslim identity across the country, a word I keep hearing is fear. The second word that I hear is a sense of betrayal that ‘was India always like this?’ Were we fooling ourselves or has India changed? You know this is the second question that I hear very often and there isn’t so much rage or anger as anguish, pain that this is our country, this always will be our country, ‘why are we being treated this way?’

Look, fear and anger, generally have been considered negative emotions. What I have seen, and I won’t say only since 2014, I would say post-80s; fear, anger, and resentment, all three negative emotions, have been employed by a political party and its so-called cultural affiliates as a strategy. And when fear and anger start dictating societal discourse, it ultimately harms the body of the nation. And what is the body of the nation? Relationships between people, between communities.

About prejudices, many a times we say that those conversations that were once only spoken in whispers, have now become screams. I mean, they have occupied the central roster of our politics, of our everyday conversation. And as for fear, anger and resentment, if you analyse them for a moment on the basis of evidence, more often than not you will realise that fear was crafted, anger was fictitious and resentment was constructed.

I think absolutely so. It’s fear in the Muslim community and anger and resentment in the majority community which is the politics of the BJP and its affiliates.

Exactly. In Jawaharlal Nehru’s comparison of India to a palimpsest (Discovery of India), he gave an example that one inscription does not erode or eradicate the other inscriptions which were previously written and there is enough space for everything. Now that idea has been broken.

And that it is this layer upon layer that has made us who we are.

Also read: Nehru’s flawed India is still a bulwark against Modi’s Hindu Raj

Yes, layer upon layer has made us who we are. But this layering which was our asset is presented [differently] to a large number of people of this generation by their top leadership and as a result of the actions in the name of cow-protection, one questions: what is one doing? You are killing people merely on the idea that this meat could [make you unholy]. You become the forensic expert at that particular site and the Muslims suffer. They are lynched. Their houses are bulldozed. The rule of law, that is, the idea of human rights – the moment it traverses to the interiors of this country, it acquires a different [meaning]. Now in the mainland of this country, the idea of human rights is based on who you are, and what your surname is. I, as Manoj with the surname Jha, can write about a lot many things, and can also speak about a lot many things, but I cannot imagine my Muslim friends speaking and doing the same. If I speak and if they speak, they'll be penalised. I'll also be abused, but the state will not put me behind the bars.

The most recent example, by chance we’re speaking today, an article of mine has appeared in Scroll about the arrest and criminalisation of Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad. I went through his post over and over again to detect by which stretch can this be called anti-national, seditious or harmful of social harmony. And all I could find was really eloquent, beautiful appeals for peace and social equality. At the end of my piece, I wrote that whatever he has said, actually I have been saying exactly the same, probably with less eloquence than he did. But I have been saying it. In the days after the Pahalgam [attack], I’ve made videos, I’ve given talks, I’ve written pieces on the same lines. I get abused, of course, hugely, all over social media, but I am not going to get arrested for making a call for peace.

A professor of Muslim identity, extremely well-read, well-educated, well-spoken, loved by his students, makes an appeal for peace. He says civilian populations on both sides of the border suffer. Those of us who call for war are the people who never actually... He said things that must be said and he's being criminalised. And even the Supreme Court decides to set up a special investigation team of three senior police officers to detect what could be the meaning behind a call for peace. This is extraordinary. And so, I concluded by saying that the spaces for dissent in our country have gotten very badly narrowed. You know this recent event shows that for Muslims. It’s completely closed. You don’t dare speak. You can’t even call for peace.

Harsh, I remember during our childhood and adolescence, and in my school, there used to be a typical magazine from virulent groups. That has now become the dominant narrative today and has occupied institutions and captured all kinds of processes. But I remember, they would say that Muslims should be made second-class citizens. I never knew what second-class citizenship meant. Now, I am seeing it with my own eyes.

I remember my friends from the Muslim community, their posture sometimes worries me. During important conversations, you would find them silent. You know why? Somehow, they are losing trust even in people like us. They can’t trust anyone. This nation was based on trust. Forget the constitution, forget everything. There was a kind of civilisational understanding of the trust. That trust had no legal contract, emotional contract. That has now been broken. Second, what worries me and which I think not many people challenge, when you spoke about judiciary, I was surprised. I won't say surprised – shocked – that the police investigate the language of a professor. What he meant, I mean it’s crystal clear. If you read it, the message is clear. It is clear what he was talking about.

