Source Aliran

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: As we read the news and watch the war in West Asia unfold, much goes through our hearts and spirits when contemplating the sheer cost to humanity – in lives and resources.

Beyond the bombs and their aftermath are stories of many people, on both sides of the divide, experiencing agonising pain and loss.

The cry of suffering, the loss of life, the unfolding bitterness and hate – and the price paid by many for the folly of their leaders. One side perpetuates the divide while the other defends it.

Behind all this lies a mindset that is dangerous and vile – one we need to understand if we are to respond differently in the future.

Nazism and its evils are well recorded. The Holocaust reminds us of this tragedy. Millions perished believing in a leader who espoused an ideology of racial supremacy.

Today we have political Zionism, which justifies occupation and expansion.

One can construct a narrative that justifies all this. All you need is an enemy painted as evil, a people described as God’s chosen, and a claim to a homeland. History, religion and justification intertwine.

With such an ideology, you can hijack the minds of many unthinking people – play on their fears and anxieties and justify the need for a “Greater Israel”. Add sympathisers from powerful establishments and states, and you develop a mix that begins to believe in its own might and superiority.

A central tragedy is that a people who experienced the Holocaust – and who settled in Israel from 1948 – have come to inflict systematic suffering on another people. They did so by subscribing to an ideology that favours their supremacy and feeds on their fears.

Security demands that they fight for this cause across generations, and with God behind them, who can stand in opposition?

Good, rational people get their minds hijacked. They find it hard to distinguish between Judaism and political Zionism. Public support grows, and soon the talk turns to a “Greater Israel” that encompasses neighbouring lands as well.

This goal of hegemony becomes central to their sense of security. They manipulate the United States to achieve these ends.

The Palestinians – mainly Muslims and minority Christians – are treated as subhuman. Hence the notion of apartheid.

Religiosity prevails when religion is weaponised. To polarise the situation, “the other” – in this case a Muslim – becomes “the oppressor”, “the terrorist”, “the usurper of our land”.

As support for this denunciation grows, many well-meaning Jewish people join in. These sympathisers and fence-sitters are soon recruited.

Those Jewish people who see a contradiction with Judaism highlight the distinction between Zionism and Judaism. They feel a sense of unease. They remain a minority – a voice in the wilderness.

That reality exists in Israel today. People’s biases, prejudices, fears and anxieties are subtly manipulated.

Many become like the frog in the water. It loses its capacity to jump out as the water slowly warms – and then it remains trapped as the water boils.

In subtle ways, exclusive ideologies work on our mindsets. It only takes good people remaining unaware of, and blind to, their own prejudices for evil to triumph.

Many cannot see through this maze. They become vulnerable to the suggestions of pastors and religious leaders.

Yet, if we study apartheid in South Africa, Nazism in Germany and Zionism in Israel, we can identify these trends and developments – and they must alert us to serious long-term consequences.

Ideologies of supremacy

Such ideas exist in many societies. “Ketuanan Melayu” (Malay supremacy) is indigenous to Malaysia, and “Hindutva” (Hindu nationalism) is gaining ground in India. When such right-wing ideologies attain political power, they provide the powder keg that fragments society.

Many sound Hindus fall into this trap, unable to distinguish the essence of their faith from the political ideology that has weaponised it. In India’s case, this draws its strength from the Hindu-Muslim divide. Age-old prejudices, hatred and bitterness are stirred up to cultivate a sense of victimhood.

This blinds many to supporting the cause of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its political vehicle, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

In expressing this, I am walking a fine line: many friends of mine share the sentiments of the RSS and the BJP.

Democracy is vulnerable to populism, and identity politics remains a popular means of attaining power. Many seem unable to recognise the manipulation of their fears and anxieties, or weigh it against the need for justice and humanity for all.

Paradox

In early February 2026, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Malaysia and held talks with Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, strengthening bilateral ties.

Then, on 25–26 February, Modi travelled to Israel – embracing Benjamin Netanyahu upon his arrival at Ben Gurion Airport, and addressing the Knesset as the first Indian prime minister ever to do so. Less than 48 hours after Modi departed, US–Israel military strikes on Iran began.

As of late March 2026, India is pursuing diplomatic efforts aimed at ending the West Asia war and ensuring energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz.

India remains a member of Brics while deepening ties with the US and Israel.

What does this say about India? It highlights, perhaps, the paradox between the dance and the music. Play to the gallery – show how close you are to Muslims when it serves your interests – and then, when it comes to reality, Hindutva, your guiding ideology, aligns you with the rightist Zionist cause.

You can explain this away in terms of national bilateral interests, security and co-operation. But national interest must rest on some ethical foundation. Otherwise, it is a case of blowing hot and cold as desired – and the nation loses the respect and trust of others.

Modi has revealed the core of himself. And India has lost some of its moral moorings. Trust, too, has been lost.

This paradox cannot be explained away. A nation known for its commitment to ahimsa and non-violence has aligned itself with a government that has perpetuated a genocide. Do we need to explain such contradictions?

There are always good people who lend a kind face to an otherwise troubling political reality.

S Jaishankar, India’s External Affairs Minister, is an intellectual and a man of considerable accomplishment. His wife is Japanese. How does he align himself with the interests of the RSS and BJP? This is not an accusation of bad faith – but it is a question worth asking.

Then there is Hardeep Singh Puri – previously India’s permanent representative to the UN and presently the Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister in Modi’s cabinet. I often wonder how he, as an articulate and assured individual, reconciles his commitment to Sikhism with his association with the BJP.

Then there is Modi’s Finance and Corporate Affairs Minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, from southern India. While one may have reservations about her budgets, she lends credibility to the BJP, which performed badly in state elections in Tamil Nadu and across southern India broadly.

What do they stand for – and why do these prominent intellectuals identify with the BJP and the RSS?

Perhaps power, and the desire to serve India’s larger good, motivates them. These are intellectuals who rationalise their intelligence.

Have they lost sight of India’s secular nature and the broader vision of Hinduism? Perhaps they are unable to reconcile their intellect with the compassion needed to serve the cause of a secular India. All three are unelected members of the Rajya Sabha, India’s upper house of parliament. The ruling party played a significant role in their nominations – perhaps to burnish its image.

What Hinduism really says

In Hindu tradition, the Mahavakyas – the “great utterances” – are profound pointers to direct realisation, not mere creedal assertions. They are meant to be contemplated deeply until understanding dawns.

Aham Brahmasmi challenges our identification with body, nation and personality, deconstructing the ego’s hold.

Tat Twam Asi – I see the other in myself – leads to compassion born of inner discipline.

These are universal insights. “Truth is one; the wise speak of it in many ways.”

In practice, this calls for building relationships across divides – including having Muslim friends and associating with them.

When you understand this reality, how can you treat the other with disdain?

On the other hand, political Hinduism – or “Hindu Zionism” – offers a different reality altogether: one where the majority community is framed as a perpetual victim in need of reaffirmation.

In a world of diversity, there will always be differences in emphasis and understanding, and differences in where we stand at any given moment.

Yet the end point must be unity and inclusivity. That is not the end point the BJP and RSS strive for.

When we protect the dignity of the other – even those we disagree with – we strengthen our own and develop the moral courage to take the position: “Even if we disagree, your humanity is not negotiable.” This is Hinduism at its best.

Only from such a vantage point – where one is honest about one’s own prejudices, biases, fears and insecurities, and believes in the dignity and worth of the other – can one see through such destructive ideologies.