AnilSir as the anus of UPSC education

The followingis a tweet by Anil @AnilSir_Uncut who describes himself as an UPSC educator - which is why his views are perfectly sensible. If he was an Ivy League Professor, he would be writing utter nonsense).

As a former 'UPSC educated' (albeit of an earlier generation) I insert my own comments in italics. 

Hindu Society Is Not Secular 

All Societies by definition are secular. They exist in chronological time and, speaking generally, only have 'historical memory' three generations deep (one saeculum is about a hundred years). Even if there is some institution which we think has existed 'in saecula saeculorum' (for ever and ever), Revealed Scripture (Veda, Bible, Quran, etc.) says it will perish. Only what is sacred and pertaining to God has the quality of eternity. In 'sanatan dharm', even Gods get reborn. There have been many Indras and 'Indralok'. But, beyond the 'Maya' (illusion) of Duality, there is self-subsistent, non-dual, 'satcitananda' or blissful Being as Truth. 

The good thing about Sanatan Dharm is that it reforms itself- or has done so in my 'saeculum'. Thus, if you look at my grandmother, who was 5 foot tall and got married at 12 (but who got a degree from BHU at the age of 60) you could say the Hinduism of her time was different from that of my mother, was about 5 foot 6 and got an MA. My sister was 6 foot tall and got a PhD after joining the IFS. Three generations of women- of whom my grandmother was the most intelligent, erudite, and financially successful- but they shared the same 'Sanatan Hinduism' and were perfectly candid with, and supportive of, each other. True, Mum used to complain that Granny didn't like her cooking- but that type of harshness was actually tenderness. It wasn't 'emotional atyachar' as Mummy- who liked hanging out with JNU students- tried to claim.

Calling Hinduism an inclusive religion is also historically and socially contradictory. 

Paul Hacker, the leading German Indologist in Bonn (called 'Benares on the Rhine because of its long tradition of Sanskrit philological scholarship), warned against Hindu inclusivism. I was born in Bonn in 1963. I firmly believe that I personally shat upon Hacker till he fucked off from Bonn. Still, throughout History, non-Hindus who sojourned in India warned that their religion was getting absorbed into Hinduism. This was not coercive in any sense and, at a later point, even Jainism could gain recognition as a separate religion.

The inclusiveness of Hinduism is shown by the Dynasty. Feroze was a Parsi but, because the marriage was quasi-Vedic, Mrs. Gandhi won a lawsuit to prove her sons were Hindu. Sonia carried on this tradition and thus her grandchildren are Hindu- unless they explicitly convert to an Abrahamic Religion. 

I agree with most of the points made by former Chief Election Commissioner @DrSYQuraishi

an upstanding IAS officer. He had a tiff with Salman Khurshid. I can recount many instances of 'Ashraf' Muslim officers who objected to the corruption or partisanship of other Ashraf Muslims promoted by the Dynasty. 

in his podcast, but I fundamentally disagree with his argument that Hindus are secular. India's Constitution is secular not because Hindu society was inherently secular, but because the freedom struggle, the trauma of Partition, and the historical experiences of the Constitution's framers established the necessity of a secular state.

No. The historical experience of the framers of India's constitution were exactly the same as the experiences of the framers of Pakistan's 'Objectives Resolution'. Muslims wanted an Islamic State which should give expanded role to Shariah law. That's what they got, where they were the majority. Ayub Khan tried to do Turkish style Tanzimat codification & brought back Fazlur Rahman Malik, from Canada, to oversee this. The Mullahs, backed by the masses, chased him away in 1968.

Hindus wanted universal suffrage based Democracy such that all 'apadh Dharma' laws and restrictions could be removed so that the 'Praja' acting collectively established 'Ramrajya' as an ongoing project of defeasible jurisprudence and equitable 'Arthashastra' (Public Economics). 

Because of the doctrine of karma (metempsychosis) Hindus have always regarded all laws and norms as purely contingent, defeasible, and arising from Cliodynamic cylicity. 

 Let us not forget that Hindu-Muslim communal violence occurred during Independence and Partition, and communal riots have continued periodically even after Independence. 

Why have there been no Hindu-Muslim riots in Pakistan or Bangladesh? The truth is, it is easy for the majority to prevent the minority from wagging its tail. Sadly, political instrumentalization of riots is a feature of 'vote bank' politics. 

If the majority community were inherently secular, why would constitutional guarantees protecting religious minorities have been considered so essential?