So, the judge is saying that there is a dog whistle implied, which the judge cannot find.

So, I’ll tell you Harsh, if the employment of a dog whistle was a major concern for my judiciary, they should have started from the top. Their one speech cannot be without a dog whistle. It so happened, yesterday, the honourable prime minister was speaking in Gujarat. There he said, conveying to Pakistan, ‘Roti khao, maje mein raho. Nahin to meri goli hai hi.’ (Eat rotis, have fun. If not, there are always my bullets) . This ‘meri goli’. After Pahalgam, there was a massive unity in grief. And that massive unity spoke through the language of ‘hum’ (we). What do you do? Just with one speech, you decimated that idea of togetherness, collective grief, and you become a messiah. And you say, ‘I’. Now, this is a blatant dog whistle. It undermines the army’s position. It undermines so many values you cherish.

It undermines Hindu-Muslim unity.

And recently, I have also written, ‘nation is equal to government is never the case’. If I love my nation, which all of us do, my love for my nation shall make me indicate the ugly features of the government so that it is corrected and my nation looks as vibrant as...

I love my country so much. That is why I criticise the government.

Now what has happened? ‘Nation is equal to government is equal to prime minister’.

You have left out one, a nation is equal to a particular religion.

Yes, a nation is equal to a particular religion, and then is equal to the prime minister or the government, whatever be the case. And they don’t even realise, whichever nation in history has propagated this kind of understanding, the people of those countries have suffered, and suffered enormously. We are on the same trajectory by alienating a huge section of our population by discarding important questions with regard to equality, freedom, justice, this dog-whistle appeal makes you craft your own kind of citizen.

Also read: The Ram Mandir is the tombstone for India as Southasia’s great secular exception

I want to talk firstly about what the state has become and then what we as a people have become. The state, I see cruelty. It's just incredible. The most recent example as we speak is your missiles are flying off to Pakistan and the same day and night, you're collecting Rohingya people from their slums, you put them into a detention centre, they don't know what's happening with them, you put them on a plane, you land up in Port Blair, you tie their blindfolds, tie their hands, put them on a naval ship, and you take them into the sea and then you drop them with a lifeboat. This is a state doing this. This is something that you would imagine some pirates or some criminals doing. This is the state doing. And it's just sheer luck that they reached a part of Myanmar which was not under the control of the military, so they're still alive. Otherwise, we had just left them to die. I mean, this state policy, in a different way, the bulldozer is again an example of the same. I call it lawless cruelty as state policy. The bulldozer again is an example of [how] it’s completely lawless, it’s unconstitutional, but it’s official state policy and the entire civil service of which I have been also a part is implementing it. So, this transformation of the state into ‘the Indian Muslim is now like a declared enemy and no law then applies in this war’ and it is how they are operating. What does this say about [the state]?

This may not be a very likeable proposition, but I believe as a people, we always had the tendency to look for authoritarian leaders. During the Emergency, I remember I was an eight-year-old child, but people were very happy that the trains were running on time. I mean, if that were to be the evaluation of the former regime, and probably our current prime minister has learnt much more from Indiraji’s Emergency than Jawaharlal Nehru’s 15 years or so [as prime minister]. He could understand that there is a possibility of selling those ideas which appeal to the animal instinct and he has done it with perfection. RSS was doing it at a subterranean level for very long.

Now it’s official.

Our consistent position on refugees was admired by even those nations who were not in our close proximate corridors. But our position on refugees, what have we done? Rohingya, it has become part of the conversation of my home minister. If he has to attack Muslims, he’ll use Rohingyas and Bangladeshis. We don’t realise how much we have ruined our relationship in the neighbourhood.

I didn’t want to comment on this section. We as a state, our foreign policy, our important people failed to understand the developments in Bangladesh. We have ruined it. We have ruined it in Nepal, so many others. What I mean is that the state has realised that lawlessness also is seen by a good section as a good law.

