“This report does not critique religion or its festivals. It examines whether public religious mobilisations are being used to spread exclusionary rhetoric and whether authorities are responding.”

Background: Sanatan Hindu Ekta Padyatra

Launched by prominent right-wing Hindutva leaders, the Sanatan Ekta Padyatra is being promoted as a socio-spiritual movement. Led by Dhirendra Krishna Shastri of Bageshwar Dham, the yatra was flagged off from Delhi with the stated objectives of establishing a Hindu nation, eradicating casteism, and fostering social unity. Scheduled from November 7 to 16, it passed through 422 village panchayats across Delhi, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh.

As part of the campaign, seven resolutions were announced, like promoting social harmony and supporting the “grand construction” of the Shri Janmabhoomi temple. The controversy primarily stems from the first and central resolution: the demand to declare India a Hindu Rashtra. This directly conflicts with the Constitution’s commitment to a secular state and violates the guarantees of freedom of religion under Article 25 as well as equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 15.

However, the publicly stated resolutions tell only part of the story. Across multiple stops in Delhi, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh, several speakers, including the Padyatra’s principal organisers, delivered inflammatory speeches that went far beyond calls for spiritual unity or social harmony. These speeches invoked communal conspiracy theories (“love jihad,” “land jihad”), portrayed Muslims as demographic threats, justified vigilante violence, and openly advocated for religious segregation and economic boycotts. Many of these statements raise serious concerns under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and established Supreme Court jurisprudence on hate speech and incitement. 

Details of the Hate Speech Delivered

Below is a consolidated analysis of the most objectionable statements made during the Sanatan Hindu Ekta Padyatra, grouped under 3 main themes and mapped against the relevant legal frameworks.
The reference links of the speeches, with timestamps mentioned, are given below-

Ghaziabad, Nov 3

Palwal, Nov 10

Palwal, Nov 12

Chhatarpur, Nov 14

Faridabad, Nov 8

Banchari, Nov 12

Mathura, Nov 15

Palwal, Haryana, Nov 10

Banchari, Nov 12

A.  Direct Hate Speech (Violence, Hostility, Social Boycott)

(Statements advocating violence, hostility, coercion, or social/economic boycott; calls for expulsion; explicit majoritarian supremacy)

Across multiple stops of the Sanatan Hindu Ekta Padyatra, speakers issued direct calls that clearly cross the constitutional threshold into incitement as interpreted in Amish Devgan and Shreya Singhal. In Ghaziabad (Nov 3), the speaker declared that India “should become a Hindu Rashtra” (0:39–0:42) and added that population decline “should happen to those who follow the ‘chadar’ and the ‘father’,” (1:17–1:20) a statement which the Supreme Court would classify as high-intensity dehumanising hate speech. Similarly, in Palwal (Nov 10), a public oath was taken to ensure that “love jihad and aaved dharmantaran will not be allowed” (0:20–0:27), effectively encouraging vigilantism against interfaith couples and converts. Under Patricia Mukhim, such statements, though framed as “protection,” amount to direct incitement toward unlawful acts.

In Delhi (Nov 7), hostility was escalated through demographic-war rhetoric: “tumhari sampatti tumhari hogi, kabza unka hoga” (2:30–2:44), and by invoking civilisational conflict through “ye desh Babar ka nahi, Raghuvar ka hai” (2:58–3:02). The Court in Amish Devgan specifically flagged the use of derogatory historical figures to mobilise hatred in the present. In Faridabad (Nov 10), a speaker warned: “jab desh lutega… tumhari beti love jihad mei pad jayegi… tumhara beta jis din shukravar ko jaane lagega,” (2:34–2:56) creating a direct incentive to treat Muslim men as targets of suspicion and implying moral justifications for coercive action.

Following the Delhi car blast, Dhirendra Shastri, addressing Palwal (Nov 12), asked: “yehi (Muslims) kyu aatangwadi hote hain?” (0:27–0:39), treating the entire community as terrorists. He further warned that unless Hindus united, bomb blasts like Delhi would occur “in every gali” (0:57–1:26), which satisfies the proximity test under Shreya Singhal. In Chhatarpur, MP (Nov 14), dissenters to Hindu symbols were told to “get their ticket to Lahore” (0:00–0:13), echoing classic expulsion rhetoric the Court has treated as unprotected. The chant recorded in Faridabad (Nov 8) — “tel lagao Dabur ka, naam mita do Babur ka; jo Ram ka nahi wo kisi kaam ka nahi” — directly targets Muslims through symbolic eradication. In Banchari, Palwal (Nov 12), speakers vowed to conduct compulsory “ghar wapsi” for those who had “left Sanatan” (0:29–0:46), amounting to a call for coercive reconversion, contrary to Shafin Jahan (Hadiya), which protects decisional autonomy in matters of faith.

Finally, in Mathura (Nov 15), spiritual leader Devkinandan Thakur invoked the Babri Masjid demolition (“4:20–4:50”) while urging the crowd to “move toward Mathura and Vrindavan,” hinting at mobilisation to claim the Shahi Idgah Mosque. The Supreme Court in the Ayodhya judgment warned that religious disputes must not be weaponised for incitement. These statements collectively amount to direct hate speech under Indian constitutional and criminal jurisprudence.

B. Discriminatory / Exclusionary “Othering”

(Normalising prejudice, othering minorities, delegitimising citizenship, religious tests for belonging)

Several speeches sought to redefine citizenship and community belonging in expressly exclusionary terms. In Ghaziabad (Nov 3), the speaker framed Hindu women as victims of Muslim men by warning that “our daughters fall into love jihad” (0:44–1:01), establishing a stereotype that casts Muslim men as predatory. He also suggested that Hindus “are not extremist,” implying that extremism is inherent to other communities (1:32–1:39). Such rhetorical othering aligns with what Patricia Mukhim describes as hate speech that delegitimises equal citizenship.

In Delhi (Nov 7), converts were described as outsiders: “Hindu issai mei converted hota hai toh ‘sister’ aur ‘sir’ kehlata hai… Hindu Musalman mei converted hota hai toh ‘bhai-jaan, amma-jaan’ kehlata hai,” followed by a suggestion that Hindus should first identify only as “Hindu” before any caste label (1:47–2:22). This constructs religious identity as the sole marker of national legitimacy. In Haryana (Nov 10), the crowd was asked if they want to see their children “wearing topi” or “going to church on Sunday” (0:04–0:25), depicting basic religious expression by minorities as inherently undesirable. The line “jab topi walo ki ekta ho sakti, toh tilak walo ki kyu nahi” (0:30–0:37) frames religious groups as competing blocs, contradicting the constitutional ideal of fraternity.

Kajal Hindusthani, in Palwal (Nov 10), urged the crowd to “be Hindus, buy from Hindus, employ only Hindus” (0:20–0:33), an explicit economic boycott. Section 196 of BNS emphasises that no citizen can be coerced into religious conformity; here, exclusion is extended to everyday economic life. In Chhatarpur (Nov 14), slogans like “jo Ram ka nahi, wo kisi kaam ka nahi” (0:24–0:33) reduce non-Hindus to second-class status. The DNA-testing analogy used to delegitimise dissenter’s mirrors what Amish Devgan classifies as dehumanising metaphors, which have no constitutional protection. In Banchari (Nov 12), Nagendra Maharaj’s line— “those who object to Vande Mataram or Ram should go to Pakistan or Afghanistan” (0:33–0:41)—constructs a religious test for belonging, contrary to the secular character upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court.

Such statements normalise hostility and social exclusion, and the Court in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan explicitly warned that such majoritarian narratives fuel discrimination and justify vigilantism, attracting Sections 196 (Promoting enmity between different groups), Section 197 (assertions prejudicial to national integration), and Section 299 (Deliberate acts, intended to outrage religious feelings).

C. Fearmongering & Demographic Conspiracy Claims

(Alarmist misinformation about population, survival, territorial takeover; invoking existential threat narratives)

A consistent theme throughout the padyatra was the portrayal of Hindus as being on the verge of demographic extinction. In Ghaziabad (Nov 3), the speaker claimed that Hindus are “khatam ho rahe hai” despite India’s overwhelming Hindu majority, and that once “Hindus do not unite, they will not be safe” (1:55–2:06). He also asserted that Hindus are declining “day by day” (1:04–1:16), ignoring census realities. This comes under spreading demographic conspiracy narratives constitutes incitement because it fosters suspicion and hostility against minorities.

In Delhi (Nov 7), the crowd was told that “20 saal baad, Bharat ka Hindu apne astitva ki ladai lad raha hoga” (0:38–), and that minorities would seize Hindu property: “sampatti tumhari hogi, kabza unka hoga” (2:30–2:44). Such claims resemble classic “replacement” conspiracy theories. When combined with militaristic lines like “na toh pad rehna hai, na kad rehna hai” (0:55–0:58), the rhetoric urges mobilisation against an imagined security threat. In Haryana (Nov 10), Partition was invoked (“Jinnah ki leadership mein… alag Pakistan bana”), followed by an analogy that if “Sanatan Dharma ke naam par” India does not become a Hindu Rashtra, it will face a “Bangladesh-like situation” where “haq kisi aur ka hoga” (1:53–2:06). The Supreme Court in Pravasi Bhalai explicitly noted that selective historical parallels are often used to trigger fear and justify majoritarian aggression.

After the Delhi blast, Dhirendra Shastri claimed that unless Hindus unite, “aisa har gali mein hoga” (0:57–1:26), and asserted that the arrested individual— “doctor, musalman… crore-o ki jaan lene ki tayaari”—was preparing mass murder, furthering the narrative that Muslims pose a blanket existential threat. Fear of demographic loss was also invoked repeatedly: in Delhi (Nov 7), the claim that Hindus have become minorities in “9 states” is factually incorrect yet presented as imminent collapse. In Banchari (Nov 12), Nagendra Maharaj warned that Hindus could be “expelled from their homes like Srinagar,” framing political developments as religious persecution.

Such narratives fall squarely within the Supreme Court’s treatment of misinformation that has a proximate connection to public disorder (Shreya Singhal). Fearmongering of this kind shifts the public mindset from coexistence to hostility, creating conditions for violence without issuing explicit violent commands.

Legal Framework

India’s constitutional and statutory framework places clear limits on speech that promotes enmity, incites violence, or undermines the country’s secular structure. Several statements delivered during the Sanatan Ekta Padyatra appear to contravene these provisions.

Constitutional Provisions

Various provisions of the Indian Constitution safeguard against hate speech and communal othering.

1. Article 14 — Equality before law

Communal othering, demographic fear-mongering, and calls for exclusion (“be Hindus, buy only from Hindus”) violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection to all communities.

