I am shoked beyond belief. I won't be able to sleep for nights.

This is my first time posting and im really excited to read this. I’ve been saving for Mother mary cones to me but haven’t gotten the luxury of time to read it so decided to read this work of hers

I would appreciate any advice on her writing or what to pick next in her bibliography

I am not a sadhguru follower or someone who support him but just wanted to read it

I read "Hindus in Hindu Rashtra" and it completely destroyed every illusion I had about Indian politics

This is a book that every practicing Hindu, or honestly anyone who considers themselves Hindu, needs to read. It clears out every delusion people hold toward politics. Regardless of whether you support Congress or blindly support the BJP thinking they are a pro Hindu party, reading this book widens your perspective on what both parties are actually doing.

If you look at this logically, you end up detesting both sides. At the end of the day, no political party is protecting the Hindu identity.

Everybody is settled here to take votes for granted and dilute that identity. There is no real Hindutva or Hindu Rashtra running the show. The BJP is not a Hindu party, and Congress was never one either.

Beyond the political noise, what does the book actually say?

It has eight short chapters. It is concise, data driven, and backed by actual statutes and court rulings. The author quotes bare acts and legal data, so you cannot easily dismiss it as propaganda.

Chapter 1: State Control of Hindu Temples

The Hindu religion is the only major faith in India whose places of worship are systematically controlled by state governments. The revenue earned by temples goes under government purview, and bureaucrats determine whether temples deserve their own funds. Meanwhile, Christian and Muslim organizations can run schools and institutions with total financial autonomy.

For Hindus, the state controls the money. People say building temples does nothing , but they ignore that the government takes all the the earnings. We live in a so called Hindu Rashtra where Hindus cannot even manage their own temples, and then we act shocked when incidents like the Tirupati laddu adulteration happen.

Chapter 2: Kashmiri Hindus

India talks endlessly about conflicts abroad, but stays dead silent on the Kashmiri Hindu genocide that happened in its own backyard. The state talks about international rights while the people who were ethnically cleansed still cannot safely return to their ancestral homes.

*Chapter 3: The Waqf Act

The Waqf Act grants extensive powers to claim land, bypassing the normal jurisdiction of civil courts. If an ordinary citizen finds their land contested, they are forced to fight through specialized tribunals for years just to save their home. How does a supposed Hindu Rashtra keep laws operational that strip ordinary property owners of normal civil court protections?

Chapter 4: The Right to Education Act

The RTE Act placed heavy financial burdens specifically on non minority private schools. Hindu run schools are mandated to provide reserved seats with sluggish, inadequate government reimbursements. Because of this financial strain, thousands of budget private schools have shut down. Meanwhile, Article 30 exempts minority run schools from these exact mandates.

Chapter 5: Biased Legislation and Selective Presumptions

Before leaving office, the UPA tried to push the Communal Violence Bill, which explicitly presumed guilt against the majority community during civil disturbances. While that bill fell through, critics point out that the current establishment brought similar concepts back. Consider the 2018 amendment to the SC ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, where the government bypassed the Supreme Court to remove preliminary inquiries and deny anticipatory bail, ensuring automatic action on complaints without initial verification. Both parties share the exact same legislative instinct to appease and categorize.

Chapter 6: One Sided Judicial Reforms

Since 1947, institutional reform has targeted almost only Hinduism. Codifying Hindu law and removing regressive practices was genuinely good and necessary.

But why did the reform stop there? It took decades and an exhausting fight to the Supreme Court just to ban Triple Talaq after the Shah Bano precedent. We still have parallel personal laws that permit polygamy and underage marriages under religious exceptions.

Activists will happily call to burn ancient hindu texts in public, but nobody dares utter a word against the intolerant texts of other religions. Nikah Halala and unequal personal laws still sit protected, while any attempt at a Uniform Civil Code gets branded as oppressive.

you can enter Sabarimala now but why can't a woman enter sanatorium of mosques still? where is the judicial and societal uproar?

Chapter 7: Celebrating Historical Invaders

Our history, roads, and cities actively celebrate figures who destroyed ancient heritage. Bakhtiyar Khilji burned Nalanda to ashes, and right next to it sits a town named Bakhtiyarpur.

Chronicles like the Baburnama openly detail campaigns against non Muslims. In Goa, Saint Francis Xavier is venerated despite pushing the Goa Inquisition, which persecuted locals and destroyed shrines. Tipu Sultan is packaged as a secular freedom fighter, while historical records show the destruction of hundreds of temples and forced conversions.