I do believe that some people say that the whole problem in India is because we’’e elected somebody like Mr Modi or in America it’s because we’ve elected somebody like Mr Trump. I think that if there wasn’t a Modi, we’d have invented one or many. It’s that more and more people around the world are choosing leaders who are teaching us to hate. So, the problem is not up there, it's among us. Nazi Germany I studied very closely and I realised that the horror of Nazi Germany was not Hitler at all, it was ordinary people. So, this is where I wanted to take our conversation now. I feel that there is a daily poison that we are being subjected to. I mean, our mobile phone has become a way to get our daily hate fix. I wake up in the morning, I see my phone, I get my hate fix. When I have free time and look at it again, I see something else. This hate has become so much part of our social life. We’re seeing a huge radicalisation of the Hindu heart and mind and one has to call it as much. There is very little radicalisation of Indian Muslims. There is huge [Hindu] radicalisation that is unfolding as I see it.

So, I believe that more often than not, we look at an individual and forget the social processes which are generated. Hitler could come only post the first world war. It generated a kind of traction for somebody like Hitler to be fitted in that.

[In India] post-1980s, look many factors work: a kind of economic situation, prosperity or the non-prosperity of the middle class, then shift from a public sector to a liberalised economy, the market can sell anything. If it finds that love has few takers, hate has more takers, it will package hate. That’s what is happening. In that context, I remember there was a letter written by Rahi Masoom Raza to Kamleshwar. There was a short-lived magazine, Ganga. I remember he wrote a letter saying, ‘Yaar Kamleshwar, ye mausam badalne ka naam kyun nahi le raha?’ (Friend Kamaleshwar, why is the weather showing no signs of changing?) He was referring to hate. I’m talking about ’86 to ’87 or ’87 to ’88. I could see the drift.

Now, the drift which appeared is a tectonic shift. And that’s why I believe that many people who believe in electoral defeat of the regime, I’m not concerned. I have said this in parliament, outside, that arithmetic can defeat this regime. But the metrics have been changed. And I’m seeing a large number of supposedly secular democratic parties choose to remain silent when it involves Muslims.

This tectonic shift has generated so much of a gap. I don’t see any kind of a resolution in the immediate future, resolving this kind of a crisis. It’s a crisis for us as a nation-state. It’s a crisis for us as India, we always admiringly look up to the idea of India and now that idea is broken. And it was an idea made of, as they say, fine crockery material. So, once it is broken, you cannot quickly fix it.

You happen to be the only politician in our entire [podcast] series. So, I want to place a major sort of burden on your shoulders, which I feel your class has completely failed the nation with. I agree very strongly that simply a change of government is not a solution to the problem. Yet, you know the experience in Karnataka, friends there tell me it was so oppressive. The day the Congress government came to power, they said suddenly we started breathing. I mean both minorities and so it gives you the space to fight the battles that we haven’t fought well enough so far. But the silence of the Congress party significantly I feel, when Muslims are lynched, when this whole bulldozers [business], persecution et cetera. They seem to be very careful about talking about everything else except Muslims. And I have spoken with them at the highest level. I keep telling them that history will judge you very harshly because it’s like living through Nazi Germany and speaking about everything else except the Jews. Imagine then. And that’s what they’re trying to do today.

That moral courage is missing in your entire political class with a few exceptions. And this is of relatively recent origin. After this whole dispute on Sambal, I looked at the 1991 debates in parliament about the law which said that you cannot change the [religious] character of a place of worship. It was beautiful reading. I found, in parliament, the defence and the celebration of the idea of secularism by speaker after speaker of non-BJP parties was completely, there was no defensiveness as there should not be. What has happened between 1991 and now that people are not willing to stand up proudly for the idea of our India’s secularism. India’s secularism meant equal respect for every faith including the absence of faith. We are proud of equal rights for people of every faith; it’s an equal protection. Why has the political class already given up on this battle?

I agree with you 100 percent. Again I would say, the political class has also purchased a large amount of fear which is generating in the society. Fear, sense of losing, that we are losing ground. And I would say that very few political leaders would call it an issue because somebody’s home has been bulldozed, destroyed, they would take recourse to the word minorities. You stop short of calling it Muslims.

Pressed to the wall they will use the small ‘m’, but not the capital ‘M’.

It does not reflect anything, but your own sense of inadequacy, what is fundamentally wrong in you. And I have been saying this, that a political party’s job is not simply to contest an election.

Its main job is between elections.

Between two elections what have you done?

Now, things were bad even during Partition, but I believe that the leadership and the ideological connect of that leadership to the idea of India, they had differences as before the conversation started. We all know that Gandhi was not a God. Gandhi had his own failings. Nehru had his own weaknesses. Ambedkar also had his kind of inadequacies. They were ordinary people with extraordinary dreams. Now, the current political class has succumbed to it.