2. Article 15 — Non-discrimination on grounds of religion

Calls for a ‘Hindu Rashtra’, alongside statements urging economic segregation, employment discrimination, or “ghar wapsi” of all converts, contradict the constitutional prohibition against discrimination on religious grounds.

3. Article 19(1)(a) & 19(2) — Freedom of speech and its reasonable restrictions

Speech that threatens public order, incites violence, or promotes communal disharmony falls squarely within the restrictions permitted under Article 19(2).
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that advocacy crossing into incitement is not protected speech.

4. Article 25 — Freedom of religion

Sections of the BNS

1. Section 196 of BNS: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony

(1) Whoever—

• by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities; or Liability of owner, occupier, etc., of land on which an unlawful assembly or riot takes place. Affray. Assaulting or obstructing a public servant when suppressing a riot, etc.
  (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity;

2. Section 197 of BNS: Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration.

(1) Whoever, by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise, —

(a) makes or publishes any imputation that any class of persons cannot, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established or uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India; or

(c) makes or publishes any assertion, counsel, plea or appeal concerning the obligation of any class of persons, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, and such assertion, counsel, plea or appeal causes or is likely to cause disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will between such members and other persons; or

3. Section 299: Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. 

Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic means or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

4. Section 352: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace.

 Whoever intentionally insults in any manner, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

5. Section 353: Statements conducing to public mischief.

 (1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, false information, rumour, or report, including through electronic means—

(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquillity; or

(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Judicial Precedents

Indian constitutional jurisprudence has consistently sought to balance freedom of expression with the imperative of preserving public order, equality, and the secular fabric of the nation. While there is no universally accepted definition of ‘hate speech’, the Supreme Court has laid down clear principles that define when speech crosses the boundary from protected expression into unlawful incitement or communal hatred.

The foundational judgment in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) affirmed that criminal provisions affecting speech must be interpreted narrowly. The statute is constitutionally valid only to the extent it punishes speech that has the intention or tendency to create disorder or incitement to violence or disturbance of law and order.

The Padyatra speeches, alleging demographic conquest, “love jihad,” and calling for social boycotts and vigilante resistance, demonstrate a direct intention to cause disharmony between religious groups travelling through communally sensitive regions of Delhi, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. The route’s culmination at Banke Bihari Temple, Vrindavan, a site recently embroiled in controversy, heightens the imminent potential for communal mobilisation.

A decade later, Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India (1973) reaffirmed the inviolable constitutional commitment to secularism, equality, and fundamental rights by introducing the Basic Structure doctrine. Through this, the Court held that any attempt, legislative or otherwise, that undermines the secular character of the Republic would be unconstitutional at its core. This principle shapes the broader legal environment within which communal speech is assessed.

On debates around ‘love jihad’ and ‘illegal conversion’, the Supreme Court in the Hadiya Marriage Case (2018), held that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21, and the choice of a partner lies within the exclusive domain of an individual, and is a part of the core zone of privacy, which is inviolable.

The modern understanding of hate speech was articulated in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014), where the Supreme Court held that

Hate speech is an effort to marginalise individuals based on their membership in a group. Using expression that exposes the group to hatred, hate speech seeks to delegitimize group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society. Hate speech, therefore, rises beyond causing distress to individual group members. It can have a societal impact.

Responding to this mandate, the Law Commission’s 267th Report proposed a structured framework for understanding hate speech. Para 5.2 laid down the criteria for identifying hate speech:

(i) The extremity of the speech

(ii) Incitement

(iii) Status of the author of the speech

(iv) Status of victims of the speech

(v) Potentiality of the speech

(vi) Context of the Speech

The Court’s earlier ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) further clarified that only speech amounting to “incitement to imminent lawless action” can be legitimately restricted under Article 19(2), reinforcing the centrality of context, intent, and likely consequences.

In Patricia vs State of Meghalaya (2021), the Supreme Court quashed a FIR against a journalist, concluding that the post was a genuine plea for justice and equality rather than an attempt to promote hatred or communal discord. In Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020), the court further stated that: the mode of exercise of free speech, the context and the extent of abuse of freedom are important in determining the contours of permissible restrictions.

Aftermath of Padyatra

The Sanatan Ekta Padyatra triggered immediate political and social pushback across several states. The Azaad Samaj Party (ASP) condemned the march on constitutional grounds, arguing that India’s identity as a secular republic cannot be undermined by a public movement openly calling for a “Hindu Rashtra.” ASP formally petitioned the President to halt the yatra, while the Dalit Pichda Samaj Sanathan (DPSS) joined ASP in filing a PIL before the Supreme Court seeking a complete stop to the march and a ban on its “inflammatory” speeches. In response, Gwalior-based politician Damodar Singh Yadav announced a counter-mobilisation titled the Samvidhan Bachao Yatra, set to begin on November 16, framing it as a defence of constitutional values.

On the ground, several areas witnessed unrest directly linked to the padyatra. Samagra Bharat reported that on 9 November in Indergarh (Datia district, MP), residents gathered at Ambedkar Park and attempted to burn an effigy of Dhirendra Shastri, alleging that his speeches promoted caste humiliation and communal hatred. Members of the Hindu Sangathan retaliated with stone-pelting, leading to a police lathi-charge when tensions escalated. Locals later filed an FIR against Shastri, but authorities have taken no concrete action. A week later, on 17 November, Patrika reported a scuffle at Vrindavan’s Banke Bihari Temple during Shastri’s visit, where a confrontation between temple priests and the police resulted in torn garments and allegations that the padyatra’s politicised presence compromised the sanctity and security of the temple premises.

Broader Pattern of Impunity towards Hate Speeches

The fallout from the padyatra reflects a broader pattern in which communal mobilisation and hate speech by far-right Hindutva leaders are met with minimal institutional response. India has witnessed repeated episodes of religiously charged violence—such as the 2019 lynching of Tabrez Ansari in Jharkhand, where the victim was forced to chant “Jai Shri Ram”—and mass events like the 2024 Ayodhya Ram Mandir consecration have increasingly become sites for majoritarian mobilisation. Despite this backdrop, police responses remain inconsistent, especially when politically influential individuals are involved. NDTV reports that although five FIRs were filed over two years against BJP legislator T. Raja Singh for comments such as “The Old City of Hyderabad is a mmini-Pakistan” two were closed, and the remaining three have seen no decisive progress.

Legal scrutiny has extended to Baba Dhirendra Shastri as well, with multiple complaints for delivering hate speeches in Udaipur, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh. In 2023, a PIL before the Gujarat High Court sought enforcement of the Supreme Court’s Tehseen Poonawalla guidelines—requiring preventive intelligence units, immediate action against hate speech, and punitive steps against officials who fail to curb mob violence—but the petition was declined. This pattern of judicial reluctance, combined with police inaction, underscores a systemic tolerance toward inflammatory communal rhetoric, even when it directly violates constitutional guarantees and statutory prohibitions under the BNS. The result is a public environment where speeches like those delivered during the Sanatan Ekta Padyatra, openly calling for a Hindu Rashtra and targeting minority communities, continue largely unchecked, emboldening majoritarian mobilisation while eroding constitutional safeguards.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this has been worked on by Shyamli Pengoriya)

Related:

Targeted as ‘Bangladeshis’: The hate speech fuelling deportations

India Hate Lab Report 2024: Unveiling the rise of hate speech and communal rhetoric

2024: CJP’s battle against communal rallies before and after they unfold

Exclusion at the Gate: Navratri becomes the new front for communal politics

Hate Has No Place in Elections: CJP moves State EC against BJP MP Ashwini Choubey’s communal speech

The post The Politics of Processions: How the Sanatan Ekta Padyatra amplified hate speech in plain sight appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The news item highlights that a 501-page document, prepared by a 25-member committee of scholars, draws inspiration from the Ramayana, the rules and teachings of Krishna, Manusmriti and Chanakya’s Arthashastra. The so-called ‘Constitution’ based on the Hindutva ideology, is expected to be unveiled at the Mahakumbh on Sunday February 2, when the Hindus celebrate ‘Basant Panchami’. Whether it will actually take place is anyone’s guess; the painful fact however, is that no one from the ruling regime, who swear by the Constitution of the country, has had the courage to say that very thought of propagating such an idea should be regarded as anti-national!

The committee which has put together this Constitution is known as the ‘Hindu Rashtra Samvidhan Nirmal Samiti’ and apparently consists of so-called scholars of the ‘Sanatan Dharma.’ Swami Anand Swaroop Maharaj, patron of the committee, told reporters at the Mahakumbh, that their target was to make India a Hindu nation by 2035. (their original plan was to make India a Hindutva- nation in 2025 – the centenary year of the RSS- but their plans failed miserably when they did not get the required numbers in the last Parliamentary elections- to make any undemocratic Constitutional changes).

The key provisions in the proposed ‘Constitution’ include:

• Mandatory Military Education: Every citizen of the Hindu Rashtra will be required to undergo military education.
• Harsher Punishment for Theft: The constitution proposes stricter punishment for theft and other crimes. (apparently there is no word on ‘corruption’ – which is the forte of the ruling regime)
• Tax Exemption for Agriculture: The tax system will be revamped, with agriculture being completely tax-free.
• Unicameral Legislature: The Hindu Dharma Parliament will be a unicameral legislature, with members known as Dharmik Sansads.
• Minimum Voting Age: The minimum voting age has been fixed at 16 years, with only those belonging to Sanatan Dharma allowed to contest elections.
• The Rashtradhyaksh, the chief of the country, would be chosen by three-fourths of the elected members of the legislature

Swaroop reiterated, “Human values are in the nucleus of our Constitution, which has been prepared by 14 scholars from north and 11 from south India. Our Constitution is not against other religions but those who are found involved in anti-national activities will face harsher punishment than what is awarded to them currently…. Over 300 amendments have been made in the Indian Constitution in the last seven decades but our scriptures are the same for the last several thousand centuries. There are 127 Christian, 57 Muslim and 15 Buddhist countries. Even the Jews have Israel. But the Hindus, whose population is over 175 crores across the world, have no Hindu nation.”

The writing has been on the wall since a long time now: the attacks on the Christians in 1998-99, in different parts of India and particularly in the Dangs District and other areas of South Gujarat became International headlines. The Gujarat Carnage in 2002 when more than 2000 Muslims were murdered, many more brutalised and even raped and thousands of others having to leave forever a place they once called their home –was perhaps the blackest chapter in post –independent India.

Over the years, and particularly since 2014, when the BJP seized the reins of power once again – every effort is being made to denigrate and demonise the minorities of India and especially the Muslims, the Christians and the Sikhs; they have also been derogatively referred to as ‘terrorists’, ‘converters’ and ‘khalistanis’, respectively.  There is a systematic move to paint the minorities as ‘anti-national’! Personnel and properties of the minority communities are regularly targeted.