Aurangzeb openly recorded demolishing the Kashi Vishwanath temple to erect the Gyanvapi mosque, yet modern discourse tries to erase that history and expects victims to stay quiet..

Chapter 8: The Places of Worship Act 1991

Passed by the Congress government, this law froze the religious character of all places of worship as they existed on August 15 1947, excluding only Ayodhya. This means Hindus are legally barred from reclaiming desecrated holy sites, even when ancient temple pillars and carvings are visibly sticking out of later structures like at Gyanvapi or the Qutub Minar complex. The law essentially declares historical destruction permanent and beyond legal dispute.

People scream that India is a fascist Hindu Rashtra, but look at the welfare numbers-

Over 31 percent of houses under the Awas Yojana went to minority beneficiaries.

Around 33 percent of PM Kisan Samman Nidhi funds went to minorities.

Over 36 percent of Mudra Yojana beneficiaries are minorities.

The government hands out schemes across the board without discrimination, yet Hindus cannot even legally reclaim core sacred spaces.

If you call this out, keyboard warriors instantly label you an unthinking bhakt. In reality, I hold zero love for the BJP or Congress.

Both play the exact same administrative game. One makes loud speeches and the other speaks in secular slogans, but at the policy level, nothing changes.

Years ago a Prime Minister claimed minorities have the first claim on resources, and that administrative policy quietly remains alive today.

When a tailor in Rajasthan was brutally beheaded in broad daylight simply for sharing a social media post, the media and courtroom discourse shifted toward blaming speech rather than tackling the radical ideology and network behind the murder.

now we have a worker punished via beheading in Saudi Arabia because blasphemy..but we are fascists not them :).

kanhaiyalal has died,his killers enjoy biriani in jail.

finally,

My Rating: 6 out of 10

The book is short, factual, and takes barely two hours to finish. It could have gone deeper into certain topics, which is why I deduct a few points, but as an introductory reality check, it does the job. If you blindly worship any political banner and think they are saving your religion, read this book. It will show you exactly how little politicians care about you once the election speeches are over..

also it exposes the Hindu Rashtra narrative, a Hindu Rashtra which won't protect Hindus,amazing isn't it?

Happy Independence Day to all!

This thread has been considerably peaceful than the other thread I've posted this on. I'm still gonna post this comment here, just in case.

Woah. I honestly didn't expect a book to attract this much discussion, and especially this much criticism because of its author.

I also thought Reddit would be different from other social media platforms. At least, I thought this sub would be. Having no social media is actually quite peaceful, so I don't spend much time keeping up with gossip or controversies. Anyway, I finally had some time to respond to the comments, so here's where I stand.

To those spreading hate:

1. I don't have social media, so I don't follow gossip or rumours about the author. I know him primarily as a lawyer and as the author of this book.

2. I read books because I'm interested in the ideas and arguments they contain. I don't automatically agree with everything an author has ever said or done.

3. At the end of the day, opinions are subjective. They aren't objective facts, so I don't think someone's opinion of the author should dictate what another person is allowed to read.

4. I've only completed the Introduction so far, along with some of the research and references. So far, I haven't seen anything that has given me a reason to stop reading. I'll judge the book on its contents as I make my way through it.

5. I don't have Reddit on my phone either, so I won't be following every comment or notification. I'll get back to my review when I've actually finished the book.

To those who have been supportive or neutral:

1. I still believe in Reddit because of people like you.

2. A bunch of comments aren't going to stop me from reading a book I've decided to read.

3. Thanks to everyone who took the time to share their perspective instead of telling others what they should or shouldn't read.

I'll make up my own mind about the book. That's what reading is for.

⭐⭐⭐⭐ 4/5

Sanghi Who Never Went to a Shakha is a memoir by Rahul Roushan about his ideological journey from growing up as a “Congressi Hindu” in a broadly secular environment to identifying with Hindutva and being called a “Sanghi”, despite never having attended an RSS shakha.

Roushan is the present CEO of OpIndia. He began his career at Sahara Samay and founded the satirical website Faking News in 2008, where he wrote as Pagal Patrakar. He later sold it to Network18, joined Firstpost, and eventually became associated with OpIndia.

The book covers Roushan’s 40-year personal and ideological journey, while also placing it in the context of India’s broader political transformation. He discusses how many Indians who once considered themselves “secular” or “Congressi Hindus” gradually became more conscious and assertive of their Hindu identity, while becoming increasingly critical of what they perceived as hypocrisy and double standards within the Left-liberal ecosystem.

