Latest news with #PakistaniMuslim
News18
17 hours ago
- Politics
- News18
‘South Asian' A Term Coined To Bury Pakistanis' Crimes & Indians' Feats
Last Updated: If one wanted to be historically accurate, Indian subcontinent is a more precise term because almost all of it was once part of undivided India that was broken violently into parts Whether one should call the Indian subcontinent 'South Asia' is a debate that keeps getting regurgitated. There have been two latest triggers. First is the coverage of the sordid Pakistani gang-rape saga in which Leftist mainstream media in the West has repeatedly referred to these grooming gangs as 'Asian', in spite of the fact that these groups almost entirely comprise Pakistani Muslim men. It is as if by hiding their real identity, these newspapers and channels are shielding these monsters' sentiments from getting hurt. Whether you call a group of men 'Asian" or 'South Asian", you are erasing the national heritage with an obvious political motive. You are also intentionally hiding the truth. That is what led to the wokism getting the bad rap that it did. Deservedly so. — Anurag Mairal (@mairal) June 17, 2025 Second was a post by Neal Katyal, US Supreme Court lawyer who calls himself an 'extremist centrist". He posted approvingly about Meenakshi Ahamed's book titled Indian Genius: The Meteoric Rise of Indians in America. But guess what? He said the book was about the 'success of the South Asian diaspora". Amused netizens immediately started asking Katyal where he found the reference to 'South Asia', when Ahamed's book is clearly and specifically titled Indian Genius? They asked why this attempt to dilute and nullify the Indian identity? If one wanted to be historically accurate, Indian subcontinent is a more precise term because almost all of it was once part of undivided India, broken violently into parts as a direct aftermath of the British divide-and-rule policy. It was as if the brown, Indian-origin Neal Katyal was enthusiastically furthering the colonial project. In case of the Pakistani rape gangs, by calling a group of men 'Asian" or 'South Asian", one is erasing the national heritage with an obvious political motive and intentionally hiding the truth, people pointed out. I'm sick and tired of hearing the expression 'South Asian" in relation to the ethnicity of the Pakistani Muslim gang rapists of young, vulnerable, white British girls. Asia has over 60% of the world's population. Pakistan, has around 3%. They should not be homogenised. — Chris Davies 🏴 🇬🇧 🇺🇸🟣 (@justchrisdavies) January 15, 2024 Different writers have held up different motives and aspects of the 'South Asia' descriptor. Samyak Dixit, for instance, writes in The Emissary: It's a small insight into how western academia builds consensus over topics and terminology, till the point where you as the subject of categorization are now being described using a term that you've never heard of before. The emotionless nature of the term itself (described by Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal as 'politically neutral", which is a phrase worth exploring in itself), seeking to pull out any possible emotion or sentiment (that usually accompanies history) from the description of a region, also displays the American Regime's impulse towards sterility. This, of course, is an obvious extension of the impulse that renames blind people as 'visually impaired", or civilian casualties during war as 'collateral damage", or one that measures strontium radiation levels after a nuclear fallout in 'sunshine units". Like most Americanisms, 'South Asia" is cold, sterile, and designed to be so. The imposition of the term 'South Asia' received the maximum pushback from Indian-origin Americans who took on Western 'Indologists' who propagandised it without having any relationship with India and the subcontinent beyond an academic one. 'South Asia' seeks to describe the land mass that has historically been known in English as the 'Indian subcontinent', usurping 'Jambudvipa' and 'Bharatam' in Sanskrit, and 'Barr-e-Saghir' in Urdu. Venu Gopal Narayanan argues in Swarajya that from an ideological standpoint, it is so much easier to ensnare a pliant young mind if the old links are broken first. 'The forced popularisation of 'South Asia' over all other toponyms, including 'Bharata', was, thus, a key tool in breaking links with the past. Someone somewhere astutely understood that peddling atheism alone wasn't enough in the East, where a non-Abrahamic existence drew moral, spiritual and cultural sustenance as much from its history and geography as it did from a deity," he writes. 