Thread by @dikgaj

@DrlathaC Which is the lion here? So-called communalism always started by so-called hurt-Muslim-sentiments? allowing little things prevents volcanic eruptions. Thanks to the powers for openly choosing sides. Also a good indication of mindset I suggested to those too optimistic on judgment.

@DrlathaC I think u all make a fundamental mistake in assuming that the "majority" has any "fundamental rights": you must grasp the significance of the "Constituent Assembly" debates where this aspect was first debated on. The IUML founder president gave an expression/logic that has

@DrlathaC subsequently appeared in exact replica in many higher courts bench judgments: the shared logic is that "majority" does not need written/built-into-fundamental-rights portions of Constitution - guarantees of its rights as the majority has been declared by IUML founder and

@DrlathaC all subsequent courts that used the same logic - to be able to "change laws or assert or protect their rights" by their "majority" legislatively. This wonderful "Constituent Assembly" line has had two wonderful consequences:

@DrlathaC (1) first, the absence of constitutional guarantees of protections/rights of "majority" has been used to freely intervene, redefine, alter, change, prevent, modify any aspect of the majority's cultural, civil-law aspects. Because its claimed when giving such judgments that

@DrlathaC right to protection from such intervention has not been guaranteed in the Constitution hence was not in the spirit of the Constituent Assembly - even though original debates do not indicate any such wishes or "spirit".

@DrlathaC (2) second, because of increasing claims of people not having full sovereignty in a supposed democracy over their own laws, that is they cannot change laws in a way that authorities higher than the parliament claiming final arbitration powers on validity of laws, disagree with,

@DrlathaC any actual activation of the Cionstituent assembly line or subsequent court judgement line that "majority can always protect itself through numbers" is not a guaranteed protection as both the above points I raised can be and most likely will be used to prevent any action that

@DrlathaC protects "majority"'s fundamental rights - esp over religious/cultural issues. Hindus unlikely to hv any state protection& increasing poaching on their sacred sphere while Islam.Xtianity will be blindly protected& this dichotomy will be funded by u -the majority, through revenue.

@DrlathaC also drawing attention to fact that most of the "special" measures of protection for "special identities", in the Assembly debates, were done for specifically short term in the future, in most cases, 10 years. While introducing the "reservations" bill, the proposer, actually

@DrlathaC explained special "rights/protection" for a particular community's "backward" sections: saying that the primary objection to removing "SC/ST" benefits even after converting to liberal/progressive religions/sects was from these progressive/liberal faith leadership

@DrlathaC who believed that without the "reservations" support, these "backward" sections would "return to Hinduism" and the liberal Hindu ldrship dominated by precious Gandhians in the Const Assembly gave in to this (led by the "man of iron").

@DrlathaC so keep in mind that even in Constituent assembly, the "special rights/protections" were not about protecting culture/community of religions more advanced/liberal than Hinduism - but to prevent converts "falling back" into Hinduism. Thus the state is under commitment to maintain

@DrlathaC measures as unfavourable and hostile as feasible on the cultural/religious life of the majority and as favourable as possible for deemed "minorities" so that the power bases of these minority religions and their following has no incentive to join back "Hinduism".