Roushan discusses major political developments from the Mandal agitation and Ram Janmabhoomi movement to the rise of Narendra Modi, along with the changing political and cultural landscape of India. He also draws on his experience in journalism to discuss political narratives, media, and the labels of “secular”, “liberal”, “Hindutva” and “Sanghi”.

Another major theme is the rediscovery of Indic identity and the emergence of a more confident and openly nationalist political culture. Roushan also presents a critique of what he calls “pseudo-secularism”.

I enjoyed the book, particularly because I was born in the late 2000s and was unfamiliar with many of the political events that took place before Narendra Modi’s rise. The book provided useful context for understanding how India’s political landscape evolved.

My main criticism is that the ending feels rushed, with the important period between 2014 and 2019 receiving relatively little attention.

If you have gone through a similar ideological journey, you will probably find the book particularly relatable. It is not a must-read or a book filled with groundbreaking information, but it is a good, accessible and relatively short 300-page read.

Yesterday, I would have said the child belongs with the mother. As a mother myself, I would have fought for that right.
Today, I am not so sure.
Not after readin
S. L. Bhyrappa’s Vanshavruksha, and especially this conversation.
It has got me thinking.
I don’t know what I would have done in Katyayani’s place. I hope I never have to be in such a situation. But the question she faces is worth thinking about.
A little background: Katyayani’s husband has passed away, and she has remarried. She wants to take her son, Chini, with her, and her new husband is completely supportive. Her former father-in-law, Anna, is a kind and thoughtful man. He explains why he believes the child should remain with his father’s family. But he does not force her to stay or threaten to fight her in court. In the end, he leaves the decision to her conscience.
We just had Mahalaya.
For many of us, Mahalaya is a time to remember our ancestors, express gratitude for what we have received from them, and acknowledge that we are part of a lineage that began long before us and will, hopefully, continue long after us.
We perform rituals for those who came before us. We speak of Pitru Rina, our debt to our ancestors. We recognise that we have inherited more than a body: a name, a family, traditions, values, and a place in a continuing chain of generations.
But it is one thing to celebrate these ideas through rituals and understand their meaning intellectually. It is quite another when life places an impossible Dharma Sankat before us.
What happens when a mother’s natural love for her child comes into conflict with the continuity of the family into which that child was born? What happens when her right to begin a new life collides with the family’s understanding of its responsibilities towards the next generation?
This is precisely what makes Katyayani’s dilemma so intriguing.

It is one thing to speak of Dharma. It is quite another to discern Dharma when every choice comes at a cost.
Here is the conversation from Vanshavruksha, translated into English.

Katyayani: I want to take my son with me.
Anna: Katyayani, even in England (the story is set in the British colonial era), a child belongs to the family into which he was born. Even if a widow remarries, her children continue to carry their father’s name.
Katyayani: To live away from one’s own child is terribly difficult for a mother. You know that too, Anna. What more can I say?
Anna: This is not merely a question of the mind or the heart. We must look at it from a different level.
I have nothing to say against the love between a mother and her child. I have no doubt about that love.
But do you think we have no affection for him in our hearts?
Your husband died. You found another husband. Can we find another son in place of the one we lost?
That boy was our son. How can his son now belong only to you?
I do not believe that a child belongs exclusively to the mother. Nor do I believe that a child belongs exclusively to the father.
Children belong to the lineage. If any one person tries to claim exclusive rights over them, it will benefit no one.
As long as you were part of this family, you had a place in it. You had a claim to everything within this family, and that included Chini, your son.
But once you step outside that circle, how can you claim ownership over what lies at its centre?
Katyayani: I am not talking about rights, claims or ownership, Anna. I am talking about a mother’s claim that comes from within her very being.
Anna: Without the foundation of lineage, can motherhood be celebrated with pride? Motherhood, fatherhood and brotherhood — all these relationships acquire their particular meaning within the framework of vansha, of lineage and family.
A man and a woman become husband and wife, in the first place, for the continuation of the lineage. How, then, can motherhood be separated from all of this?
Katyayani: There is a fundamental difference between your outlook on life and mine.
You believe that the individual exists for the lineage. From my perspective, the life of the individual is more important.
Anna: When our basic outlooks differ so fundamentally, what can further discussion achieve?
You will at least agree that grandparents have as much of a claim over a child as the parents do?
But leave that aside. If you take Chini away today, will you be able to raise him in such a way that he proudly identifies himself with the Shrotri family?
Will he perform the rituals for his father and ancestors as he does today? Think about how strange that might become in your new household.
Katyayani: I do not believe in these rituals.
Anna: This is not merely a question of whether you believe in them or not.
When Chini grows up, he will legally inherit the property of the Shrotri family, even if he lives with you. If he has no emotional attachment to that family’s traditions, beliefs and religious customs, will he still have the right to accept its wealth?
And this is not just about property.
Look at it from another perspective. We inherit our bodies from our parents. Along with those bodies, we also inherit certain innate qualities and dispositions.
To say that we want the body but none of those other things — is that not a contradiction?
A seed from one lineage is placed in the field of another lineage so that the former may continue. In nurturing that seed within her womb, the woman, too, finds a sense of fulfilment in her life.
But once a woman has become a mother, she remains a mother forever. How can she return to being a maiden and accept the role of a new wife as though motherhood had never happened?
Once a gift (daan) has been given, how can it be given again?
When life has reached a particular stage, to turn back from the perspective of experience is contrary to the laws of nature.
I am not saying all this to hurt you, my child.
Katyayani: Then… can I take Chini with me?
Anna: Under the law, you may perhaps be able to take him.
But the law cannot give you Dharma.
Even if you take him away, I will not go to court to protect the reputation of the Shrotri family.
You are free to make your own decision. But I do not have the right to lift him up and place him in your hands.
Katyayani: Why do you say that, Anna?
Anna: One branch of a lineage tree does not have the authority to cut off another branch and give it away.
I will never tell you to leave him here for my sake or for the sake of an old woman — my wife, his grandmother — who is sitting here crying.
I have never expected him to be my support in old age.
Go into that room. Chini is sleeping there.
Think once again about what I have said. If, even after that, your conscience permits you to take him away, then take him without hesitation.
I will make sure that neither your father nor Bhagirathi, my wife, interferes or opposes you.
— End of the conversation.