Extraordinary dreams and a very strong moral compass.

A very strong moral compass. The moral compass is destroyed. Or I would say morality has been redefined. What you were saying [in] the case of Germany, that if you see Hannah Arendt’s book Eichmann in Jerusalem, ordinary men and women, those who are not in politics, have been brought to this idea.

That is true. But I was saying that apart from the failure of the moral conscience, I also feel it is a huge insult to the Hindu community. Because what you are saying when you adopt Hindutva as the only way of political success, what you’re actually saying is that every Hindu has already got radicalised. So, they will be angry if I say I’m adhering to the constitution, Muslims should also have equal rights, et cetera. I think that assumption that Hindus are going to reject you if you stand for constitutional secularism, I think is also an insult to Hindus.

For that day, all political parties, all of us have to work hard. Look, I have been saying this, that holding a book of constitution in one hand is an important act of resistance. But that’s not enough. You have to vernacularise it into the people.

And live it.

It has to be a lived reality.

But ordinary Indians, Manoj, I think keep living it. What happened after the Pahalgam terror, I mean – the way the Kashmiri people came out, they took the tourists who were terrified into their homes, they stood on the highways.

What worried me after Pahalgam, celebrities launched hashtags, ‘Kashmir Humara’ (Kashmir is ours). Why couldn’t they say ‘Kashmiri bhi humarein hai’(Kashmiris are also ours)? I mean, this love for the land, not for the people.

This Hindutva business is also about not talking about caste-based non-representation, discrimination. And I’m glad even Congress has started speaking about these issues. Earlier it used to be only the regional parties like us or the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam.

But with the Congress also, it is strategic.

It is not organic. That’s why I said, when I say movement like a structure, a movement not a superimposed movement, a movement with your own people. That’s why even on this Waqf issue, I personally feel that more than the Muslims, Hindus have to fight this battle. It’s a brazen defiance of the constitution.

You made that statement and I really liked it because it’s being seen as a particularly religious issue [with] Muslims. What do the rest of us have to do with it?

To tell you very precisely It is a straight struggle between injustice and justice, discrimination and justice.

The battle of the hearts and minds is what is [at stake] and we haven’t done enough, not just the secular political parties, so-called secular political parties, but we in society who subscribe to a left progressive position, we have not worked among the people.

No, as far as your case and I can actually think of 100 people all over India, you all have been working on these issues, not when there has been such a huge paradigm shift. Even before you could, when you saw that it was coming, you tried to alert. In fact, I remember many occasions when we had this conversation. But I believe that one important movement is ongoing which has its separate movements. They are strong in their own niche. Like the Dalit movement, farmers’ movement, agricultural labourers’ movement, trade union, whatever is left of the trade union of the old days. I think the missing part is the solidarity network. Movements have become a kind of island.

An issue-based island.

And issue-based island, and it has to be broken.

You were saying that at one stage you were thinking of working on a project before you got deep into your political role on the changing depiction of Muslims in Indian cinema. So, I thought you know because if the battle is of hearts and minds, cinema is a very important part [in India] more than anywhere else in the world. It’s so much part of our consciousness. So, what has changed in the depiction of India's Muslims in our cinema, popular cinema and what does it indicate?

My own work was published – Representation of Muslims in Indian Cinema – that was at MA dissertation or MPhil dissertation level. Recently there is a book by Nadira Khatun, Post-colonial Bollywood and Muslim identity. That’s much more detailed work. But what I saw, look, the phase we call the Nehruvian phase. Even if we were poor and were struggling on so many fronts, there was a kind of idealism which you referred to when you spoke about Gandhi and Nehru. So that idealism – where a Muslim would be shown as somebody who will take the bullet on his chest in order to save it – we probably needed those kinds of cinema in that time.

You always had a Rahim chacha (uncle).

That continued almost till Sholay when you see A K Hangal as Rahim chacha. Till the 70s, after azaan, cinematographically speaking, you would find a welcome scene. Two separated people are meeting, whether it be a boy or a girl or two friends. But post-90s, with azaan, you will come across bomb blasts. So, what happens, something as pious and pure as azaan, you have given it a dog-whistle meaning. Can anybody think of making Garam Hawa or Salim Langde Pe Mat Ro? We can’t. Because as I said, the tectonic shift, and it has a huge impact. Now Bollywood is also controlled by the global movement of capital. And as I said, the nature of capital is that if love sells, they’ll sell love. But if these are the times when love is not getting any traction, they’ll sell hate, demonisation, or othering. In fact, Bollywood has completed this regime’s project of demonisation of Muslims by their signature.

