Back in 2020, Aakar Patel wrote a book titled 'Hindu Rashtra'. Two years ago, he published the following in the Deccan Herald
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh was founded in 1925 and in three years it will be 100.
It was founded by a College pal of Dr. Hardikar who created the Congress Seva Dal which the Brits banned.
Some people have felt, especially after the events since 2019, that 2025 will herald the transition of India to a Hindu Rashtra.
India is a Hindu country. First Buddhist majority Burma split off and then the Muslim majority areas went their own way. There is secessionist sentiment in non-Hindu majority areas.
I explored what that could possibly mean in a previous book and am taking up some aspects of that here. A nation can be secular, Hindu Rashtra, Islamic State or any other thing based on the law. It is the laws that define the nature of the State.
No. The law does not matter. England is officially an Anglican country but non-Anglicans suffer no disability or oppression. Turkey is officially a secular country. Yet the State pays the salary of 130,000 Imams. Jews and Christians get nothing.
Today India is governed through a Constitution
No. The Executive does the governing. The Court may say that some action of the State is unconstitutional. But if the Court is ignored there is nothing it can do. Ultimately, what keeps the State safe is its ability to do extra-judicial killing on an industrial scale.
which was adopted after Independence,
70 percent of the Constitution is found in the 1935 Act passed by Westminster.
and a set of criminal laws codified in the 19th century. These laws, mainly the Indian Penal Code, were enacted in 1860 and have remained more or less intact across the whole of South Asia.
No. They have been changed in various ways.
To understand what changes can come here, we must first try to understand what the term Hindu Rashtra means.
Hindu supremacy in India- which is what Nehru delivered in 1947. There was a period when it was fashionable to believe that Socialism could deliver rapid economic growth. All that it delivered was corruption- which, it must be said, is why the thing had been adopted in the first place.
To my mind, it could mean one of two things.
It means only one thing. Hindus dominate the State. If they are smart they will treat minorities well so that they become more productive and pay more in tax. Let them, by all means, choose their own priests and religious administrators.
The first is that it is an interpretation of the Hindu texts and the construction of a State and laws based on these texts.
But Hindu texts say Law is a 'samskar'- it is defeasible. Do what the best people are doing- i.e. practice 'Tardean mimetics'. Ambedkar was familiar with the works of Gabriel Tarde.
The problem here, as Dr B.R. Ambedkar had examined in his classic essay “Annihilation of Caste”, is that these texts are not applicable.
No. The correct application is to look around and see who is doing 'mechanism design' best and to imitate them.
Enforcing the caste theory in law is not possible in our time, for no reason other than the fact that the majority of Hindus would be disadvantaged by this.
The vast majority of Hindus are already hugely disadvantaged. But things could get worse for them if they fuck over the highly productive people in the big cities who are paying a lot in Income tax.
It is for this reason that Nepal was an incomplete Hindu Rashtra, which it was till 2008.
Nonsense! Nepalese 'Hindu Rashtra' advocates are pro-monarchy.
In the kingdom of Nepal, executive authority had flowed from a Kshatriya King,
the King was seen as the incarnation of God. He was higher than the Kshatriya 'Ranas' though, sadly, the Rana Premier had more power.
as prescribed in the Manu Smriti, and he was advised by a Brahmin, called the “Mool Purohit”, or “Bada Gurujyu”, in his court.
Everyone with a bit of money could get a Brahmins, or a whole bunch of Brahmins, to advise him. The King of Thailand too has a Brahmin purohit- so what?
But no other part of the caste framework was applied, because it could not be.
Yes it was. Untouchability was only abolished in 1963.
So, we can rule out a Hindu Rashtra in India where only those born Kshatriya will rule us, advised by Brahmins, and the rest of us left with few or no rights.
It is easy enough to do the rituals to become a Kshatriya- provided you have the power to control territory.
Incidentally, Aakar seems to be unaware that Rahul is a Brahmin and his supporters think he has a hereditary claim to the Prime Minister's office.
The other form that such a Hindu Rashtra may take would be to become exclusionary.
Nehru excluded Muslims who had fled to Pakistan from returning.
This is the form that many religious states, including Pakistan, have taken.
Pakistan retaliated against Nehru's ordinance with similarly exclusionary measures.
In Pakistan, no non-Muslim can become Prime Minister by law (Article 91). This was also the case for the President (Article 41), which is important because Pakistan’s President had the power to dismiss Parliament, which was not something that the Indian President has.