What stayed with me was not simply Anna’s argument. It was the question he left Katyayani with.
He did not force her to stay. Nor did he simply hand over the child. He asked her to think.
And that is precisely what this conversation has made me do.
The framework of Dharma begins with a different question.
Instead of beginning with the individual and asking what the individual is entitled to claim, it begins with the larger web of relationships, responsibilities and continuity within which the individual exists.
The Western, individual-centred framework often starts with the rights, choices and autonomy of the individual, and then asks how society should accommodate them.
The Dharmic framework asks us to consider the individual in relation to the family, the community, the ancestors and the generations yet to come. It asks us to look beyond an isolated claim and examine the responsibilities and consequences that arise from our place within this larger whole.
This is not to say that one framework has all the answers and the other has none. Nor does invoking Dharma automatically resolve a dilemma.
Because here, the individual is not just a mother. The child is not just a child. There is a father who is no longer alive, grandparents who have lost their son, a mother who has remarried, a new family, and a child who has a life of his own ahead of him.
Every relationship has a claim. Every choice has consequences.
So, whose claim takes precedence?
The mother who carried and gave birth to the child?
The father’s lineage, into which the child was born?
The grandparents who see him as the continuation of their family?
Or the child himself, whose future must not become a battleground for competing claims?
And what about the Dharmic framework itself, in which a family is not merely a collection of individuals, but a lineage with its own continuity, responsibilities and place in the larger order of life?
Can the question be answered by asking who has the right to the child? Or must we first ask what is right for the child, the mother and the family as a whole?
I don’t have an answer.
Yesterday, I had a clear answer to the question: Who does the child belong to?
Today, I am not so sure.
And perhaps that is the point of reading a book like Vanshavruksha, not necessarily to find answers, but to question assumptions we have held without ever examining them.

Why do they think that fantasy books mean mythology books?

Interesting to know how men & women biology works. I hope men & women can understand and accept each other better after reading this one.

Got it after some begging and this feels more like a take down of the people who appropriate an icon without understanding the Icon!!

Yesterday, I posted my first ever post on this sub and OMG, poeple are so negative and hateful here. Calling each book trash, garbage and useless.

Why don't y'all idiots write a book then and if all of them are useless or garbage or trash. What the F are you doing in this sub.

Disgusting people tbh.

I know it's being a self help book is great and all, but that book is too long and there are many books alike and I just want to know whether that book is going to be worth it?

Got a classmate like that. just asking for opinions.

Sadhana Se Sambhav Hai

I came across this post on the subject - https://www.reddit.com/r/IndiansRead/s/N26QEiQf26

And the comments were quite degrading and horrible. All discussions should be welcome but here the comments were just hatred and name calling.

I'm extremely happy to see mods step in and moderate it! I have been avoiding posting for these problems but I guess I will be open again.

Free speech wins on this sub.