The claim that Bharat is “rewriting history” is both dishonest and revealing. Dishonest, because history in India was never neutrally written to begin with. Revealing, because those raising this alarm have thrived for decades on distortion, suppression, and selective amnesia. What is unfolding today is not erasure, but recovery. Not revisionism, but reclamation. For nearly a millennium, Sanathan civilisation faced sustained assault—first through invasions that sought not just territory but civilisational rupture, and later through colonial rule that formalised contempt for indigenous knowledge systems. The repeated destruction of temples like Somnath was not random vandalism; it was symbolic warfare. Mahmud of Ghazni attacked Somnath repeatedly because he understood what it represented: cultural continuity, civilisational confidence, and spiritual sovereignty. Yet Sanathan Dharma survived. Not through conquest, but resilience. Ironically, political independence in 1947 did not bring cultural freedom. While the nation was partitioned explicitly on religious lines, the newly independent Indian state chose selective secularism. The Congress leadership, which ruled for over six and a half decades, displayed extraordinary timidity—if not ideological hostility—towards reviving Hindu institutions, reforming historical narratives, or reclaiming sacred spaces destroyed through documented aggression. Educational institutions were left captive to colonial frameworks and Marxist interpretations that reduced Hindu civilisation to superstition and ritual, while romanticising invaders and sanitising atrocities. Temples remained under state control, their wealth regulated, their autonomy denied—something no other religious institution faced in “secular” India. Cultural revival was dismissed as majoritarianism. Self-respect was branded as communalism. That paralysis ended in 2014.
Under the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance, guided by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Bharat began correcting course—not by exclusion, but by restoration. Education reforms are reconnecting younger generations with India’s civilisational roots. Ancient temples are being preserved, revived, and respected—not as political trophies, but as living institutions. The reconstruction of the Kashi Vishwanath corridor, the Ram Mandir, and now the visible assertion of civilisational pride through events like the Somnath Swabhiman Parv are not acts of provocation. They are acts of overdue self-respect. What makes Somnath particularly symbolic is not merely its past destruction, but the fear surrounding its remembrance. For decades, Prime Ministers lacked the spine to associate openly with its revival, fearing ideological backlash. That silence itself was a form of submission. Modi’s participation does not incite; it affirms. It does not erase history; it confronts it honestly. Critics who scream that India is becoming a “Hindu Pakistan” expose either intellectual bankruptcy or malicious intent. Facts demolish that propaganda. At the time of Partition, Muslims constituted roughly 3 percent of India’s population; today, they account for around 14–15 percent. In contrast, Hindu populations in Pakistan and Bangladesh have collapsed from double digits to near statistical irrelevance. If India were truly oppressive, this demographic reality would be impossible. Sanathan Dharma does not expand through conversion, coercion, or conquest. It does not seek appeasement or demand uniformity. It accommodates diversity because pluralism is intrinsic to its philosophy. That is why India, despite its Hindu civilisational core, remains the safest large democracy for religious minorities in the subcontinent. The real discomfort comes from those trapped in a colonial-leftist mindset—those who benefitted from deracinating India, weakening its self-image, and outsourcing its moral authority. They oppose course correction not because it threatens democracy, but because it threatens their ideological monopoly. Across the world, democracies are reassessing identity, history, and sovereignty—from the United States to the United Kingdom. Why should Bharat be denied the same right? This revival is not destructive. It is constructive. A civilisation that remembers itself does not become violent—it becomes confident. And confidence, not shame, is the foundation of a peaceful and balanced world. Bharat is not rewriting history.
It is finally refusing to forget it.