The Judiciary –and in particular, the Supreme Court – has been one bastion of hope for the minorities, given its fundamental role and responsibility in protecting the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Unfortunately, in the recent past, the Judiciary at various levels seem to have abdicated this non-negotiable duty – of impartiality, objectivity and of not siding with any particular faith and/or ideology. There are facts and other indicators to substantiate this!

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court is a classic example!

On 8 December, he addressed the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) legal cell, in Allahabad High Court on ‘Uniform Civil Code–A Constitutional Imperative’. He argued in favour of a Uniform Civil Code and demanded for changes in the Muslim personal laws. His speech smacked of blatant ‘majoritarianism’ saying that India should function according to the wishes of the “majority,” meaning Hindus! Justice Yadav assured the VHP gathering that as the Ram Mandir was constructed in Ayodhya after years of “sacrifices by our ancestors,” the Uniform Civil Code would also become a reality soon. “Did you imagine seeing the Ram Mandir with your own eyes? But you did see it. Many of our ancestors made sacrifices for it, in the hope of seeing Ram Lalla freed and witnessing the construction of a grand temple. They couldn’t see it but did their part and now we are witnessing it.”. Likewise, he said that the country would get a UCC. “That day is not very far,” he emphatically declared. On 17 December, he was summoned by the Chief Justice of India to appear before the Collegium regarding his remarks. A month later, he writes to the Chief Justice, saying he stands by his remarks which, he maintained, did not violate any principle of judicial conduct.

The remarks of Justice Yadav are just the tip of the iceberg. There was the case of a Christian Pastor who had died, being denied the right to burial in his native village in Chhattisgarh by the village panchayat. After knocking at all doors in his State, his son had to seek justice from the Supreme Court. On 27 January, the two-member bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in the case. It directed that the body of the pastor be buried at a Christian graveyard 20 km away and asked the State administration to provide all support. Since the body was already in the morgue for almost three weeks, the judgement did not feel it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger bench.

Justice BV Nagarathna, however, strongly upheld the secular character of the Constitution. In her path-breaking judgment she asserted that, “It is said that death is a great leveller and we need to remind ourselves of this. This death has led to divisiveness among villagers on the right to burial. The appellant says there is discrimination and prejudice,” She noted that the High Court accepted a suggestion that displaced the practices being followed in the village. “The death of the person has given (way) to disharmony since it was not solved by the village panchayat. Panchayat has been taking sides which led to the case in high court and Supreme Court.” She pointed to the police affidavit that says a Christian convert cannot be allowed burial on the village grounds. “This is unfortunate and violates Articles 21 and 14 and furthers discrimination on the grounds of religion. The State cannot deny equality before the law. How could ASP Bastar give such an affidavit and what was the authority? it betrays the sublime principle of secularism.” Sadly, however, the other Justice thought otherwise and the Christian Pastor had to be buried far away from his village.

On January 27, Uttarakhand introduced and began implementing the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) which most legal and Constitutional experts find highly discriminatory. It is clearly aimed at targeting sections of the minorities- particularly Muslims and Christians. The law, among other things, does not challenge patriarchal provisions in Hindu civil law, for instance, on the guardianship of a minor boy or unmarried girl going to the father, and only after him, to the mother. Strangely enough the law will not be applicable to Scheduled Tribes, with the CM saying, “We have kept our scheduled tribes mentioned under Article 342 of the Constitution out of this code so that those rights can be protected!” So the question being asked is how ‘Uniform’ is this code?

There is plenty else happening all over the country with regard to the rights of minorities and to the cause of secularism. The tribal Christians in Manipur have been suffering since May 2023. In UP, a Christian Pastor and his wife have been convicted under the State’s draconian anti- Conversion law whilst several others are languishing in jail. In every one of them – there is absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing, just that they were conducting prayer meetings or having a Bible in their house. The anti- conversion laws in several states ruled by the BJP, not only violate Article 25 enshrined in the Constitution is but also a blatant attempt to discriminate against the minorities. ‘Ghar wapasi’ which is also a conversion exercise, does not come into the ambit of this law. Amit Shah in his election campaign in Maharashtra promised that such a law would be introduced in that State too!

The list is endless indeed! Mobs stormed the gates and the grounds the Jesuit –run Andhra Loyola College in Vijayawada, demanding that they are entitled to use the private premises as per their whims and fancies.  The High Court of Gujarat recently upheld the decision of the Gujarat State for a centralised process for recruiting teachers and principals in religious and linguistic minority educational institutions.  The UP Chief Minister on Republic Day publicly asserted that ‘Sanathan Dharma’ is the religion of the country! Then there is the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024 which is supposed to be tabled in Parliament during this current budget session; A united opposition, however, has slammed the government on the passage of the draft report on the Waqf Amendment Bill saying they had no say, and all their amendments were defeated, and that only the amendments presented by the ruling party were taken up and considered. With frightening regularity one reads about how minorities are targeted for what they eat and wear, see and read!

Intellectual and social activist Professor Apoorvanand writes an incisive and hard-hitting article in ‘The Wire’ ( January 29, 2025).  The article entitled, ‘The Loneliness of Being Christian in India’, is replete with incontrovertible facts. He emphatically states, “but as human beings, we must ask: what kind of country is it where only Christians have to worry about attacks on Christians, and the rest of society remains deaf to their concerns? The prime minister of India issues statements about violence against Christians outside India, but in India, Christians are being attacked and arrested for having and distributing Bibles, and churches are being targeted. During Christmas season, he visits churches and meets religious leaders, but lets the blood of Christians flow. Are only Hindus allowed to preach their religion in India? 

What Prof. Apoorvanand states with angst, is an undeniable fact! There is a method in their madness, there is no doubt about it! The rot, we all know, starts at the top! At stake is the secular character of our nation and the future of democracy in our country- which is being destroyed systematically! We must wake up now and act with other like-minded women and men!

February 1, 2025 

(The author is a human rights, reconciliation and peace activist/writer. Contact: cedricprakash@gmail.com)

Related:

Celebrate Diversity

For my birthday, ‘you are organising in my name,’ a point of order: Christmas invite to PM Modi

India Cries for Freedom!

The post Destroying Secularism: Hindu Rashtra Constitution unveiled at the Kumbh? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In its complaint, CJP referenced recent Supreme Court orders, emphasizing the need for immediate preventive actions in line with court rulings, especially to curb hate speech and prevent incitement to violence. The complaint urges the Goa Police to take pre-emptive measures, ensuring public safety and upholding communal harmony.

Urged Goa police to deny permission of the scheduled event

CJP, in its complaint, emphasizes the urgency of taking immediate action and raises concerns over the potential for communal speeches at the HJS’s Goa event. It calls for the cancellation of the event’s permission and states, “We urge you to deny permission for the scheduled January 25, 2025, at 5 PM event in Goa and set an example for the anti-social elements who are attempting to disturb communal peace and harmony. Furthermore, we request the police authorities to remain vigilant and ensure that the rally does not take place if the permission is denied.” 

The poster of the events can be found below:

Supreme Court also appeals for Peace & Harmony

In its complaint, CJP urged the Goa Police to follow strict preventive measures in line with recent Supreme Court directives. CJP pleaded in its complaint that, “In light of the Supreme Court’s recent appeal for peace and harmony in the case concerning the Sambhal Jama Masjid, CJP submit this preventive complaint regarding the “Hindu Rashtra Jagruti Sabha” scheduled for January 25, 2025, in Goa. The Supreme Court, during its hearing on November 29, 2024, urged that “peace and harmony must be maintained” and expressed the desire for no further escalation, following the violence that erupted in Sambhal over a mosque survey. The survey, which was ordered based on claims that the mosque was built on a demolished temple, triggered violent clashes, resulting in the loss of four lives. This tragic event highlights the serious risks of escalating tensions when sensitive issues related to religious sites are addressed in provocative ways.”

Divisive, majoritarian background of the HJS

While highlighting potential danger of provocative and communal speech in scheduled event of January 25, CJP mentioned that the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) has previously been associated with communal rhetoric that seeks to inflame tensions between communities. Their previous events have seen controversial statements made by their speakers, which often target religious minorities and promote a divisive agenda.

“Given the organization’s known stance and its association with provocative actions, it is almost certain that the upcoming event will follow a similar pattern, where inflammatory remarks are made with little regard for the consequences” CJP added. 

CJP stated in complaint, the HJS runs a campaign advocating for the passing of anti-Love Jihad laws in across the country. Extremist Right-wing Hindu groups have been using the term “love-Jihad” loosely now, wielded by an aggressive majoritarianism, woven into a dominant caste Hindu narrative of religious extremism, Islamophobia, and communal hatred.

It has also been provided on their website that HJS has been conducting regular workshops to make Hindus “aware” of the consequences of autonomous and free choice marriages, derogatively and provocatively termed ‘Love Jihad.’

CJP’s complaint dated January 22, 2025 may be read here:

Related:

CJP seeks preventive action against Hindu Janjagruti Samiti’s Hyderabad event

CJP files complaint against BJP leader Nazia Elahi Khan over hate speech in Delhi

The post CJP seeks preventive measures ahead of HJS’s “Hindu Rashtra Jagruti Sabha” event in Goa appeared first on SabrangIndia.

They go on to quote Ambedkar that Swami Shraddhanand was the “the greatest and most sincere champion of the Untouchables”. They ignore the fact that that same Swami was involved in Shuddhi, ‘Conversion of Muslims to Hinduism’. This is what annoyed the Muslim clerics.

On this Shuddhi, Ambedkar responded, “If the Hindu society desires to survive, it must think not of adding to its numbers but increasing its solidarity and that means the abolition of caste. The abolition of castes is the real sangathan of the Hindus, and when sangathan is achieved by abolishing castes, shuddhi will be unnecessary.” This was parallel and opposite to Tanzim by Tablighi Jamaat, which was trying to convert Hindus into Islam. Though Shraddhanand later became part of the Indian National Congress, he was also part of Hindu Sangthan, a part of the revitalised Hindu Mahasabha committed to establishing a Hindu Nation.

New constructs are now being floated that Ambedkar and Savarkar are two sides of the same coin. True that Savarkar started the Patit Pavan temple that allows entry of Dalits into temples. As per Babasaheb, this will create a separate temple where only Dalits will visit. “An editorial in the April 12, 1929 issue of “Bahishkrit Bharat” states that Ambedkar had opposed the construction of the Patit Pawan temple from the very beginning. He believed that these temples would later be called temples for the untouchables.” However, Ambedkar did appreciate Savarkar’s efforts. Though he felt they were irrelevant.