'East of Arabia, religion isn't the only opium of the masses; a civilizational ethos and a sacred geography too, join the list. And what better way to change that than by going to the root and changing the descriptor itself?" Indic entrepreneur, publisher, and author Sankrant Sanu had done a Google Ngram search across many scanned books and journals tracing the use of the term 'South Asia'. Squarely blaming CIA for this, he writes in his piece, 'How South Asian is a racist trope of cultural erasure': So, South Asia as a term is negligible till the 1940s, and really starts to be used in the late 1950s and 1960s. This is when the CIA is setting up 'South Asia Studies' departments in US universities. The premise of 'South Asia' is that India was never a nation or civilisation and is simply composed of different 'sub-nationalities' to be grouped together. This is, of course, ahistoric. Even in the Western consciousness, India has been a far more prominent term than 'South Asia'. Shadowy anti-India interest groups took over the cause. In 2015, the South Asia Faculty Group in California brazenly sent letters to the California Department of Education arguing for several changes in the curriculum. It demanded 'most references to India before 1947 be changed to South Asia" and also asked references to Hinduism to be changed to 'religion of ancient India". Thirty-six of these edits had to do with simply eliminating the words 'India' or 'Hinduism' from the curriculum. These diabolical changes would have sneaked into the syllabus, as the California education department was quite amenable. But a massive Hindu backlash began. The Hindu American Foundation collected more than 25,000 signatures of professors, scholars, students and parents under the 'Don't Erase India campaign. It forced the Instructional Quality Commission to retain the word India in every instance with the curriculum framework. While the old civilisation triumphed on that occasion, it underlined how one has to be constantly vigilant against attempts at its erasure by the Left and Islamists. Because words can sometimes inflict much deeper damage than ballistic weapons. Abhijit Majumder is a senior journalist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. tags : Indian subcontinent pakistan south asia United states Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 21, 2025, 11:08 IST News opinion Opinion | 'South Asian' A Term Coined To Bury Pakistanis' Crimes & Indians' Feats
Fox News
3 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
New York City mayoral candidate finds it 'remarkable' DHS agents who arrested him were both immigrants
New York City comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander said on Tuesday that it was "remarkable" to him that some of the officers who arrested him outside an immigration court were themselves immigrants. Video footage of Lander's arrest appeared to show him hanging onto Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents as they escorted a defendant out of immigration court at 26 Federal Plaza, repeatedly asking officials if they had a judicial warrant. "I will let go when you show me the judicial warrant," Lander said in the video. "Where is it? Where is the warrant?" Lander described how "angry" and "sad" he was at the experience on MSNBC's "All In with Chris Hayes," pointing out what he seemed to consider an irony that some of the arresting officers were immigrant New Yorkers. "I got to say about who two of the agents were, because this was kind of remarkable in itself," Lander said. "The arresting officer is a Pakistani Muslim who lives in Brighton Beach, and the second officer is an Indo-Guyanese immigrant who lives in South Ozone Park in Queens. Both immigrants." He added, "Immigrant New Yorkers, whoever they are, have a lot of the same issues. And some of that is affordable housing. And some of that is knowing that Donald Trump is coming for New York City. And we need elected officials who will stand up." Hayes asked what it said to him that the arresting officers were both immigrants defending an ICE operation. "It says to me that what Trump is trying to do is to drive a wedge into our country," Lander answered. Lander was released after being detained for a few hours. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said in a press conference after his release that the charges against Lander were dropped. In response to the incident, a DHS spokesperson said, "Our heroic ICE law enforcement officers face a 413% increase in assaults against them—it is wrong that politicians seeking higher office undermine law enforcement safety to get a viral moment." "No one is above the law, and if you lay a hand on a law enforcement officer, you will face consequences," the spokesperson said.