Also read: Fifty years on, Sholay’s triumphs and flaws echo through Hindi cinema and Indian society

So, you want to erase the Muslim. Either you demonise the Muslim or you erase their presence.

There is a third thing before I talk about erasure, invisibilising. That’s happening.

As a teacher, what changes do you see? One part is the changing of history and the whole implication of this complete – it’s as if the thousand years where we had Muslim rulers didn’t exist.

But also, the freedom struggle, what it stood for, why was Gandhiji assassinated, what the role of organizations like the RSS were in the freedom struggle. All of that has gotten lost. We are building a completely new history. But I also feel that something, as a teacher, the same questions of a good life, a good society, all of that is also tending to get lost. I have a friend called Rohit Kumar who does workshops in different elite schools. He told me that he had this experience, I think, a year ago, where he showed Attenborough’s film Gandhi. In every school that he showed it, there was loud clapping and cheering when Gandhi was assassinated. Now, these are class 10, class 11 kids from elite backgrounds who are learning something very different. So, I just wanted to say as a teacher, how do you look at the intervention of hearts and minds that this time calls for?

I know I am in conversation with you. I should end with optimism. But my heart is not supporting me. What you said about Rohit’s experience, even before the making of this regime, once in my university, I had done a deep survey about what kind of leadership we should have, and I have given them some options. Most of the people said India needs army rule or army type rule for 10-12 years, and it’s before 2014. So, there was something changing, there was a churning taking place.

I’ve even heard where they had to choose the hero and Gandhiji just won a little bit over Hitler. I mean, like one or two, and that was also before 2014.

Yeah. And second, Look, there was this MP from Bhopal. For her, Nathuram Godse was the patriot. And you know, there was not much of a noise about it. Some of us reacted. And I found that the ones who reacted against this horrifying posture were much less in number than the ones who celebrated this statement. Except for one or two members of parliament, just see how many times the word secular comes now. It has disappeared.

It has disappeared. You are defensive about even saying it. You are defensive about Muslims.

In fact, Rahul Gandhi in Cambridge, he was asked, is there a problem with India’s Muslims? So, he said, yes, there is a problem with SC, ST, OBC and minorities. This unwillingness to even call out the Muslims.

We need to say ‘Muslim’ because even if we are numerically weak, at least Muslim community gets a sense that their loneliness is also shared by people.

My work is very limited in scale but I do find, and I’m sure you find it, that the solace of just an acknowledgement is so important which our leaders are not willing to give.

But the country will pay a heavy price for it. You know why? Because I dug up history. I never see a country whose even two percent population is alienated that has done well. Here is a question about a huge section of your population.

200 million people.

Yeah. And they are intrinsic to your persona.

Where do you see hope? I mean, there has to be hope. If there is, if we are to search for hope in these times, where would you find it? Let me propose something to you. Am I being romantic when I think that large sections of working-class Indians are still living the idea of India? Is that your experience?

They are living at two levels. One, they have not, I would say, completely dissociated from that idea of India. But they have another idea which has been, as you said, which has been given. And that idea, which is ugly, obscene, detrimental to the health of the nation.

And false.

And false. The young people of this country, someday, and that day could be soon, maybe not so soon, they’ll take up the causes. They’ll repair. Maybe I’m not there to see that.

That's wonderful. I think that people of my generation, your generation, we have failed our young people in the end. We’ve not fought hard enough for a country that is equal and just and kind. I think young people are slowly recognising that and they'll have to fight their own battle. They’ll have to lead us.

In fact, to tell you, we love this country. But why do we love this country and why does this country need to be loved? We couldn’t communicate it to the next generation.

And what we love about this country. So, our hope lies in young people.

Search This Blog

Habib Siddiqui

Himal Interviews: India’s politics of fear and division

Himal Interviews: India’s politics of fear and division

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

New Trend clip

https://www.aljazeera.com/video/by-the-numbers-3/2025/11/1/why-africa-has-become-a-hotspot-for-war

Gaza bound Flotilla