These are some points that are being raised by Hindutva ideologues. They go hyper while describing Ambedkar’s relations with Congress. Some of them argue that after the death of Gandhi and Patel, Nehru became authoritarian and ignored the Opposition. BJP leader and Union Home Minister Amit Shah said that Ambedkar resigned from the Nehru cabinet due to “differences” with Nehru on the issue of Article 370, foreign policy and on the condition of SC/STs (Scheduled Castes/Tribes).

The crux of the issue is that the major reason for Ambedkar resigning from the cabinet was his disappointment with the shabby treatment given to the Hindu Code Bill. A huge opposition and meetings against the Bill were organised by RSS. Their volunteers demonstrated in front of Parliament. The peak of this was the massive protest in Ramlila Maidan on December 11, 1949, in which effigies of Ambedkar and Nehru were burnt.

Opposing the Hindu Code Bill, The Organiser (mouthpiece of the RSS), December 7, 1949, wrote: “We oppose the Hindu Code Bill. We oppose it because it is a derogatory measure based on alien and immoral principles. It is not a Hindu Code Bill. It is anything but Hindu.” The result of this aggressive campaign by RSS on the Hindu Code Bill was that it had to be delayed and diluted. This was the painful moment for Babasaheb, that led him to resign.

The question of Manusmriti, the Chaturvarnya, was a crucial part of the differences between Ambedkar and Savarkar to BJP. While on December 25, 1927, Babasaheb burnt the Manusmriti, the second sarsanghchalak of RSS, M.S. Golwalkar went on to write eulogies on Manusmriti.

Savarakar also detailed his support to Chaturvarnya and praised Manusmiriti: “Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worshipable after Vedas for our Hindu Nation and which from ancient times has become the basis of our culture-customs, thought and practice. This book for centuries has codified the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Even today the rules which are followed by crores of Hindus in their lives and practice are based on Manusmriti. Today Manusmriti is Hindu Law. That is fundamental.” And “The worst [thing] about the new Constitution of Bharat is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it… [T]here is no trace of ancient Bharatiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclature and phraseology in it”.

The central point of difference that Ambedkar had with the Hindutva ideology is being pushed under the carpet. On October 13, 1935, Ambedkar spoke in a meeting in Yeola near Nasik, dropping a ‘bombshell’ when he said, “I will not die as a person who calls himself a Hindu!” As per him, this religion has no place for liberty, compassion and equality. In the revised edition of his book, Thoughts on Pakistan, he opposed the formation of Islamic Pakistan as that may pave the way for Hindu Raj or Rashtra and that will be a “big calamity” for its people.

As he declared this, there were many pressures on him to embrace Sikhism or Islam. Dr. Moonje from Hindu Mahasabha struck a pact with Ambedkar that if he avoided conversion to Islam, Hindu Mahasabha would not oppose his move. Babasaheb’s own deeper studies led him to choose Buddhism.

Today, the BJP is trying to project that they have “honoured” Babasaheb by erecting his statues, raising an International Museum in his memory and other symbolic things. These are identity-related issues, while the crux of Babasaheb’s values remains undermined. When the Mandal Commission (on reservations) was implemented, the BJP resorted to kamandal (Hindutva) politics. As veteran BJP leader L K Advani was arrested during his Rath Yatra (as a part of kamandal politics), BJP, which was part of the parties supporting V P Singh’s government, withdrew its support and the government fell.

Congress, along with Hindu Mahasabha, opposed Ambedkar in Lok Sabha elections. Yet, it was Congress again that ensured that he was made a Rajya Sabha member. He was made a member of the Interim Government and also Chairman of the drafting committee of the Indian Constitution.

BJP’s anxiety to prove that Ambedkar was part of Hindutva politics is, therefore, a pure concoction to derive legitimacy from the memory of a person who stood totally against their very ideology of a Hindu Nation.

What an irony, that those who stood/stand for a Hindu Nation are today trying to project Ambedkar, who was opposed to Hindu Rashtra and wanted to have democratic, secular republic, as a part of their ideological parivar!

The writer is a human rights activist, who taught at IIT Bombay. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Does Babasaheb’s Ideology Match With Hindu Nationalist Politics? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Bhagwat’s speech served to humble Modi’s rising arrogance. The RSS (collectively known as the Sangh Parivar) became more active in the Haryana elections, and with favorable support from the Election Commission, the BJP defied expectations and returned to power, despite predictions of a Congress victory.

In his Dussehra speech, Bhagwat reaffirmed BJP policies, criticized non-BJP-ruled states, and laid out the deeper goals of the RSS and Hindutva politics. He claimed that terms like ‘Deep State,’ ‘Wokeism,’ and ‘Cultural Marxism’ are enemies of cultural traditions. According to Bhagwat, these ideologies infiltrate educational institutions, destroy societal values, create artificial problems, and instill a sense of victimhood, leading to aggression and anarchy. He warned that such movements aim to undermine governance and establish dominance over nations.

The term ‘wokeism,’ used derisively by right-wing groups, generally refers to an awareness of social and political injustice. Bhagwat’s critique of wokeism highlights the tension between progressive ideals and the conservative, hierarchical values promoted by the RSS. Through its network of shakhas, schools like Saraswati Shishu Mandir and Ekal Vidyalayas, and its influence over media—thanks to sympathetic corporations and BJP’s IT cells—the RSS has shaped a conservative social consensus in India.

Wokeism, in contrast, advocates for a just society, opposing discrimination based on caste, religion, color, and sexual orientation. It also supports LGBTQ+ rights. These principles challenge the Brahminical values central to Hindutva politics. Hindu nationalists, like other fundamentalist movements globally—whether the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, or Christian fundamentalists—oppose equality and justice. Their goal is to maintain traditional hierarchies, as evidenced by the RSS’s historical admiration for the Manusmriti, a text that subjugates Dalits and women.

The RSS’s disdain for wokeism is part of its broader rejection of movements for equality. In India, Hindu nationalists look down on Dalit, women’s, and LGBTQ+ rights movements, just as fundamentalist forces in Muslim-majority countries target women’s rights. The RSS seeks to replace democratic values with those of an imagined “Golden Age” of inequality.

The RSS’s disdain for wokeism is part of its broader rejection of movements for equality

Though there may be internal tensions between the RSS and the BJP, their core values remain aligned, despite occasional clashes of ego. Bhagwat’s speech mirrored much of BJP’s current policies. He criticized non-BJP-ruled states, singling out Punjab, Jammu-Kashmir, Ladakh, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and the entire northeastern region, from Bihar to Manipur, as areas of concern. Notably, he lumped Ladakh and Manipur together, despite the stark differences between the two regions.

Manipur has witnessed horrific violence, particularly against the Kuki community and women, with the BJP government showing disturbing apathy. Ladakh, on the other hand, has seen peaceful environmental and citizenship movements, led by figures like Sonam Wangchuk. The BJP’s neglect of Ladakh’s peaceful struggle is a dark chapter in India’s recent history.

Bhagwat’s selective outrage was also evident in his mention of the R.G. Kar Medical College tragedy, while remaining silent on the rising atrocities against women wrestlers and Dalit girls. His earlier statement that rape happens in “India” (urban areas) but not in “Bharat” (villages) is contradicted by the reality: most cases of sexual violence in BJP-ruled states occur in villages and small towns. A report from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment shows that Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh had the highest numbers of atrocities against Dalits in 2022, revealing a disturbing trend.

Perhaps the most telling moment of Bhagwat’s speech came when he urged Hindus to unite and become strong, as “the weak cannot defend themselves.” But aren’t we already united as Indians? Is there any issue with unity as outlined in the Indian Constitution? Bhagwat’s remarks betray the RSS’s superficial adherence to constitutional values, which they invoke primarily for electoral gains.

Author is Political commentator 

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Restating the agenda of Hindu Rashtra: RSS chief sets the tone for BJP politics appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The education officer of Madhya Pradesh’s Shajapur district has, in a written order dated December 14, as reported by The Indian Express, said that both government and private schools will face action if students take part in Christmas-related events without the permission of their parents. This, interestingly, includes children dressing up as Santa Claus or Christmas trees for plays or other events.

The written order by district education officer Vivek Dubey, issued on December 14, reads, “Students should not be made part of Christmas-related events, including making them dress up or play roles like Santa Claus and Christmas tree, without the written consent of parents, to prevent any untoward situation or incident.”

“Unilateral disciplinary action will be proposed against your organisation if there are complaints in this regard,” it added. In a justification of what may be seen as an arbitrary action, Dubey is reported to have said there have been complaints in the past, and that the order does not ban Christmas events in schools.

“The circular does not ban any events in schools during the coming festive season. In the past, there have been instances of parents complaining about their wards being made part of such events in schools without their consent, and the circular is aimed at preventing such disputes. It’s better to prevent such controversies rather than acting after the incident has occurred,” he said.

Now, emboldened by this development that was widely reported in the media, far right group Sanskriti Bachao Manch in Bhopal also issued a warning to a school, asking its administration not to allow students to dress up as Santa Claus without the permission of parents. In a display of competitive aggression, the outfit’s president, Chandrasekhar Tiwar, also protested against the “long leaves” given to students during Christmas, alleging that on Diwali, only two days’ leave is granted while on Christmas, it is 10 days.

In 2022, the VHP had asked schools not to ask students to dress up as Santa Claus or bring Christmas trees without their parents’ permission, claiming that this was “an attack on Hindu culture” and “a conspiracy to influence Hindu children with Christianity”

Meanwhile, UCA News reported that Christians in the central Indian state are worried over a government order asking schools to seek parents’ nod before involving students in Christmas events.  “This is the first time that we are coming across such an order,” said Father Rocky Shah, public relations officer of Jhabua diocese in the state.

Most schools in Madhya Pradesh are run by Catholic and other Christian denominations and its leaders view the circular as a deliberate attempt to target and harass Christians and their institutions. Shah also reportedly told UCA News on Dec. 22, “We never got such an order during the celebrations of major Hindu festivals.”

The December 14 order makes it clear that “students cannot be allowed to dress up as Santa Claus or put up a Christmas tree” in their schools without written permission from parents.

Madhya Pradesh is currently ruled by the supremacist, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The Hindutva party won a fresh mandate at the recent assembly elections, the results of which were declared on December 3. “It is quite alarming to see such a government order,” Shah noted.

A government official, however, defended the action stating that circular is a “precautionary measure” that was aimed at “curbing unwanted incidents.”

Jerry Paul, national president of the Sarva Isai Mahasabha (All Christian Federation), an ecumenical body, told UCA News that the government should rein in trouble-makers rather than threaten the school management with “unilateral action.” “Students dressing up as Santa Claus or putting up Christmas trees are not religious actions, but they are a message of happiness and peace,” he said. He also pointed out to the authorities that “the nativity of Jesus Christ is celebrated in churches and not in schools.” He further asserted that in a democratic country, everyone has the right to spread the message of love and happiness.

