Over the last few weeks the protesters holding constitution of India and asking bhakts and sanghis to read constitution. Well if they read the constitution they will understand bhakts and sanghis have read the constitution and took this position. Thread.
This is to paraphrase Reagan on who is communist. But the point stays the same. Indian constitution is basically discriminatory. Wait for it. Indian constitution discriminates against Hindus and not a secular constitution in the first place. #ReadTheConstitution
I will restrict the examples with how the constitution makes Hindus effectively second class citizens. Other things such as no local governance etc wont be discussed even though it makes civil facilities such as roads, water connections impossible to get. #ReadTheConstitution
The first place where Hindus get shafted is First amendment of the Constitution which took away free speech. Where as US First Amendment ensured free speech, Nehru being first dictator in India, want to ensure that there is no criticism of his economic policies.
Thus the Article 19 of Indian Constitution restricts free speech. This is still used to restrict Hindus voices only. If a Hindu happens to criticism other religions then this provision will kick in. The reverse is free speech. Read the full article here en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitut…
Article 25 explicitly mentions Hindu religion by making the duty of the state to open Hindu temples to all sections of the Hindus. Here Hindu is take as who are all not Muslims, not Christians. So Constitution is like other religious states which gives prominent place to Hinduism
No one including these protesters having issues with Hinduism being a default religion of state by making this provision. Why the Indian Secular Govt wants to reform one and only Hinduism? Is that duty of secular state to promote Hinduism?
Or the Indian Govt via Constitution says that Only Hinduism is bad and needs reform? What is the logic of this provision in the all hail secularism? In USA there is establishment clause leading state having nothing to do with any religion.
Article 26 allows minorities to manage its religious affair. Which means that the Majority religion Hinduism will be managed by state, thus default and dejure religion of state as declared by constitution. But these protestors will not care or notice this.
Next is Article 27. This allows no tax on religious purposes. But Hindu temple funds are taxed. Why? Because Hinduism is not a religion as per Indian laws. This was made it as a law by the so called Hindutva Judgement indiankanoon.org/doc/925631/
The issue is whether Hinduism is a religion with all the rights and privileges of a religion ie to establish, manage institutions and be tax free. But recognizing that would had reversed 50 years of case law so the innovative solution found. So Hinduism is way of life. Volia
So instead of Hindu rastra, way-of-life rastra would be good? Let us focus on Constitution. Next is Article 28. It says, No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds. So partially aided minority can do it? yes.
Only Hindu institutions schools, colleges have to face this not other religious institutions. Here is 28 C, No person attending any educational institution recognized by the State or receiving aid out of State funds shall be required to take part in any religious instruction...
that may be imparted in such institution or to attend any religious worship that may be conducted in such institution or in any premises attached thereto unless such person or, if such person is minor, his guardian has given his consent thereto. Can any one make sense out of this
Any one heard of this? Article 44 {Uniform civil code for the citizen}
The State shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India.
The State shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India.
Next we can see this bias in other laws enacted by parliament. With enactment of Hindu personal laws, Nehru established Hinduism as the official religion in India. If the parliament cares only about Hinduism for reform wouldn't that make it defacto state religion?
We can see this in other countries well countries declare a religion as state religion in Constitution. So in practice, even if it is not declared explicitly, these acts make Hinduism as defacto religion. I can go on, but these examples are enough.
People like me are sanghis and bhakts because we read, understood our Constitution, laws and judgements. It is the leftist liars, communatists need to see, read and understand these things. Do they know? absolutely. They know these things because they wrote it. right?
They wrote these things hoping that Govt control of Hindu temples would enable them to destroy Hinduism as they can steal and sell Hindu temple wealth, block Hindu's access to temple money, stop Hindus teaching traditions to children etc. And also expected Hindus to subservient
Now they are asking, why this slave Hindus instead of being slaves and accepting the subservience, now demanding persecuted Hindus in other countries to be given citizenship? Shouldn't Hindus accept and suffer as that is being the Ahimsa thought by THE gandhi?
For 72 years, Hindus accepted that subservience slavery of not managing temples, no right to start and teach Hinduism to children, no right to preach and convert others to Hinduism so on. These new found Constitution lovers are asking why Hindus now demand their rights?
That is the whole protest is all about. Nothing to with CAA, NRC, NPR etc. How dare Hindus demand their rights as Human beings? The silent majority may not vocal but we know how to get things done. After all, we have faced 1200 of invasions, barbarism, slavery and still alive.
