dikgaj Profile picture
Sep 21, 2020 11 tweets 2 min read Read on X
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.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with dikgaj

dikgaj Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @dikgaj

Nov 14, 2023
1) Was reading up on the British Tasmania civilising mission after a long time. The quintessential British character of hyper-hypocrisy on values, as shown in the scum governor Arthur or his scum solicitor general, was acting out in the same time as lead up to Indian war of 1857.
2) the British civilisers went out hunting native adults, capturing women for rape or sex-slaves, children as slave labour. natives fought back. So great Brit civiliser Arthur sent his men in chains of deniability to civilise natives by doing what they wr doing before on natives.
3) the way British officials carefully edited, omitted references to the infamous axing of a native woman on the beach after shooting her in the back, all the way up frm bottom to Arthur and his SG, shows the scum all the way to the top wr aware of what their sweet boys wr up to.
Read 6 tweets
Nov 8, 2023
1) Israeli intel likely lost out because of their interfaces with those they deem or r forced deem as friends. The Hamastinian raid was planned for long, and too many western and US intel are embedded in Hamastine to not know. They made sure that Israelis were kept in the dark.
2) US, Euro, Egyptian or US linked Arab Intel wd hv collaborated pretending this wd help topple Bibi, and place an Israeli gov more aligned to US pseudo-left. Their handlers wd work with Hamas, and I am pretty sure that western media was embedded within Hamastine raiders.
3) whoever masterminded the plan however either didn’t estimate or deliberately didn’t share with all collaborators how far Hamastine raiders wd go in rape, torture, murder and how much of that will be made public. Also calculation was that Israelis wdnt put it in public domain.
Read 6 tweets
Oct 26, 2023
1) Total bull. It was you who sought to disqualify a reality of Brit civilising claims because of the presumed location of the person protesting it. Location is irrelevant for the question. If an Australian kangaroo was able to say it, it too wdnt be disqualified.
2) there is no country with sizeable popn that is able to stamp out trafficking, including current Britain whose image u sought to whitewash and falsely made equivalence between an arm of the British gov doing/covering for it/lying abt it with Indian army/gov that doesn’t do it.
3) u can revel in serving the British queen/king, or their permanent servant at beck and call. I never did it, so I am not an NRI or RNI of ur kind. U chose British apologist side on “civilizational” question about “Hindus”. I chose the latter, and strictly on historical reality.
Read 11 tweets
Oct 26, 2023
RNIs get enraged if their beloved Brits actual history on ground in India is mentioned. Existing prostitution does not erase what the British did. Tweet was in context of rascal claim that Hindus were “civilised” by British. RNI Joshi got enraged because that was called out.
Joshi is not a champion of any trafficked women. Her pretension of outrage seeks to deny that British army in India organised its sex slavery as part of its regular operations and wd use health concerns to both force innocents into it and abandon ostracise them after infecting.
That she gets infuriated at “Bose DP” and presumes that tweep must be a Bengali so let’s enjoy mentioning Sonagachi, shows the real character. Neither Bose nor Indian army nor Hindus organise sex slavery as a government enterprise unlike Brits in India .
Read 4 tweets
Oct 19, 2023
1) Two things that still bug me in video of Israeli pregnant woman being cut open by jihadis without anaesthesia, gagged, held down -she is cut like an animal being flayed, the skin taken off all along the front. The one doing it is a real life butcher who practised on animals.
2) second, I dont get why she is being slapped. She is already gagged with tape, four jihadis hold her down by her limbs. She wd be half senseless with pain, and at best moan a little. They don’t want her to even moan. They are treating her like an animal in the slaughterhouse.
3) they want to give her max pain, but unlike slaughterhouse they haven’t slit her throat as they want her to experience while still alive the entire flaying, cutting open and removal of foetus. Apart from that, they r reducing her to an animal. This is the key to jihadi mind.
Read 8 tweets
Oct 10, 2023
1) 75 years of India-Pak proves the insidious British two-state doctrine never worked when one is an Islamist majority. Israel will have exact same situation as India with two Islamist bases on two flanks. Yair is making a Nehruvian disservice to his ppl, pushing for two-state.
2) The sovereign base that jihadis gain from two-state, is just a start of a long war maintained by the Imullahs who patiently nurture jihad ag the non-Muslim neighbour, erase any remnant "moderates" in order to eventually gain more territory and hopefully annex the neighbour.
3) The British doctrine was an insidious imperialist tactic to secure loyalty and access to territories its own scum colonial regimes or protectorates previously occupied, and designed to continuously enhance strength of jihadis. Sovereignty prevents non-Muslims frm taking action
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(