Church leaders were apprehensive that the pro-Hindutva party may come out with a similar circular in other districts of the state. Over the past years, Christian schools, hostels and orphanages in Madhya Pradesh have witnessed several surprise raids from child rights protection bodies in the past few years.

Several malicious complaints and cases have even been filed in Madhya Pradesh against Church officials, including a bishop, priests and nuns, under the draconian anti-conversion law. Madhya Pradesh has recorded 35 incidents of persecution against Christians till November 2023 this year.

Christians make up a mere 0.29 percent of 72 million people in the Hindu majority state.

Related:

Christmas of the 2% is being imposed on the 98%, says Suresh Chavhanke

Christmas 2022: Hindu supremacist groups chant “Death to Santa Claus!”

No gatherings allowed for Christmas and New Year in Delhi?

The post Madhya Pradesh: District after district polices Christmas celebrations, children can’t dress like Santa Claus without “parent permission” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to reports, over the past seven years, India has witnessed a staggering 500% hike in cases filed under its hate-speech law, according to the National Crime Records Bureau’s (NCRB). The data reveals a six-fold increase in hate speech crimes, with 2014 marking the lowest count at 323 cases and the year 2020 witnessing the highest at 1,804 cases. Out of all states, Tamil Nadu recorded the highest number of reported cases at 303, and is followed by Uttar Pradesh with 243 cases, and Telangana with 151 cases. Furthermore, Hindutva Watch, an organisation dedicated to monitoring hate, has documented about 255 incidents of hate speech gatherings targeting Muslims only in the first half of 2023 itself. Interestingly, around 70% of these incidents occurred in states set to hold elections in 2023 and 2024. The report further also revealed that 80% of hate speech events unfolded in states governed by the Bharatiya Janata Party.

Sonipat, Haryana

On November 22, Pravin Togadia, delivered a loaded speech in Haryana’s Sonpiat. Togadia is a public figure and Hindutva leader, and formerly the international working president of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. In speech, Togadia engaged in fearmongering as he claimed “they”, Muslims, were taking over parks and even posing a threat to businesses. Furthermore, he spoke about conspiracy theories about Muslim population growth. 

Location: Gohana, Sonipat, Haryana
Date: November 22

Antarrashtriya Hindu Parishad (AHP) leader Pravin Togadia delivers another hate-filled speech against Muslims, indulging in fear-mongering while peddling conspiracy theories over Muslim population. pic.twitter.com/9B6Enn8821

— HindutvaWatch (@HindutvaWatchIn) November 24, 2023

“No beard-topi is seen in Haryana. Now (they’re) taking over parks, killing in Mewat, Pakistan is standing in Panipat. And population is rising in the entire country. Danger is rising. What does danger mean? None of our homes will remain. Business won’t be safe…History is witness, wherever “their” rule has been, non-Muslims have been attacked, killed and rendered homeless, daughters-sisters don’t remain. We can see from Spain to Malaysia…Their population is rising. Amongst, our Hindus, our population is decreasing. Some Hindu couples exist without a child! Some have one, others have two. The average used to be 2, now it is 1 ¼.”

New Delhi

In New Delhi on November 19, during the Hindu Rashtra Adhiveshan event organised by Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, Lata Singh Thakur who is the chief of Hindu Dharmasena Chandi Vahini, delivered a hate-filled speech against Muslims. Thakur not only targeted the Muslim community but also called on Hindus to keep weapons. “In areas, where Muslims are large in number and Hindus are less, then we go and perform Hindu rituals there, to do away with the fears of the Hindus…The reason for this is that we are so paralysed by fear. Thus, if they know how to wield a sword or use a Katta, don’t we know this too?” She continued, “The day the Hindu in you will awaken, that day Hindu Rashtra won’t have any issue in getting established.”

Location: New Delhi
Date: November 19

At the Hindu Rashtra Adhiveshan event organized by Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, chief of Hindu Dharmsena Chandi Vahini Lata Singh Thakur delivers hate speech against Muslims and calls on Hindus to keep weapons.

This event featured multiple… pic.twitter.com/lv29RGaaea

— HindutvaWatch (@HindutvaWatchIn) November 24, 2023

Sangareddy, Telangana 

On November 23, Thursday, BJP’s national president, J.P. Nadda, criticised Telangana Chief Minister and BRS chief K. Chandrashekhar Rao for what he termed as ‘appeasement politics.’ Nadda accused KCR of attempting to please a “particular section of Telangana” by promising to increase reservation for minorities from 4 percent to 12 percent. 

Location: Sangareddy, Telangana
Date: November 23

BJP President JP Nadda promised to rescind 4 percent reservation to Muslims if his party comes to power in the state. pic.twitter.com/F7wCZNHMWN

— HindutvaWatch (@HindutvaWatchIn) November 24, 2023

Jaipur, Rajasthan

Speaking in the capital city of the poll-bound state, who is said to be a BJP leader, delivered a speech which mostly targeted Muslims, and also raised the slogan, “If you want to live in India then you have to chant Jai Shri Ram.” Sharma continued further, saying, “These (coming) elections will decide whether Jaipur will be “mini-Pakistan” or not. However, we are the sons of Bharat Mata, and with us remaining, we will not let mini-Pakistan be created.” The crowd roared in response to his slogans. “And whoever talks of making a Pakistan … he will have to go to Pakistan.”

“Two years ago in this district, a situation akin to riots was created here. Glasses of houses were shattered. Those goons who have such an ideology will not be allowed to enter here! And if, should one (of these goons) enter…then, Yogiji had told such criminals to either surrender or,” cries of bulldozer, “leave Uttar Pradesh. And if neither doesn’t happen, then…”

He further says the oft spoken slogan, “Ayodhya toh Jhaanki hai! Mathura, Kashi baaqi hai!” He continued further, “The election in Rajasthan is basically a semi-final. This will be fought by Ram Bhakts itself! But when, the Modiji’s rule will be established in 2024, several will have to go!” BJP leader Gopal Sharma delivers fiery hate speeches against Muslims. He said that mosques in Mathura and Varanasi will be replaced with/temples & raised the slogan: “If you want to live in India then you have to chant Jai Shri Ram.”

Location: Jaipur, Rajasthan
Date: November 19

BJP leader Gopal Sharma delivers fiery hate speeches against Muslims. He said that mosques in Mathura & Varanasi will be replaced with/temples & raised the slogan: “If you want to live in India then you have to chant Jai Shri Ram.” pic.twitter.com/4S8MvtDJlI

— HindutvaWatch (@HindutvaWatchIn) November 23, 2023

Related

Hate speeches at events across north India, calls for violence against minorities

BJP MLA T Raja Singh delivers hate speech during election rally, CJP approaches Election Commission again!

Trend of divisive politics continues, 3 hate speeches by Assam CM in poll bound states

Unveiling the diverse impact of Hate Speech

The post Muslims continue to feature as main characters in hate speech appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The text has been edited lightly for style and clarity.

Good evening, everyone. Thank you for being here, and thanks also to the Borker family for inviting me to deliver the Borker Memorial Lecture. Shri D.S. Borker was a distinguished civil servant and public educator who was always focused on the future, and especially the youth of our country. It is an honour to be here to celebrate the legacy of a visionary like Shri Borker, and also push ourselves to think more like him, for what lies ahead for India.

Fittingly, the Borker Memorial Lecture is forward-looking and asks speakers to speak on one subject only, that is, “My Vision for India: 2047 AD”. This topic asks a question which is at once deeply personal and deeply political. It asks me what my vision is, but also what my vision is for India. Addressing this in any meaningful way requires engaging with the past, present and future all at once.

Glimpse of the current crisis

2023 is a particularly interesting year for this discussion. India is over 75 years into life as a constitutional democracy, and enough markers – social, political, economic – exist to examine whether our constitutional promises have been sufficiently secured and upheld for all our people.

There are certain things about this country I am extremely proud of, such as the transformative contributions made in the fields of science and technology, whether it is space science, or IT, or even the growth in infrastructure over the past 30 years especially. Like millions of Indians, my wife and I cried with joy when Chandrayaan-3 landed on the moon. I remember our science teacher in school, a sort of dreamer, who showed us the world beyond the skies, introducing us to NASA, and the Indian space projects led by Homi Bhabha and Vikram Sarabhai. [The] moon landing [on August 23] was an emotional moment for all of us. But I am deeply troubled by many other things. If you look deeper, it seems to me that India’s society and institutions are in a state of unprecedented disruption, in fact, a crisis. Some argue that democracy here is dying a slow death.

Democratic principles have not been directly or explicitly subverted, but in the past decade, democratic institutions and accountability mechanisms have been neutralised or compromised. There has been an insidious harvesting of a culture of hate, leading to active theatres of violence. Polarisation is unrestrained, vilifying minorities, with the majority being made to think of the other, especially Muslims, as the enemy, whether in Haridwar or Haryana or elsewhere. A general sentiment of hatred of minorities can be heard, seen and felt across the country.

But how did we reach here? How did we manage to get it so wrong?

Philosophers, politicians, public intellectuals remind us that where we are today is usually because we have forgotten the past. The philosopher Santayana had said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. Similarly, Churchill wrote that “those that failed to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”.

In the same spirit, asking what one’s vision for India is requires considering what the idea of India was in the first place.

Backdrop to the making of the constitution  

In 1947, the social, political, cultural scene was as crowded and as messy as you would imagine it to be. India’s nationalist movement was born in a melting pot of shifting cultural values and increasing pressures for social and political change, where thinkers set out to define their idea of free India, and find their meaning of nationalism.

The word “nationalism” encompasses many meanings – it can mean progressive, revolutionary, pro-people, or even regressive or jingoistic nationalism. Hitler’s nationalism, while different from Gandhi’s, was a kind of nationalism, nevertheless. But we can safely say that the Indian concept of nationalism emerged in opposition to the imperialist British state, an “anti-colonial” nationalism, where identity was not tied to religion, caste, or language, but to a unified demand for freedom.

Efforts to define free India tried to assimilate positive aspects of Western and Indian traditions. Notably, thinkers like Vivekananda, Tagore and Aurobindo, besides Gandhi, of course, in their own ways, arrived at ideas of free India, responding to a dynamic socio-cultural milieu, and a frenetic pace of political change.

Vivekananda,  for instance, said:

“Several dangers are in the way and one is that of the extreme conception that we are the people in the world. With all my love for India and with all my patriotism, and veneration for the ancients, I cannot but think that we have to learn many things from other nations. We must be always ready to sit at the feet of all, for mark you, every one can teach us great lessons.” 

Tagore’s concern was “The suddenness with which we stepped … into another [era] with its new meaning and values!”, and that, “there was still no deep awareness of human rights, human dignity, class equality”. For Aurobindo, “Liberty and equality” were “watchwords of humanity,” which could “[remould] nations and Governments.”

These thinkers exhibit consistent motifs of what free India must strive for – social and political freedoms, equality, fraternity, and dignity… They also recognised certain obstacles that lay in wait, such as orthodoxy and superstition, leading to discriminations like untouchability.

At the same time, Hindu revivalists relied on an imagined glorious Indian past as the template for its future. I must mention as an aside that my grandfather was the president of the Hindu Mahasabha in the 1940s. The earliest literature I read as a young boy in school was V.D. Savarkar, when I fell in love with his initial poetry, though his later poems became highly Sanskritised and tedious to read. Savarkar’s poetry was one of my subjects in graduation.

Savarkar envisaged a nation under Hindu rule, a Hindu Rashtra, in Akhand Bharat (a United India). It was premised on the belief that only Hindus can claim India’s territory as the land of their ancestry, pitru bhoomi, and of their religion, punya bhoomi. Muslims and Christians are foreigners, for they are not indigenous and their religion originated in a separate land. Later, M.S. Golwalkar wrote:

“The foreign races in Hindusthan … must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, only subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment – not even citizens’ rights.”

Hindutva forces were generally suspicious of secular ideas. Instead, Savarkar justified Hitler’s treatment of Jews, and B.S. Moonje even met Mussolini in Italy. But such ideas were at best marginal in the independence movement.

Tryst with destiny: The peremptory values emerging from the constitution

Against this background, the Constituent Assembly started to write a Constitution to serve multitudes of people. It chose an inclusive path, not just for moral, but also practical reasons. This path ensured India could transition to a nation where diverse groups peacefully coexisted.

Note that India and Pakistan made contrarian ideological choices in 1947, and we consciously rejected a religious state. Vallabhbhai Patel, in a letter of 1947, famously wrote, that it would not be “possible to consider Hindustan as a Hindu state with Hinduism as the State religion. We must not forget that there are other minorities whose protection is our primary responsibility. The State must exist for all irrespective of caste or creed.”

Our constitution makers thus chose a republican form of democracy to bring together a multi-cultural society, where diversity could breathe and thrive. But there were two expectations, each from the state and people. The state, especially its enforcement wing, had to shed its colonial habits (of treating the citizen always as a servile subject). And minority faith communities had to become assured of their well-being in society and not be inward-looking, dependent in turn on a majority not unleashing majoritarian impulses, to slowly foster fraternal relations with each other – and together arrive at a path to social democracy.

The constitution was firmly secular and egalitarian, declaring that “the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them.”

The Constituent Assembly dwelt upon the idea of secularism considerably. H.V. Kamath proposed that the Preamble begin with, “In the name of God”, but many opposed this. Hridaynath Kunzru said that invoking the name of God was inconsistent with the freedom of religion and was instead reflective of a “narrow, sectarian spirit”.

The Constituent Assembly, incidentally comprising an over 80% Hindu majority, embedded secularism in the constitution in multiple ways, through fundamental rights protecting religious freedoms, through a judiciary that would arbiter religious concerns, and through an Indian model of secularism, distinct from the western church-state model, respecting religious diversity, and promoting tolerance and plurality.

The Constituent Assembly also factored in the great deprivation facing India’s poor, illiterate, and highly under-nourished, for whom the Directive Principles framework was created, with a range of economic and social rights, and mandating the State to abide with them wholly.

Closely connected to this was the stark social and economic inequality in the country. Dr B.R. Ambedkar understood this well. To him, a healthy democracy meant more than just an independent judiciary or a free and fair electoral process. With great foresight, he cautioned the Constituent Assembly that political democracy would be inadequate if inequalities remained. In  1949, he said:

“On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognising the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this Assembly has so laboriously built up.”

He also said that in order to “maintain democracy, not merely in form, but also in fact”, we needed to “make our political democracy a social democracy as well”. He further said, “Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not pick up a natural course of things.”

Arguably, India today celebrates at best only a political democracy. We forget the other dimensions of the true democracy Ambedkar had hoped India would have, of economic and social democracy.

Ambedkar was also deeply wedded to the idea of a democratic state run on the basis of morality. Without morality, he believed, the state would be reduced to anarchy. This is how courts have also developed the concept of “constitutional morality”, that is, to respect and abide by what is contained in the constitution in spirit and not merely in letter.

Missed years: Failed constitutional promises

The Indian experiment did not get off to a great start. The constitution was only a map to secure an equal and prosperous future for all. India still needed to ‘build the Nation’. Certainly, power structures have been irreversibly pushed towards inclusiveness. But some complacency has also allowed the extremist right wing to inch into governance and everyday life.

Let’s begin with how political power has widened. Undoubtedly, the Mandal agitation, and regional parties have secured greater participation of Dalits and other oppressed castes in politics, in states and at the Centre. Constitutional amendments have helped decentralise governance structures at grassroots levels, and introduced mandatory panchayat and nagar mahapalika elections, with reservations for women and SCs/STs. Implementation may be imperfect, but neglected segments that form society’s majority – women, oppressed castes – have gained political voice and decision-making authority, fundamentally altering power structures.

India also inherited a strong culture of people’s movements from the freedom struggle. Many from the earlier generations, Midnight’s children as they are sometimes called, committed themselves to the nation-building project. Mass movements – the MKSS, Narmada Bachao Andolan, the Chipko movement, the various movements around women’s rights – effectively impacted law and policy-making towards people’s rights. Examples are the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, the Right to Information, food security laws, the Right to Education, MNREGA, mid-day meal schemes, the Forest Rights Act. Again, implementation may be imperfect, but these are hopefully here to stay. Every political party has had to acknowledge that for the Indian state to remain legitimate, social welfare is a must. However, these guarantees are also being chipped away, which should be of grave concern to us.

Ultimately, India is a story of deep contradictions. A middle class has grown, but most of our population remains vulnerable, with basic public goods being mostly deficient, like education, health, livelihood, employment, or a clean environment. India’s human development indicators are languishing barely higher than that of sub-Saharan Africa. While rhetoric and propaganda over the decades may have swayed us, in truth, as economist Ashoka Mody has pointed out, every Indian government, from Nehru to Modi, has failed this country in delivering basic public goods. Unless this is reversed, he says, “India faces a future of mass unemployment with consequent discontent and even, perhaps, social violence.”

This has led to a precipitating fall in public trust for formal institutions – courts, parliament, police, and civilian bureaucracy. It started with the Emergency years, which were unquestionably the Dark Ages for India. This was when the Indian playbook for authoritarianism was first written, a terrifying trailer for times to come. Amity in society deteriorated, and fissures along religious and caste lines deepened.

Now, I see the rise of illiberal and communal forces in India, that is made possible, in part, by disillusionment with successive governments. This is compounded by a legal architecture that is permissive of abuse, and prejudices inherent in society.

The rise of the right-wing

This worrying resurgence of communalism, a deeply divisive form of religious nationalism, has powerful political backing, seeking to realise Sarvakar’s ideal “Hindu Rashtra, Hindu Jati (race) and Hindu Sanskriti.”

As a thought exercise, though, let us test Savarkar’s theory. He believed that those whose sacred sites lie outside India’s geographical limits cannot be Indian or would be lesser citizens. Thus, Muslims and Christians would be foreigners, not indigenous to India, because their religion originated elsewhere. By corollary, then, as Rajmohan Gandhi in a previous Borker lecture explained, the millions of Hindus who live outside India cannot be Americans, or South Africans, or Fijians. All Indians abroad would be second-class citizens there. By extension, all Christians and Muslims living outside their Holy Lands would be suspect too. That the Savarkar vision is outrageously outdated is putting it mildly. People are not defined by geography or religion, just as democratic nations are not chambers of rigid uniformity or isolation.

Nevertheless, this clamorous view is being propounded in India today still, to a point where minorities are living lives in fear, and with some truth, that their citizenship has been reduced to second-class existence. Incidents like those that took place in Nuh and even in Delhi, perpetuate this feeling.

Extrajudicial tools like encounter killings, panchayat bans on traders from minority communities, and ‘bulldozer politics’ have exacerbated this situation. This last situation is something that particularly troubles me. The bulldozer today has become a symbol of power, that is wielded without legal sanction or authority. Innocent lives and livelihoods are lost, with no respite in sight. It involves the physical demolition of homes on the mere suspicion that “maybe someone living there has participated in riots or indulged in some form of criminal violence or activity”. Beyond the act of demolition, there are devastating consequences for entire families and communities. Who will help them rebuild their destroyed lives – not just their homes? Does the state realise the grave implications of its machismo display?

Those responsible for maintaining the rule of law, like courts, remain silent spectators. If I am not mistaken, there has not been a single case where innocent victims have found justice. When, occasionally, a bench, like in the Punjab and Haryana high court, suo moto questions the strong arm of the state, the case itself is taken away.

The same story has played out in the case of hate speeches as well. Politicians and politically-backed media outlets routinely foster communal hate. State and local governments are either complicit or inert. The Supreme Court tried to curb hate speech, but to no avail, and the cycle of violence and hatred continues.

As another thought exercise, consider this: Hindus can never be denied their place in India. There is no evidence of the Hindu faith facing a crisis of any kind in India. Fantastic claims of disproportionate Muslim population growth and love jihad are mere propaganda. Hindu nationalism, Hindu assertion, or whatever term you prefer, will always have a place here; the right to free speech ensures that this voice exists. But when extremist right-wing groups take over and silence minorities, a state of hegemony comes about. Telling people what they can and cannot eat, wear, watch, or speak about, or whom they can or can’t marry, amounts to imposing a homogenous culture on non-conformists. In a democracy, this is a sure recipe for conflict. Ambedkar forewarned us about this.

I feel that the idea of Hindutva, as we have received it today, challenges the Hindu faith itself, which many consider a liberal, tolerant, and generous religion. Why is Hindu society largely silent about what is being perpetrated in the name of their religion against minorities is a question many of us might well ask today. Recall Vivekananda’s memorable words from his 1893 Chicago address, where he said, “We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true,” and that he was “proud to belong to a nation which had sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the world”. Should we not want to feel that pride always?

The Hindutva movement is marked by perpetuating victimhood, and ousting scientific temper and rationality. Ambedkar’s warning on this too was prescient. His vision of democracy emphasized that just as rationality can counter propaganda and ideological manipulation, a scientific spirit, focusing on coherent arguments and clear evidence, can protect people against the arbitrary exercise of power.