Spectator
4 days ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Why liberals ignored the grooming gang scandal
For many years, liberals refused to talk about the grooming gangs scandal. The systematic sexual abuse and rape of hundreds, possibly thousands, of vulnerable children by offenders from ethnic minorities was a story that too many people were happy to ignore. There was an effective prohibition on discussing it in left and liberal circles. Grooming gangs was a subject guaranteed to silence a dinner party. So, we decided to pretend that it wasn't happening. Finally, the so-called great and the good have woken up to a scandal that was happening in plain sight Finally, the so-called great and the good have woken up to a scandal that was happening in plain sight in towns and cities across Britain. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister Keir Starmer accused those calling for an inquiry into grooming gangs of jumping on a 'bandwagon of the far-right'. Now, his government is promising a national inquiry. It's about time. The damage is done, of course: victims' lives have been ruined. And while some offenders were brought to justice, many weren't. Those in positions of authority who should have stopped the abuse did not do so. Too many of those people are still in their jobs. Too many have retired to enjoy their public sector pensions, having utterly failed the most vulnerable people in society. I can't excuse the refusal to listen up to the victims, but I think I can explain what happened. The truth is that too many liberals like me are guided by an instinct to protect ethnic minority communities from being targeted. That, in itself, is not a bad thing. We feared that, if a certain group of people was blamed for the abuse, then that group could become the victims of racial hatred, perhaps even violence. The thinking was this: 'I don't want blood on my hands, let's close this conversation down, now.' But what is clear to see now is that the desire to keep people safe meant that we became blind to the evils carried out by a small minority of people from the Pakistani Muslim community. In our desire to avoid offence, and keep people safe from violence, liberals turned a blind eye to an industrial scandal. Call it 'woke', call it what you like, but the essence of this mode of thinking that was too common among liberals was that white people are the oppressors, while ethnic minorities are the victims. This lens through which people viewed the world removed class and even economic inequality pretty much entirely from the mix; it allowed upper-middle class people to feel good about themselves, while not having to worry about the poor any longer. This is relevant to the grooming gangs scandal since, by this ideological framework, ethnic minority men were perceived as victims, when they weren't. And young white girls were viewed, absurdly, as the oppressors. The fact that these children – and, remember, that many of them were children – were utterly powerless was of no consequence to the people that mattered. Only by exposing this absurd characterisation can we begin to understand why liberals ignored this story – and why those in positions of authority in the police, on councils and in schools didn't see what should have been obvious: that these girls were being abused and, in many cases, those responsible were from ethnic minority communities. The crimes inflicted upon the victims of the grooming gangs – the real victims, just to be clear – were the end result of a horrible ideological experiment. 'I was following through on a child's file in (the) archive and found the word 'Pakistani' tippexed out,' Baroness Casey, whose national audit on grooming gangs was published on Monday, revealed this week. There is a real world, non-woke term for this sort of thing: racism. In other words, the judging of someone's moral character via their ethnicity. Liberals, and those on the left, will try and equivocate over the coming weeks. They will say things like 'White Britons engage in this behaviour too, so targeting ethnic minorities who do this sort of thing is racist'. That, of course, completely misses the point. No one other than the most ardent racists are saying that all Muslim or Pakistani men are child rapists. But what is clear is that some people who fit this description have committed horrible crimes and got away with it. No one rational is saying that the men who perpetrated these crimes should be punished because of their ethnicity. We are saying that child rapists should not be allowed to escape censure because of their culture or skin colour. If we want our multi-ethnic society to survive – and I desperately do – we cannot have any type of person treated differently because of their religion or the colour of their skin. Sadly, what is now clear to see is that too many people weren't colour blind in how they saw things. Their perspective was essentially to try and avoid offence by ignoring the mass abuse of white, working-class girls by sexual predators from minority groups. The whole episode is disgusting and should be a wake-up call for the left. Sadly, I doubt it will be. We need to discard the twisted ideology that decides innocence and guilt along racial lines. What happened with the grooming gangs scandal is possibly the clearest ever example of why that is the case. Too many children have paid the price for the silence of liberal do-gooders.
