Thread by @jijeeshpb

This we, in Kerala saw in run to last parliament elections. His book, 'Why I am a Hindu' and the @INCIndia projecting @RahulGandhi as Janeu-Dhari Hindu were not coincidental (3/n)

We have seen his flip-flops before. A good example was #Sabarimala Women Entry Issue. Note, what he said in 2010: google.com/amp/s/www.ndtv…

(4/n)

He then said that "there is nothing sacrosanct about social practices...
(5/n)

Again, he welcomed Supreme Court verdict allowing women to enter #sabarimala : newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/…

(6/n)

He said: "Every time a historic change came, there were a lot of traditionalists who resisted"
(7/n)

He did a U-turn here, flirting with majoritarianism: theprint.in/opinion/why-sa…

(8/n)

He said: "abstract notions of constitutional principles should also get social acceptance." He relied on some 'informal' surveys as measure of social acceptance.
(9/n)

He considered basic democratic principle of Equality (Art 14) as 'an abstract notion' that we should disregard if the majority opinion is against it.
(10/n)

If this is not blatant defence of majoritarianism, what it is?
(11/n)

Going by this logic, it is quite natural to guess what his opinion would be #RamMandir case.
(12/n)

For now, he says Babri Masjid demolition was blot on India's conscience. (Even Vajpey has said so).
(13/n)

The argument goes like this: "....faiths of millions has to be respected... If there is evidence of a temple there, ideally there would have been a case for #RamMandir. (Ideally without destroying the masjid).
(14/n)

Would he advocate the same route if some Buddhist group demand #Sabarimala temple back ? Or some Jaina group claim absolute rights over KoodalManikya temple? (For there are good enough historical evidences)
(15/n)

Certainly it would cause chaos and is a practical impossibility. So gist of Tharoor's argument is not history, not evidence, but so called 'popular lore' and belief of millions. That simply means 'BELIEF OF THE MAJORITY'.
(16/n)

He also says: "Now matter is before the courts, I will leave it here". However we know how this 'Instinctive Liberal' reacted when the court finally gave it's decision in #SabarimalaWomenEntry.
(17/n)

And regarding #Article370Scrapped . I would be delighted if he could explained how it is a temporary provision, provided a constitution bench of the Supreme Court in 1959 has already said that the provision is permanent.
(18/n)

And find a constitutional way to abrogate #Article370
(19/n)

I regret having misquoted @ShashiTharoor yesterday, but stand by my words that I would still not be surprised if I hear him advocate building of #RamMandir irrespective of what the Supreme Court might say.
(n/n)

@threadreaderapp unroll