Vaibhav Singh opened the conversation with a blunt observation: there seems to be a glaring absence of protests when it comes to atrocities faced by Uyghur Muslims in China, Balochs in Pakistan, or even the Sindhi and Pashtun communities who have endured brutal oppression. He questioned why the deaths of 20,000 Mahajirs in Karachi, Hyderabad, and Sukkur go unmentioned in Indian Muslim discourse, while emotional demonstrations erupt for Palestine and Rohingya Muslims.

He highlighted the horrific reality in Xinjiang, where practicing Islam is almost criminalized—people are forced to surrender prayer mats in police stations, growing a beard is banned, and even Islamic names are discouraged. Yet, no placards or rallies appear in Indian streets for them.

Instead, Singh lamented, the spotlight is always on Palestine. Thousands protest in Indian cities, sometimes to the extent of vandalism, as was the case when some reportedly attacked Amar Jawan Jyoti in Mumbai in the name of solidarity with the Rohingyas. “Why such selective empathy?” he asked. “Are Indian Muslims afraid of Pakistan and China?”

Zahack Tanvir responded with a layered analysis that combined historical context with geopolitical realism. He agreed that the overwhelming focus on Palestine while ignoring other equally devastating crises suggests a form of emotional manipulation rather than informed advocacy. “Most Muslims here don’t even realize that India is engaged in a silent conflict with both Pakistan and China,” he said. “But even beyond that, there is a kind of shameless tunnel vision—where people hold on to just one or two issues and act as if those define the entire Muslim world’s struggle.”

He dug deeper into the Palestinian issue, emphasizing how it has evolved over the last 75 years into a political industry. “Billions have been poured into it. NGOs, lobbies, donations, protests—yet no solution has emerged. Not because one isn’t possible, but because resolving it would shut down a global cottage industry of activism, influence, and income,” Zahack said. He clarified that his statements weren’t anti-Palestinian but rather critical of the politicization of their suffering.

He further illustrated how Palestinians, themselves a diverse mix of Muslims, Christians, Communists, Marxists, and Atheists, have historically disrupted the very nations that sheltered them. In Lebanon, internal conflict erupted with the local Christian population. In Jordan, they attempted to assassinate King Hussein. “This isn’t just a Muslim issue—it was initially an Arab issue supported by Arab Christians,” Zahack explained.

Shifting the lens inward, he shared a startling reality: many Palestinians, Syrians, and Jordanians are unaware that India has over 250 million Muslims. “When I told them, they were shocked. For them, Pakistan equals Muslims, and India equals Hindus,” Zahack said.

And yet, Indian Muslims in places like Mominpura, Shivaji Nagar, or Zakir Nagar wage symbolic battles—boycotting multinational brands like Nestlé, Starbucks, and McDonald’s—as a gesture of protest.

“But what difference does it make? In 1973, all Arab nations imposed an oil embargo on the U.S. It didn’t stop America from giving $2 billion in aid to Israel, and later $8 billion more,” Zahack pointed out. “When a country has wealth and a strong lobby, a few boycotted chocolates and potato chips won’t matter.”

Zahack stressed that national interest should always come first. “Every country is looking after itself. Sudan and Morocco don’t have a problem with Israel. Bahrain and the UAE have formal ties. The Turks and Kurds have moved on. So why are we getting emotionally entangled in their politics?”

Zahack reiterated India’s pragmatic foreign policy: a two-state solution that respects both Israeli and Palestinian rights to exist. “India isn’t blindly siding with anyone. It maintains healthy relations with Russia, the U.S., Israel, and the Arab nations. We are focused on trade, growth, and development,” he said.

He ended the discussion with a powerful anecdote: while speaking with an Egyptian army officer, Zahack explained why India doesn’t get involved in third-party fights. The officer nodded in agreement, appreciating India’s non-interventionist stance.

“Why should we fight your fight?” Zahack asked. “You fight today and hug tomorrow. We’ll mind our own business.”

The dialogue between Vaibhav Singh and Zahack Tanvir wasn’t just a critique of selective outrage; it was a call to maturity in activism. It challenged Indian Muslims—and Indians at large—to think with clarity, weigh their allegiances with wisdom, and prioritize national interest over borrowed causes.

Aimen Dean

Iran, Hezbollah, and Assad loyalists have launched a well-coordinated disinformation campaign to portray the situation as a sectarian massacre.

In light of recent misinterpretations of my comments, I feel compelled to clarify my stance on several key issues. Some have accused me of supporting jihadist groups in Syria or endorsing acts of ethnic cleansing and massacres against the Alawite minority on the Syrian coast. These claims are entirely unfounded, and I want to set the record straight.

Consistent Principles on War and Self-Defense

From the very beginning, I have consistently supported the right of nations to defend themselves against aggression. In 2001, I fully backed the United States’ decision to retaliate against al-Qaeda and the Taliban following the 9/11 attacks because it was a justified response to an unprovoked act of war. However, I did not support the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, as Iraq posed no imminent threat at the time.

