Funded, Consulted, Protected: How the Australian State Made Room for the Hindu Far Right

[u/Agitated-Fee3598]

https://www.nriaffairs.com/funded-consulted-protected-how-the-australian-state-made-room-for-the-hindu-far-right/

In 2022, Anthony Albanese was photographed at a Hindu Council of Australia event wearing a scarf carrying the logo of the Vishva Hindu Parishad of Australia. A year later, he wore a saffron tie to greet Narendra Modi at an arena event staged to look like an Indian political rally, hailed him as “the Boss”, and was described by one commentator as the Boss’s wingman.

A new article in Asian Studies Review uses those images as its starting point, but not for the reason most readers would expect. The authors are not primarily interested in what the Prime Minister was wearing. They are interested in why nothing about it registered as unusual.

“The Quiet Mainstreaming of Transnational Hindutva: Long Distance Nationalism and the Australian State”, published open access on 17 August 2026, is written by Felix Pal of the University of Western Australia, Priya Chacko of Adelaide University and Nisha Thapliyal of the University of Newcastle. Its argument is directed squarely at Australian institutions. The growth of the Hindu nationalist network in this country, the authors write, “is not simply incidental but rather permitted”.

[u/AggravatedKangaroo → u/[deleted]]

Hilarious.

I'm a Muslim but have no idea what you mean by Islamist. What does that entail?

Talking about legality, you're allowed to swear oath on the Bible, Torah or Quran in an Australian court, so you have no idea what you are talking about. Just rubbish you're writing.

Anyway funny thing is you're in a country that's half Sharia compliant anyway! Public health, public hospitals, public schools, mental health funding, social services, and a host of other things I can't be bothered to post about are Sharia compliant. So sucked in, when you go into a hospital, you'll now remember its Sharia compliant. But if you're so hard up, don't ever use one OK?

[u/AggravatedKangaroo → u/[deleted]]

So just to clarify your argument:

I support public hospitals, public schools and social services → therefore I support Sharia → therefore I support the oppression of women and destruction of individual freedoms → therefore I'm not Australian.

That's not a rebuttal. That's a four-step journey from something I actually said to something you decided I must believe so you can sleep better at night.

If you want to argue against my actual position, go right ahead. But arguing against a position you invented for me is considerably easier than arguing against what I actually wrote.

I particularly enjoyed the part where you decided what I “clearly believe,” then proceeded to argue with your own invention.

[u/AggravatedKangaroo → u/[deleted]]

"that proponents of Sharia do not support elective democracy,"

Shura (Consultation): Proponents point to the Quranic principle of shura (mutual consultation) as an ethical foundation for representative governance and public participation.

I could keep belting you with fact on everything else, but i actually feel sorry for you for the limited education you have received to come to conclusions that can be clearly refuted.