The Indian President can dissolve the lower house. The upper house is a 'continuing chamber'. Pakistan had a CJI who endorsed a 'doctrine of necessity' such that the Head of State had full sovereign powers.
So a Hindu Rashtra of this type can mandate by law that no non-Hindu can become Prime Minister or chief minister, and that only Hindus can hold certain offices.
This was the question that was raised in 2004 when Sonia could have become PM.
We should consider here that though we have no such law, there is no Muslim chief minister at present in this country, that no Muslim has ever served a full five-year term as CM in any state other than Jammu and Kashmir,
where Muslims are the majority
and of course there has never been a Muslim Prime Minister in India.
Just as there can't be a Hindu PM in Christian majority Nagaland.
This type of Hindu Rashtra can also adopt some other discriminatory aspects against its religious minorities that certain states like Pakistan have chosen. For instance, non-Muslims vote in separate electorates, and the apostatised community of Ahmadis cannot call themselves Muslims and have no religious freedom.
I can imagine a future Congress led government stigmatizing the Qadianis to appease the Hanafi majority.
BJP MP Subramanian Swamy has proposed that Muslims should be disenfranchised, meaning that they lose their right to vote.
Swamy lost his seat in the Upper House in 2022.
Germany in the 1930s adopted a set of laws that prevented inter-marriage between communities.
It was copying Jim Crow America.
In India, after 2018, seven BJP states have passed laws that also criminalise marriage between Muslims and Hindus. German laws excluded Jews from citizenship, and India has of course adopted the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), excluding Muslims,
Nehru did this in 1948. All that Amit Shah did was to reassure non-Muslim refugees that they wouldn't be deported or denied a path to citizenship.
and the Union home minister has promised us the National Register of Citizens (NRC),
first set up by the Bench in Assam along with detention centres
which also targets what he calls “termites”.
not to mention those he calls 'terrorists'
Many of the things that India has done, especially since 2019, with targeted laws and policy on namaz, hijab, beef, bulldozer, talaq and so on would also be something that we can see in an exclusionary Hindu Rashtra.
not to mention Macron's France
So the question is, if we have already excluded Muslims from political offices by default, and if we are already harassing them daily through laws, like Nazi Germany had done and like Pakistan does even now, then why do we need a Hindu Rashtra at all or a change from the present set of laws?
Because the Commies too require bashing- as Mamta well knows.
My book concluded that we did not. That the present Constitution and the laws give Hindus enough freedom to apply discrimination against non-Hindus legally, while still pretending to be pluralist, democratic and secular.
But the present Constitution and the laws also give cats enough freedom to sodomize dogs. Sadly, constitutions and laws don't matter in the slightest.
There appears to be no particular advantage or benefit that we get in officially changing our constitutional and legal state from a secular one to a Hindu Rashtra.
Moreover, India would gain nothing by declaring itself the Fourth Reich and sending Jews to the Gas-Chamber because everybody knows real name of Nicholas Maugham (aka Narendra Modi) is Nasty-nasty Hitler-Mussolini.
Of course we can still do it because it can give us pride and we can humiliate Muslims further and tell them they have no stake in India.
Moreover, Hindu cats can sodomize Mahua Moitra's dog.
Some have written that many Muslims might prefer this honesty rather than be marginalised through hypocrisy as they have been done.
Indeed, many Indian Muslims beg Modi to personally to defecate on their upturned faces on network TV rather than sneaking into their homes at night and doing it while they sleep. As for Mahua Moitra's dog, it has asked the Supreme Court to take suo moto action to locate and make public smartphone footage of Hindutva cats sodomizing dogs in the National Capital Region.
Whatever we decide, it will interest the world.
More particularly, if videos of cats sodomizing dogs are widely disseminated.
The era of religious states is over and no new ones of significance have been founded in the 21st century.
Islamic State Sahel is expanding as the French depart the region.
Many states founded on religion have reversed their discriminatory laws because birth and faith are too narrow a frame to view individuals through.
Israel? Pakistan? Islamic Republic of Iran?
While for citizens this period may be traumatic, and it is for me the worst period of my life,
Hindutva cats mistake him for a dog and bugger him senseless
for writers it is rich with material as a nation once admired around the world is eating itself alive.
Aakar may be eating himself- but he is brain dead.
No comments:
Post a Comment