India Today
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- India Today
Aamir Khan responds to love jihad claims and PK backlash
Actor Aamir Khan, who is currently promoting his upcoming film 'Sitaare Zameen Par', has finally addressed the long-standing allegations against his 2014 film 'PK', which was accused of promoting 'love jihad' and being anti-religious. In a recent interview, Khan dismissed these claims as 'wrong' and asserted that the film was never intended to target or disrespect any an interview with India TV, Aamir Khan clarified that 'PK' doesn't intend to hurt or mock any religion. He said, "We're not against any religion. We respect all religions and all religious people. That film tells us to be cautious of those who exploit religion to fool the common man in order to extract money from them. You'll find people like that in every religion. That was the film's only purpose. So stay away from those kinds."advertisement'PK' found itself at the centre of controversy due to its portrayal of organised religion, and particularly for its subplot involving a love story between a Hindu woman (played by Anushka Sharma) and a Pakistani Muslim man (played by Sushant Singh Rajput). The film drew criticism from certain sections, who accused it of promoting 'love jihad'.Reacting to these accusations, Aamir Khan, who played PK in the film, said, "When people from two religions fall in love and wish to get married, that's not always love jihad. It so happens that they love each other, that union is just humanity. It's above religion."For the unversed, 'love jihad' is a controversial and unproven conspiracy theory that alleges Muslim men deliberately marry women of other religions, particularly Hindus, to convert them to further questioned whether his sisters and daughter marrying Hindu men would also be labelled as 'love jihad'.When asked about how his children were named, Aamir responded, 'My kids were named by my wives. I never interfered in that. Husbands don't have much of a say anyway,' he Khan's 'Sitaare Zameen Par' is set to hit theatres this Friday. Also starring Genelia Deshmukh, the film is directed by RS Watch
News18
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- News18
Aamir Khan REACTS To ‘Love Jihad' Claims Against Him: ‘My Sisters And Daughter Married Hindus'
Aamir Khan responds to 'love jihad' and anti-religion claims, saying his sisters and daughter married Hindus. 'This is humanity, not agenda,' the actor asserts. Aamir Khan has finally addressed the lingering criticism around his 2014 film PK, pushing back strongly against claims that the film was anti-religious or promoted 'love jihad." In a candid interview with India TV, the actor defended the film's intention and tackled the renewed backlash that has resurfaced nearly a decade after its release. Dismissing accusations that PK mocked religion, Aamir said, 'They're wrong. We're not against any religion. We respect all religions and all religious people. The film just tells us to be cautious of those who exploit religion to fool the common man and extract money from them. You'll find people like that in every religion." The Rajkumar Hirani-directed satire, which stars Anushka Sharma and the late Sushant Singh Rajput alongside Aamir, had stirred controversy for its depiction of religious dogma and its interfaith love story. The subplot—featuring a Hindu woman in love with a Pakistani Muslim man—led to some critics accusing the film of promoting 'love jihad," a term often used by right-wing groups to allege a hidden agenda of religious conversion through romantic relationships. Aamir rejected the narrative outright: 'When people from two religions, particularly Hindu and Muslim, fall in love and get married, that's not always love jihad. This is just humanity. It's above religion." He went on to highlight that even within his own family, interfaith relationships are the norm rather than the exception. 'My sisters and daughter are married to Hindu men. Will you call that love jihad too?" he questioned. His sister Farhat is married to Rajeev Dutta, Nikhat to Santosh Hegde, and his daughter Ira Khan recently tied the knot with Nupur Shikhare. Touching on a separate point often raised by trolls—his children's names—Aamir responded with clarity and grace. 'My kids have been named by my wives. There wasn't any interference from my end. Husbands ki zyada chalti nahi hai," he quipped. He revealed that Ira's name was chosen from Maneka Gandhi's Penguin Book of Hindu Names, while Azad was named after Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, India's first Education Minister and a prominent freedom fighter. As the conversation turned toward his upcoming film Sitaare Zameen Par, Aamir reminded audiences that his patriotism has always been reflected in his body of work. 'Watch Rang De Basanti, Lagaan, Sarfarosh. I don't think any actor has done more patriotic films than I have." PK may have stirred debate when it was released, but a decade later, Aamir Khan remains firm in his stance—telling stories that challenge, question, and, above all, reflect the complexities of human nature and society. First Published:
