Thread by @dikgaj

1) looking at the history of judiciary over the last few centuries, especially under western European powers - judiciary go most strongly against ideologies, institutions, movements they think will curb their own powers. They bend to powers who they know can crush them at will.

2) modern judicial practice has one insidious aspect: it is unique in resulting in training through profession to hide latent agenda or motivations by skillful (not necessarily) and obscurantist or obsolete use of language.

3) thus when politicians who gained leadership wr also trained as legal professionals, as in India's freedom movement, the results were typically disastrous in the long term - as the two skill sets converged to heighten the deception of the people while initially lulling them.

4) Note that two of the triumvirate who were all trained lawyers and supposed to have gifted India its freedom - were still surviving and members of the Constituent Assembly when Muhammad Ismail introduced the claim that majority community needs no Constitutional protection.

5) Muhammad Ismails claims regarding "majority protection not needed in Constitution as they can bring in laws when needed" were not objected to by these brilliant legal professionals. So we have to assume they foresaw the consequences and welcomed it.

6) Muhammad Ismail's claims on no-Constitutional-protection-for-majority has since been used as a unchallengeable revelation frm "spirit of Constituent Assembly" and is the legal front to freely intervene in Hindu cultural practices while giving ironclad protection to non-Hindus.

7) we cannot assume the legally trained triumvirate to have been stupid: they surely understood the consequences. So the only option left is to assume they did it knowingly. Their silence or lack of opposition then illustrates how the judicial mindset works in managing perception

8) if we concede they did it knowingly, then the next question is why? thus we come to my earlier hypothesis: that the judicial mind is driven to fear any potential force that it thinks will compete for power and curb its own power.

9) thus when thinking of the "Hindu" majority, the triumvirates innate "judicial" fear for their personal power, or the power of those they will choose as successor trustees hopefully in their own image and mindset (thereby vicariously extending their own continuance in power)

10) took primary place and not taking the thinking-cap of the people. This viewing through personal power lens, and passing it off as in the interest of some other group - is what makes the judicial mindset expanding into statecraft so dangerous for society and its civilization.

11) Fear of people comes from a deep inferiority complex, perhaps even the awareness of not belonging, or not wanting to belong to the people one seeks to dominate, a curious but understandable mixture of hatred and fear. Training in dissimulation is what makes it insidious.