Similarly, when Hamas launched its attacks on October 7, 2023, I unequivocally supported Israel’s right to defend itself, just as I supported Israel’s actions against Hezbollah in Lebanon. I recognize that war is never clean, and civilian casualties are an unfortunate and tragic reality. Anyone who believes in the possibility of a “clean war” is ignoring history and human nature. Even in the most “civilized” parts of the world, such as Europe, the 20th century bore witness to some of the worst massacres and genocides in history.

Modern warfare is fought not only on the battlefield but also in the realm of information. The manipulation of media, particularly through social media, has become a powerful tool. We saw this when Hamas claimed that Israel had bombed hospitals and killed hundreds of civilians, claims that, upon closer inspection, were exaggerated or entirely fabricated. Propaganda is an inseparable part of war, and recognizing this is crucial in understanding modern conflicts.

The Syrian Conflict and My Perspective on Ahmad al-Shar’a

Much of the controversy surrounding my recent comments stems from my discussion of Ahmad al-Shar’a, also known as Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, and the ongoing conflict in Syria. To be clear: I do not view al-Shar’a as ISIS. While he was originally part of al-Qaeda in Iraq before it became the Islamic State of Iraq, he later split from the organization when he moved to Syria.

Since 2018, I have spoken with multiple intelligence officials who confirmed that al-Shar’a had been cooperating with Turkish intelligence as early as 2013 and later provided valuable intelligence to Western agencies, including those of France and the United States, in the fight against ISIS. His motivation may not have been purely altruistic, he saw ISIS as a rival, but his actions nonetheless contributed to the fight against one of the most brutal jihadist groups in history.

I have publicly acknowledged that I see elements of my own journey in his transformation. I, too, was once a committed jihadist until I saw the light and shifted my perspective to focus on geopolitical strategy rather than sectarian or ideological allegiances. Today, my positions are determined by strategic interests, not religious or sectarian affiliations.

Why I Support the Current Syrian Government Over Assad

Between al-Shar’a’s government and the Assad regime, I believe the former offers a better path forward for Syria. While al-Shar’a has a controversial past, his current trajectory suggests a willingness to reform. Unlike the Assad regime, which has kept Syria trapped in a failed socialist Arab nationalist system, his administration has demonstrated a commitment to economic modernization. The most developed areas in Syria today—Idlib, Jisr al-Shughur, and Sarmada—show clear progress, in contrast to the stagnation of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, and Hama.

Critically, I reject the notion that what is happening on the Syrian coast is an organized ethnic cleansing campaign. Instead, it is a military operation aimed at dismantling remnants of the Assad regime, whose security forces have been targeting not only Sunni opposition members but also Alawites who are seen as traitors.

Reports indicate that some of the atrocities being widely shared on social media were, in fact, carried out by former regime officers—Alawites exacting revenge on their own community members for siding with the new government. Other reports suggest that Iranian and Hezbollah-backed Assad loyalists are fueling chaos to destabilize the current government. The Syrian government under al-Shar’a has deployed significant manpower to block roads and prevent large-scale sectarian revenge attacks, particularly from Sunni militants who see this as an opportunity for retaliation.

Propaganda and Disinformation in the Syrian Conflict

Iran, Hezbollah, and Assad loyalists have launched a well-coordinated disinformation campaign to portray the situation as a sectarian massacre. Many of the images and videos circulating on social media are, in reality, old footage from ISIS-era Iraq and Syria. Claims that Christians are being systematically targeted are also false, there have been no reports of Christian casualties in this conflict.

Additionally, many of the “atrocity” videos currently being used to condemn the new government are actually recycled footage of massacres committed by the Assad regime itself. The goal of this propaganda is clear: to manipulate Western audiences into believing that Syria is descending into sectarian genocide, thereby pushing Syria further into the Iranian-Russian-Chinese geopolitical axis.

A Call for Justice and a Rational Perspective on Syria’s Future

I do not deny that war crimes and atrocities have occurred in the Syrian conflict. I call upon the government of President Ahmad al-Shar’a to ensure accountability and bring those responsible to justice. However, we must recognize that this is not a case of systematic ethnic cleansing. The reality on the ground is far more complex, with various factions—Sunni and Alawite alike—engaging in revenge killings and power struggles.

Western observers must avoid falling into the trap of Iranian and Hezbollah propaganda. Syria has an opportunity to move away from the Russian-Iranian-Chinese sphere of influence and integrate into the Mediterranean and Gulf economic frameworks. It is in the best interest of Syria, the region, and the world that we support efforts to stabilize the country, promote economic recovery, and prevent it from becoming another puppet state for Tehran, Moscow, or Beijing.

A Geopolitical, Not Sectarian, Perspective

To those who accuse me of reverting to my “jihadi roots,” I ask: how could someone who opposed both Hamas and Hezbollah—a Sunni and a Shia militant group—be labeled as a jihadist sympathizer? My approach is based purely on geopolitical logic, not religious bias. I support what makes sense for the people of the Middle East, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Sunni, or Shia, liberal or conservative.

What is happening in Syria is not a black-and-white sectarian war but a geopolitical realignment. We must approach it with rationality, not emotion, and recognize the broader stakes involved. Let us not allow misinformation and propaganda to cloud our understanding of the realities on the ground.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.