From the Treaty of Versailles onward 'Minority Treaties' were a feature of International Law till Poland repudiated them in 1934. The thing was useless but even Pakistan and Burma had them in their Constitutions because, by 1947, everybody knew they didn't mean shit. Still, there was such a thing as 'International Law' & the Atlantic fucking Charter & other such shibboleths. 

 Hindu society was not secular in ancient India,

It was wholly secular. The moment a dude entered the sacred realm, he or she ceased to be part of the secular realm. Such 'Sadhu Mahatmas', in formal terms, had no Mummy, Daddy, or private property- unless they chose otherwise. 

 although comparing that period with modern secularism 

The word was coined by a English dude- Holyoake- who had once been imprisoned for blasphemy. He pointed out that the East India Company's rule in India was wholly secular. He could say what he liked in Bombay. Why not in Birmingham?

is itself problematic because the concept of the modern state did not exist in its present form. 

It has always existed. One may say, the Peace of Augsburg (not Westphalia) established it for European 'Christendom' 600 years ago. But that is an Eurocentric view. To our best knowledge, Nation-States arose sometime after the agricultural or pastoral revolutions six or seven thousand years ago. 

Nor can Hindu society in post-Independence India be described as uniformly secular. 

Yes it can. There is not one single theocratic entity within India. BTW Bhutan isn't part of India. I remember meeting an elderly Old Etonian, in the early Eighties, whose father had been the Colonel of a Gurkha regiment during the War. He thought I might have some influence in New Delhi & thus could help protect Nepalis in Bhutan. I was so fucking stupid and ignorant, I denied that such people faced any threat of expulsion from that country. 

The second misconception is that Hinduism is inclusive. 

Paul Hacker was right. Mrs. Gandhi won her court case. Hinduism says you are Hindu if you say you are Hindu or, even if you don't, there is no proof that you converted to an 'exclusive' religion. Currently, only Abrahamic religions are recognised as such. Even there, if I say I am Parsi or Jewish and the Zoroastrian Panchayat or the Jewish Rabbinate denies my claim, I am shit out of luck. I am bound by Hindu inheritance law. 

Inclusive in what sense? Hinduism certainly contains diversity, but diversity and inclusivity are not the same thing. 

But both notions have Kripkean 'rigid-designator', 'buck-stopped', interpretations for the Law. There, I say with confidence, diversity and inclusivity, with regard to Hinduism, are one and the same thing. Back in 1981, when I became the President of the LSE India Society, an elderly Sindhi man demanded to see me. I was 17 years old. I didn't know shit about shit. Still, the LSE porters knew me because the India Soc was one of the biggest student organisations and I made it a point to tip well after any of our events. Since the money came out of my own pocket, I didn't hold many (in fact any) events once the Gujjus turned against me. Instead, I had- for some mysterious reason- an English sidekick & some girls who liked him because he was a 'sweetie-pie' and his acne was bound to clear up in a year or two. They would attend my meetings and put up posters for events which I would almost always have to cancel because even my own committee members- social pariahs for one reason or another- would not attend them because they didn't want to mingle with losers, more abject yet. 

How can a social order historically characterised by caste hierarchy, birth-based privileges, social exclusion, and untouchability be declared inclusive without critical examination? 

Because inclusivity means getting included just coz you wanna be. Exclusivity means there is an eligibility criterion. Thus, the identity class of Delhi 'gym-rat' is 'inclusive'. I could be part of it, if I joined a gym in Vikaspuri and built up my muscles. However, the Delhi Gymkhana is exclusive. I can't get into it. 

Inclusivity is about 'pooling equilibria' based on cheap talk. Hinduism is that. On the other hand, if I wanted to become a Catholic, I'd have to take instruction. Getting to be Jewish or Muslim would also require my slicing off my fuckin' foreskin. As my ex-wife put it, that would leave me with no fuckin penis at all. 

Such a claim may reflect a Brahmanical perspective of privilege 

Hindu priests are as poor as fuck. They don't got no fucking privilege. That's why this cunt is a UPSC educator- not a fucking Purohit. 

that tends to glorify every aspect of the tradition while overlooking its deeply discriminatory structures. The caste system is exclusionary by its very structure.

So is the anus. I hope Mahua Moitra's dog buggers this cunt the way he has done Rahul Baba. 

I made an honest attempt to examine this shithead's views. I failed. Guess I am the wrong caste to evaluate shite.