No other country of Bharat’s size faces the kind of threats to its sovereignty, civilizational identity and territorial integrity that it does. And when we talk of the Hindu population of the entire Bharatiya sub-continent, the situation is extremely dire. There are three main external threats to Bharat and Hindus, and each of these are supported by internal fifth columnists and collaborators.

Let’s look at these threats, one by one:

Pakistan

Pakistan is a country carved out of Bharat at the time of independence from the British. The idea of Pakistan is rooted in the two-nation theory, which postulates that Muslims of the subcontinent constitute a separate nation, with different culture, heritage, and values. Adherents of this theory believe that medieval Muslim rule in large pockets of Bharat was a ‘golden age’ which brought cultural refinement, civilization, order and a ‘true’ religion to a hitherto ‘backward’ region. Hence, it is no surprise that Pakistani identity is soaked in the idea of Islamic supremacy and accompanying hatred and contempt for Hindus.

The Pakistan movement was inspired by the idea of establishing a new Medina, in imitation of Mohammed’s tactical migration from Mecca to Medina during the initial days of Islam. After the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate, subcontinental Muslims were aggrieved over the vacuum in the Muslim world (cue ‘Khilafat’ movement). So the idea was that Pakistan should emerge as a new center of global Islam, to which Muslims from all over the sub-continent should migrate. And once this new center was established, the Muslim ummah would again rise to its former glory. Ghazwa-e-Hind – a prophecy in Islamic scripture predicting a reconquest by Muslims of the entire sub-continent – is an article of faith for many Pakistanis.

Moreover, ever since the 1971 war in which Bharat intervened to stop a genocide that claimed 3 million Bengalis (2.4 million of whom were Hindus) and which led to East Pakistan separating to become the new nation of Bangladesh, Pakistani state and especially its Army are itching for payback. So the already anti-Bharat strategic culture of the Pakistani Army, which views itself as a Muslim Army in perennial conflict with Hindu-majority Bharat, was further deepened and new elements of war like the use of non-state actors to fuel terrorism were introduced.

Today, Pakistan aids and abets terror all over Bharat, particularly in J&K and Punjab, but no part of the country is free of groups and sleeper cells controlled by Pakistan’s ISI.

Pakistan has penetrated Bharat’s intelligentsia and public discourse through Lutyens’ influencers like Mani Shankar Aiyer, Ghulam Nabi Fai type US lobbyists, the assi-tussi/Punjabiyat/Kashmiriyat ‘Aman ki Asha’ rhetoric (i.e. we are the ‘same people’ separated by an arbitrary border theory), and Islamic religious groups in both countries that share similar fundamentalist doctrines: Jamaat-e-Islami, Dawat-e-Islami, Tablighi Jamaat, Deoband etc.

When you talk of Pakistan, you must automatically add the Turkey-Qatar-Pakistan-Malaysia axis. And notwithstanding Sheikh Hasina’s current posturing, trends indicate that Bangladesh will also eventually fall in line with this anti-Bharat block. The Bangladeshi state’s actions towards its Hindu and other minorities are already as fanatical and genocidal as seen anywhere else in the Muslim world.

China

China covets our territory in Ladakh, Sikkim, and the whole of Arunachal Pradesh (especially Tawang). It’s contention is that it does not agree with the borders marked by the British, but it has exaggerated claims beyond that too. It’s vision of itself as the ‘Middle Kingdom’ i.e. as the centre of civilization and the world – not that different from the Euro-centric view of the West – fuels its revanchism. China also has a well-established history of going back on its word, and using negotiations as a diversionary tactic.

It promotes Maoist terror groups in the North East and Naxal belt of Bharat. It has a growing network of spies, poses a serious cybersecurity threat, and enjoys ideological affinity with Bharat’s communist parties and leftist intelligentsia. As it learns the art of influence peddling through various state and non-state means, its pernicious influence in our media and public discourse will only grow.

USA-led West

The USA-led West can be categorized into 2 tiers. Tier 1: Anglosphere i.e. USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Tier 2: The rest of the West, i.e. Italy, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Scandinavia. The threat posed to Bharat from the Tier 1 nations is greater than that posed by Tier 2, because of the English link and because of America’s pre-eminent position in the world. But some sporadic assertions of European sovereignty aside, the Tier 2 block also mostly takes its cues on foreign affairs from Tier 1.

Most of these nations have a blood-soaked colonial past and are proponents of a new-age colonialism which is a mix of territorial colonialism (‘overseas territories’, military outposts, regime change wars/plots) and a more insidious colonialism of ideas, of Western Universalism.

The West pursues its old colonial goal of ‘civilizing’ others through a new two-pronged approach: aggressive promotion of Christian evangelism (often in guise of social justice, human rights etc) & Western individualism/liberalism through academia, NGOs and pop culture.

The Anglosphere has a deep partnership with Pakistan, and this has been clear from the time of partition with how UK quietly abetted the Pakistani invasion and grabbing of PoJK. UK passed the baton on to US which today lists Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally. The Anglosphere sees Pakistan as a key partner in a strategic part of the world, and also as a nation which can be used to keep Bharat in check. Despite realization in recent years that Pakistan is playing a double-game and surreptitiously aiding Islamists against the West, the Western deep state overlooks this in pursuit of their larger goals. Despite 9/11, they are confident they can once again ride the Islamist tiger following their pull-out from Iraq and Afghanistan.