But today, physical attacks on rationalists and polemical attacks on scientific spirit are being unleashed, with Narendra Dabholkar, M.M. Kalburgi, Gauri Lankesh, being some who paid with their lives. Orthodoxy and superstition have made a strong comeback, surprisingly even in the Indian Science Congress. The 2023 Congress included claims that rangolis could ward off evils. Previous editions have had a university vice-chancellor tout Ravana’s fleet of aircraft, and a palaeontologist claim that dinosaurs were created by Brahma, besides a discussion on India making test-tube babies millennia ago. Contrast this with Nehru’s vision where he encouraged Indian science beyond boundaries, to realise that the sky is not the limit.

Relatedly, education is being reshaped along ideological lines, with changes galore in school and university syllabi. At Delhi University, newspaper reports suggest that, in the recently revised political science syllabus, teaching time given to thinkers like Gandhi, Kabir, Iqbal, Nehru, Ram Mohan Roy, Vivekanand, Tagore is sharply reduced, while time given to Savarkar and Hindutva ideology has increased. BJP governments tried to rewrite school history textbooks in the early 2000s. This year, they successfully removed much of Mughal history, and material on dissent and communal violence, in the NCERT syllabi, leading expert advisors, including Suhas Palshikar and Yogendra Yadav, to seek the removal of their names from the new textbooks.

Advent of elected autocracy

I believe that the next stage of the Hindutva movement, the birthing of the Hindu Rashtra, is firmly in the works. Madhu Dandavate, in the 2000 Borker lecture, prophetically said:

“… the hardliners of ‘Hindutva’ who have a long term objective to totally subvert secular character of Constitution will … work hard even upto … 2047 to realize their objective. They will intensify frenzy among the people against secularism by whipping up hatred against religious minorities and by strengthening ‘Hindutva’ euphoria among the people and urging them to give 2/3 majority to the ‘Hindutva’ forces so that secularism can be buried.”

Today, the ruling party has acquired democratic power legitimately; after all, majority has been achieved in elections. But, having been elected, the government is acting along starkly authoritarian lines, extinguishing the checks and balances that characterise democracy. Watchdog institutions are mostly co-opted, while outliers are so fear-struck or paralysed that they fail to expose, much less check, the abuse of power.

The executive dominance that was set in during the Emergency is thriving. Except this time, the issue is of “destination” – where are we going as a country? Executive power is nurturing a political culture and a majoritarian society incompatible with the Constitutional idea of India.

The question is – just because it is done through legitimate political means, is India still definitionally a democracy? I have consistently maintained that we are, in fact, becoming quite the opposite, that is, an ‘elected autocracy’, and the Indian constitution, to quote the words of legal academic Tarunabh Khaitan, is being killed by a thousand cuts. Elected autocrats weaponise institutions for political ammunition. Big media and the private sector are silenced. Rules are redrafted to suit their own interests. Critical voices still rise up, but dissenters and questioners end up at the receiving end of all kinds of trouble. In this way, “the very institutions of democracy [are used]… to kill it”.

Our failed early years, we have seen, contributed to creating conditions favourable for the rise of an ‘elected autocracy’. To name a few, the almost militant social movement of the Hindutva right wing, a hollowed-out and discredited opposition, weakened media and courts, have created, in some ways, a perfect storm for the Indian state.

Today, institutions are weakened in explicit and implicit ways. We see a lack of transparency in campaign finance, through the opaque system of electoral bonds (which the Supreme Court is yet to adjudicate upon). We also see active efforts to dilute the autonomy of the Election Commission, an institution that has been blatantly partisan in recent years. The Supreme Court’s efforts to reform the chief election commissioner’s selection process were undone by proposing an amendment to the selection committee’s composition, removing the chief justice of India, nominally, an independent, apolitical voice.

Institutions are also killed insidiously. Authorities intended to monitor accountability, such as the Lokpal, the Central Information Commission, the National Human Rights Commission, today appear to exist only on paper. The Lokpal was created with the best of intentions, and designed to serve as an ombudsman to tackle corruption amongst public functionaries. But of the thousands of complaints it has received since it was set up, the Lokpal has either not registered the complaints at all, or dismissed them outright. What purpose does it really serve, then, one might ask. The collapse of the Right to Information regime has been perhaps even most spectacular. Meant as a sunshine law to dispel the darkness surrounding governance and policymaking, this path-breaking law has been virtually killed by not making appointments, or appointing loyalists, and not giving out information, while also enacting a tight-fisted data protection law.

Federal relations are also being destroyed today, through partisanal governors issuing diktats to non-BJP governed states. Separately, investigating authorities like the CBI, the ED and the NIA, otherwise expected to conduct non-partisan inquiries, are today being deployed as arms of government, against political oppositions, independent media, dissenters… These are not new tactics but have been misused in unprecedented ways by the present dispensation.

There is also no media, print or electronic, worthy of being called truly independent, barring some exceptions. Indeed, the media has contributed to the growth of the sentiment of hatred in the country. All of these, collectively, are the markers of a failing democracy.

Closely connected to this is the clear pattern of the government suppressing dissent and criminalising inconvenient speech and expression. Examples are countless, such as the arrest of Disha Ravi for circulating a protest toolkit; arrests for questioning cow urine as a COVID-19 cure; criminal cases against journalists like Patricia Mukhim for criticising the government in a social media post; the raid on activist Harsh Mander’s premises; the arrest of standup comedian Munawar Farooqi… Internet and communication blackouts are routine, such as during the farmer protests, or in Jammu & Kashmir, or in Manipur.

Some might argue that there are positive developments, with new laws being made, and old ones being repealed. Do not get me wrong: India desperately needs new laws. We remain reliant on antiquated laws dating back to over 150 years. But instead of actually thinking through new legal architecture, we are being given old wine in new bottles.

For example, the recently introduced criminal codes – these were sprung upon an unsuspecting population, seemingly not considering the decades-long criminal law reform debate here. Bombastic statements that this is the end of the colonial legal legacy and that Macaulay’s name now stands erased, are in fact misleading. Most of the old laws in fact continue, even retaining the same language.

To complicate things, the new laws add extra layers of ambiguity and do not increase individual liberties, but reduce them, such as the provision on sedition. It strikes particularly that the home ministry, which is pushing for the new laws, believes that criminal reform simply means longer incarcerations and stricter punishments, and nothing else.

Judiciary: The last bastion

When it comes to courts, so much has been said that I am not even sure where to begin or end, or what to include or leave out.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has delivered some exceptional judgments, the one on the right to privacy being a pathbreaking work of jurisprudence. More immediately, there have been positive orders such as those pertaining to Manipur and Haryana, the order on hate speech, the bail order in the Bhima Koregaon violence case. But the judiciary has not managed to effectively curb executive excesses, and there is a visible, general reluctance to hear big-ticket matters like the Citizenship Amendment Act or electoral bonds.

This is compounded by a perceptible targeting of those fighting for justice, without following due process. Teesta Setalvad’s case is a classic example of this. Courts seem to be not only dismissing cases, but practically supporting the government in going after activists.

Human rights defenders are regularly persecuted by employing anti-terror laws, and specifically the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act [UAPA]. In particular, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the grant of bail in the UAPA cases has upended the principle of presumption of innocence under the law in the case of NIA vs Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali. Now, courts are to presume the prosecution case to be true and then determine whether a prima facie case is made out. As a result, for anyone unfortunate to have been charged under UAPA, a period of indefinite incarceration lies ahead. The UAPA has been particularly used and abused in many cases, including the Bhima Koregaon and Delhi riots cases. Some who were accused and arrested, such as Sudha Bharadwaj, were eventually granted bail, whereas others like Stan Swamy died in custody, without any incriminating evidence having been clearly identified.

It does not help that the high courts, barring some honourable exceptions, are also unable to discharge the kind of truly independent role they had in the past. I feel personally troubled by this because my own professional career has been tied to high courts. The high courts were once the most vibrant institutions in the country. Indeed, high courts have an enviable legacy of being among the only democratic institutions that stood with and for the citizens in the country’s darkest days during the Emergency, when the Supreme Court failed India’s people. But, like so much of history, that legacy seems to have been forgotten. On occasion, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the plight of migrant workers, high courts showed their mettle through some bold orders and directions, but it seems that this was only a momentary ray of hope. Today, it is virtually impossible to get relief in civil liberties cases in some high courts, and for even the most blatantly ridiculous instances of a misuse or arbitrary application of a draconian law, individuals have to approach the Supreme Court for any redress. It is also troubling to see judges praising the benefits of cow urine and cow dung, invoking the Manusmriti, and speaking the majoritarian language.

Despite all this, though, the executive realises that the judiciary is the last bastion it has to overcome. In that respect, without a formal change in the constitution, it might be almost impossible to establish a Hindu Rashtra. This is also perhaps why a conversation has suddenly resumed around the Keshvananda Bharati decision. The statesmanship exhibited by the 13-judge constitution bench in Kesavananda Bharati, where the basic structure doctrine was laid down, and judicial custody of the constitution reclaimed, is but one shining example of what the court is capable of. The judgment spoke of six crucial elements that made up the Basic Structure and that cannot be altered, that is, democracy, secularism, rule of law, equality, federalism, and judicial independence. As the Chief Justice of India has rightly said, this decision is a “north star” for India. Granville Austin  said that the court had established itself as “the logical, primary custodian” of the constitution, and “its interpreter and guardian.” There was a promise, decades ago, by the Supreme Court itself, that it would be the sentinel on the qui vive, the watchful guardian protecting citizens’ fundamental rights. Whatever happened to that promise, I often wonder, with great disappointment.

Conclusion

You might well ask, why I have painted what appears to be a rather grim picture of what India has become in 2023, and why I think this is important for what my vision of India is in 2047. Every day, with increasing frequency we are bombarded with claims about the achievements of the government, and how people’s lives have improved and how lives will continue to get better with time. But if we think about this rationally, with proper data, information, and evidence, we will be able to look past the pomp and rhetoric for what it really is.

Consider, for instance, the economic miracle that India is being touted as by the present government. We are told to be proud that India is now shining and that our economy will soon overtake the world’s biggest and brightest. But a closer examination reveals that this economy appears to be shining only for a very few.

In the world’s major indices that measure different aspects of governance, India regularly shows up nearer to the bottom of these lists than the top. On the Global Hunger Index, which measures hunger and food security, India is presently ranked at 107 out of 117. On the Environmental Performance index, which talks about how governments handle air and water pollution amongst other things, India has the unenvious position of being at the bottom of 180 countries measured. In the human development index, the gender gap index, the multi-dimensional poverty index, India has routinely performed poorly, with only marginal or occasional improvements. Not only has India done poorly compared with itself, but also compared with its immediate and larger neighbourhoods.

What does this all tell us? I feel that this march towards creating a certain kind of India, has resulted in what some have called an amnesia about the teeming millions.

