Thread by @sankrant

Have been reading the 1910 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica for insights into the colonial mind.

Fascinating description of "religion" in India. Even they agree then that the distinctions between "Hinduism" "Buddhism" "Jainism" "Sikhism" as "separate" are arbitrary.

"Hinduism" gets manufactured as "cow", "caste" and "Brahamanism." Completely arbitrary. Do Aghoris follow "Brahamanism"? Do Naga Sadhus (or any sanyasi) follow "caste"? The European mind is desperate to find "religion" in India, This colonial discourse is simply replicated today.

"There is a marked tendency both on the part of sects and of the distinct religions to lapse into the parent religion from which they sprang.... Sikhism is only preserved by the military requirements of the British."

Even more interesting is the descriptions of "Mahommedans." They mention that there is little to distinguish "Hindus" and "Muslims" belonging to the same caste.

This is much before British institute the "Communal Award" which separates electorates based on religious identity.

The "Communal Award" communalized India. Both the so-called "right" and the "left" follow the colonial template. The policies of the British created greater communal difference between ordinary people. The "secular Constitution" was the final nail in the coffin to divide India.

Why does the "secular" Constitution communalize India? It replicated the Communal award in discriminating between citizens as "majority" and "minority." It makes it supremely important if one is a Hindu Rajput vs a Muslim Rajput, e.g.—it makes religious identity central for law.

Subsequent govts in the State and Center have made the situation worse. BJP even created massive "minority scholarships" and "hunar haat." A Muslim weaver will get state assistance, a Hindu weaver will not. Kerala even has schemes for Christian converts.

sankrant.org/2017/12/consti…