While most Bharatiyas have a basic grasp of the threat from Islamism and Maoism as they see the violence perpetrated by these movements, they are not aware of the more insidious threat the West poses. Christian evangelism has taken on a more naked, aggressive form since the mid 90s when the Joshua Project was launched in USA within the former AD2000 and Beyond Movement. It is not a coincidence that the US federal commission USCIRF was formed in 1998 to provide cover for evangelists in guise of ‘international religious freedom’.

The mass conversions that happened in the North East from late 19th century onwards during British Raj, are now being repeated in states like AP, Punjab, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand etc. Increasingly, we are seeing signs of missionary penetration in the Hindi-speaking states too. The new breed of missionaries is more savvy, adaptive, ruthless and has learnt to game the system and laws. Where evangelism grows, separatist calls grow.

The Anglosphere also harbors the major separatist forces operating in Bharat today – Kashmiri Muslim extremists and Khalistanis. Other ideological #BreakingIndia forces are centered in the West, particularly in US/UK academic and activist circles. Theories around social justice and human rights and new-age wokeism are being used to attack & demonize Hindu society and create or deepen fault-lines. It is a gradual, layered assault on several fronts, often cloaked as compassion, so doesn’t evoke the same resistance as more direct anti-Hindu and anti-Bharat activity like Islamic terrorism.

Bharat’s response

We need to build a national consensus that all three of these external entities constitute a clear danger, in their own unique ways, to Bharat’s sovereignty, security, territorial integrity and civilizational/cultural heritage.

Dealing with Pakistan is the simplest, but we have faltered even there despite some positive developments since 2014. A complete break of ties with Pakistan after declaring it a terrorist state, and a legally mandated freeze on relations at all levels (diplomatic, cultural, sporting, economic) with clear expectations of what Pakistan needs to do before we consider relations of any sort is the way to go. Currently, the Pakistan Army believes it can fool us with periodic offers of talks, ceasefire etc, while all the time bleeding us through terrorist non-state actors and continuing its brutal persecution of Hindu and other minorities. A recent “peace proposal” as part of Pakistan’s new national security policy is a classic example of how such psy-ops find takers amongst sections of our disconnected elite.

So a clean break with Pakistan and calling it what we expect the rest of the world to call it – a terrorist nation – will send a clear message to the world and also to the Pakophiles within. Any pro-Pakistan propaganda must be outlawed and invite swift action from the Bharatiya state.

With China, we must continue to follow the current path – keep improving border infrastructure and military preparedness, keep Chinese firms away from crucial sectors, and be open to talks while being mindful of Chinese ‘Art of War’ tactics of striking when the enemy’s guard is down. If China wants war, we should be ready for it.

Dealing with the West is the trickiest part. They have embedded themselves so deeply in the psyche of the Indian elite that freeing ourselves from their mental shackles will require careful surgery. Meaningful judicial and bureaucratic reforms to decolonize these institutions and make them representative of a fully sovereign Bharat are a must.

Also, Western evangelism just cannot be allowed. The slight tightening of FCRA regulations and enforcement of improved anti-conversion laws in few states are steps in the right direction. But much more needs to be done. By the end of this decade, we must put an end to Western-funded FCRA NGOs and evangelism completely.

Resolute, clear-headed diplomacy and targeted sanctions/visa denial must be pursued against Western individuals and organizations who are working towards the #BreakingIndia goal – for eg. US Congresspersons and UK Parliamentarians who lobby for Pakistan or anti-Bharat separatists, academics like Audrey Truschke, ‘philanthropist’ George Soros, arms manufacturers who supply equipment to Pakistan, Christian evangelical groups like Pentecostals/Southern Baptists, USCIRF officials, American corporations that promote anti-Bharat propaganda etc.

Our relation with the West should be transactional and based on the concept of reciprocity, unless we see a verifiable change in their behavior to a relation based on mutual respect. But we must be realistic – the Anglosphere will not severe its alliance with Pakistan, and the West will not stop promoting Christian evangelism, for the foreseeable future. Expect a strained, tetchy relation at the best of times.

Conclusion

This does not mean we view everyone in the West, or even Pakistan and China for that matter, as enemies. There will always be individuals, groups and even governments, that we can work with in the spirit of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’. The world indeed is one family, but only if all nations that comprise this family work harmoniously, transparently and in the spirit of mutual respect and collective human progress.

Once we have clarity in our goals and demonstrate the national will to stand up for what we believe in, we might well see a fundamental change in how these external entities view us.

Finally, the question: so who are our friends? There are many nations with which Bharat has overlapping interests and a history of trust and co-operation. We must nurture and nourish our relations with countries like Russia, Japan, Israel, Korea, Thailand, Myanmar, Nepal, Vietnam, Indonesia, Brazil, Kenya, South Africa etc. France is another nation, that despite being part of the West and having it own colonial past, has been a relatively dependable partner for Bharat. It is also arguably the only Western power that has truly realized the threat Islamism poses, and is doing something about it. Our interests with Greece also overlap vis-a-vis the threat from Turkey.

Of course, there is always the standard caveat: in politics, including international politics, there are no permanent friends or enemies. So all dealings must factor in context, realpolitik and trade-offs. Ultimately, what matters is keeping our national goals paramount, combined with the desire for a truly multi-polar international order based on mutual respect and harmony.