The sad truth is that for many of us, the working classes, the lower middle and lower classes, the agricultural workers, they just do not exist. They are unseen, unheard or ignored, living substandard lives, left to languish in the dark alleyways, in scorched farms, in flooded hillsides, in parched villages… But if you introspect about this a little deeply, you will realise they are irreplaceable cogs in the wheel of our democracy, just like we are.

Nobody can contest that income inequality has become more stark. There appears to be no meaningful investment in the health and education of those who really need it. Corruption and crony capitalism are still very much prevalent, except with new faces and new names, perhaps more demonic than we knew them to be before.

But the situation that we are in today is not irreversible. To reverse this, we must jolt ourselves awake with a few realisations.

We need to recognise that communalism is ‘not only the badge of a backward nation’, as Nehru had famously once said, but also that it has a limited shelf life. Recall what I had said at the start of my lecture today, that history has a lot to teach us. History has taught us, time and again, that hatred and divisiveness, whether in politics or society, cannot survive for long. Religion and religious groups might be having their day in the sun, when it comes to influencing politics, and economics. This is happening the world over, but this is also only a temporary phenomenon. Peacefulness and a peaceful society are the natural equilibrium for human society. Periods of war and instability have mostly been sporadic, we have, as humankind, reverted to peace as the default. In India too, we must never let go of that certitude, that we will return to peace, sooner than later. For every statue of Gandhi or Tagore being defaced or pulled down or their thoughts and ideas being otherwise devalued by the extremist right wing, there is a movement that reminds us and reinforces that peace is the only path to real progress.

We must also acknowledge and learn to value the power of knowledge. This means encouraging free and critical thought and speech. What this means for institutional architecture is obvious – schools and universities, places where people go to ideate and create, and avenues through which such ideas and creations are consumed, such as the media – must be truly independent, free from fear or control.

So, at the end of all this, you might ask, what is my vision for India of 2047? I would return, unhesitatingly, to history. The universal values that have survived since time immemorial, and that will survive for time to come, the values of truth, non-violence, compassion and kindness – these are what must define my India of 2047. These values must guide government and society, both. These must direct them to behave in ways that uphold human goodness, dignity, diversity, and inclusivity.

Over millennia, even before India existed as a nation, the people of this subcontinent have shown themselves to be very resilient. There is so much strength in India and Indians, I am confident that we can reverse the situation we have found ourselves in today.

The post India today has all the markers of a failing democracy. But the situation is not irreversible appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A public march was held by Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) in Sangli whereby slogans were raised in support of Hindu Rashtra and against “Love jihad”. The video surfaced on June 9. One of them, addressing young Hindu girls, said on the mic, “don’t fall in the trap of Love Jihad. Avoid being friends with non-Hindus. Realise the greatness of Hindu religion and avoid making friends with people from other religions.”

They also demanded, “To fight against Love Jihad, establish a special Police cell. Conduct an enquiry into the funding of Love Jihad and the recruitment of young girls for terror activities.” They also demanded central laws against “love jihad” and religious conversions.

Location: Sangli, Maharashtra

Hindu Janjagruti Samiti organized a hate rally in support of Hindu nation & against the conspiracy theory of “love jihad,” where speakers demonized Muslims. pic.twitter.com/Wmr1JwPlXO

— HindutvaWatch (@HindutvaWatchIn) June 9, 2023

On June 8 a video surfaced from Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh where a public rally was held on the streets. A person speaking on the mic was blasting these objectionable words on the loudspeaker, “don’t fall for Jihadis. They are targeting Hindu girls and trapping them and then killing them mercilessly. Mostly people from only one community are involved.”

They demanded the death sentence for the “murderer of Sakshi”, referring to the gut wrenching incident where a young man stabbed the girl named Sakshi repeatedly in complete public view. The incident was recorded on CCTV.

Location: Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh

Far-right Hindu Raksha Dal organized a street march, where its members used a speaker mounted over a vehicle to deliver hateful speeches vilifying Muslims. pic.twitter.com/6eAvEV44E1

— HindutvaWatch (@HindutvaWatchIn) June 8, 2023

On June 7, a video came up of a public demonstration organised in Satara, Maharashtra by HJS. The few people present there, demanded death sentence for Aaftab Poonawal (accused in the gruesome murder of Shraddha Walkar). They also demanded the death sentence for Sahil Khan, accused in the murder of the young girl Sakshi, in Delhi.

One of the speakers said that parents should keep a close eye on their daughters, who are their friends and where they go to “protect” them from radicalisation.

Location: Satara, Maharashtra

Hindu Janjagruti Samiti organised a hate rally where speakers indulged in fear-mongering against Muslims and called on Hindus to “strike back against love jihadis.” pic.twitter.com/AHzSogGTfr

— HindutvaWatch (@HindutvaWatchIn) June 7, 2023

In Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand where disturbances have been reported due to an incident of abduction of a minor girl, where one of the accused belonged to Muslim community, a person was found instigating the crowd in Chinyalisour. The video surfaced on June 7 and was reported by a local news channel Garhwal Tak.

He said, “We don’t know whether they have come from West Bengal or are Rohingya Muslims. They are buying shops and our (Hindu) brothers are forced to return empty handed. They use Hindu names for shops. We come to know the reality when they trap our girls. We realise they are Raheem Khan. We are telling shop owners that they should employ locals.”

Sabrang India reported on May 30, how Muslim traders and shop owners had reportedly fled Purola town due to the uproar the abduction incident had caused and how right wing groups and other shop owners were demonstrating against the Muslim community. Further, Muslim shops, which are now shut down in Purola and Barkot, were marked with a black cross mark and intimidating posters were pasted on the shutters of these shops. The posters were removed by the police.

Location: Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand

Hindu far-right leader delivers hate speech demonising Muslims and calls on locals not to rent shops or homes to Muslims. pic.twitter.com/mNfz4jacS0

— HindutvaWatch (@HindutvaWatchIn) June 7, 2023

In Samba, Jammu a video surfaced on June 6 where Antar Rashtriya Hindu Parishad held a hate rally demanding a law against “love jihad”. Slogans of “Jai Shree Ram” were also raised.

Location: Samba, Jammu

Antar Rashtriya Hindu Parishad held a hate rally against the conspiracy theory of “love jihad.” pic.twitter.com/TukPRvSyMW

— HindutvaWatch (@HindutvaWatchIn) June 6, 2023

Related:

Uttarkashi: Cross marks, “leave” threats on Muslim shops, hatred spreads to other towns: Uttarakhand

Uttarkashi: Muslims flee homes as right wing threatens the community over abduction of young girl

The post RW mobilises masses; people get on streets to demand “love jihad” law appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In his speech, Chavhanke has openly threated to use force and violence against the minorities in order to make India an undivided Hindu nation. He also urged the government to change the name of the streets in Delhi and rename them to Hindu leaders. It is essential to note here that on March 19, in Maharashtra, when Aurangabad had been renamed as Sambhajinagar, Suresh Chavhanke, along with T. Raja Singh, had given hate speeches which has resulted in the rampant destruction of public property and pelting of stones. Many Islamophobic statement were made and anti-Muslim slurs were used. Notably, FIRs had also been filed against these two. And yet, Almost 2 months later, a hate speech on the similar script has been given by Chavhanke, demanding for more names to be changed, inciting the public for more violence.

The transcript of the fill speech can be read here:

The speech:

“In India, elections will only take place 3 or 4 more times, for 15 years or for 20 years, elections are not an option after that.”

“In the last 75 years, we have seen roads named after Babur, Humanyun, etc., will these remain the same in the future? A new parliament house has been made, the names of these roads should also be changed to Maharana Pratap road, Prithviraj Chauhan road, Chhtrapati Shivaji Maharaj road, Sambhaji Maharaj road.”

“So many villages and districts still have Islami names, who will change them? Yogi changed the name to Prayagraj, giving a nod to the .name changings, but people need to do it on a district level too. If you don’t change the name now, then in any case the names of the Hindu towns and villages will be changed in 20 years. So, while the time is on our side, we should make name changing an agenda.”

“Today, Akbar is taking away our daughters, what are we doing? They are breaking our temples on a daily basis. If Maharana Pratap were here, would they be able to break our temples? If Maharana Pratap were there, would there be a mosque on Mathura-Janmabhoomi. On our Mahadev mandir, we made such a big corridor, but we have not even been able to worship our Lord.”

“In Kashi, where the Pm of India, the Chief Minister of the state, and many devotees like me, go to worship, do you know that it is an imitation and the real shivling is buried in Gyanvapi? Even as we celebrate the 75^th year of Independence, in this Amrit Kaal, I will only think of it as complete independence when the 4.5 lakh temples that are beneath the mosques are freed.”

“In Devbandh, in Mathura, the Muslims there were not letting us Hindus celebrate the birth anniversary of Krishna. The Hindus there then said that we should call Suresh Chavhanke, then these Muslims will shut up. The Hindus there called me, and at 12 am, we celebrated Krishna Jayanti, and no one’s Abu had the audacity to stop us from celebrating it.”

“The result was that the next day, 28 Chauhan Muslim families came to meet me. They said to me that we watch you on TV, we are Chauhan just as you are. They also told me that nobody is inviting us to speak, our coming generations are not even using the Chauhan name in their surnames. They said that in the Madrasas these children are studying in, the characteristic of their children is being changed. They said that they want protect the culture of their children, and they must be converted to Hindus.”

“I told these people to come to me, and I spoke to them, then performed Ghar-wapasi with them. We also got them houses. If we don’t do this, we won’t be saved.”

“The children performed a very good play before us. But, these children of Rajput’s are playing with toy swords, what can be sadder than this. I want to urge everyone that just like Sikhs have been given the right to keep kripans with them, Kshatriyas should also be allowed to keep swords with them.”

“Today, someone named Razia Sultana is here. I want to apologise to her that you still have to write your name as Razia Sultana, and have not been able to write it as Radha. This is our weakness, and I want to apologise for this.”

The video can be viewed here:

Every word uttered by Suresh Chavhanke is offensive for the Muslim community and instigation for the Hindu community. It is imperative that strict and stringent action be taken against Chavhanke, holding him responsible for the inflammatory statements and to prevent any act of incidents of violence before or after the inauguration of the new parliament.

Related:

Political Power & narrow vision demonising Muslims, destroying harmony & defaming Varkari tradition says Sant Suhas Maharaj Phadtare: Trimbakeshwar row

Tushar Bhosale aggressive face of Trimbakeshwar conflict, convener of BJP “spiritual wing”

Brahman Mahasangh responsible for hostile environment at Trimbakeshwar, Nashik, prosecute them demands Vidrohi Sanskrutik Chalwal, Maharashtra

T. Raja Singh, a BJP MLA with a history of communal speeches, delivers another anti-Muslim speech

The post Another hate speech delivered demanding to change names of Babur and Humayun road in Delhi appeared first on SabrangIndia.