Thread by @jsaideepak

1. Apparently I have already branded d Constitution of 1950 a colonial document in my book #IndiaThatisBharat when I have limited d discussion in d book to d Government of India Act of 1919 and have said as much that I am yet to form my views fully on the current Constitution :-p

2. The discussion in the first book touches largely upon the secular versus religious divide and its colonial history. But I have been very careful about not branding the entire Constitution 'colonial' since it will be examined specifically only in the third book.

3. Conceptual objections to & rejection of Decoloniality as a concept are understandable and ppl can differ on the subject. But what's d point of misrepresenting d very scope of d book, especially when I have been clear about specifying d scope of d discussion in the first book?

4. In fact, in every book related discussion when I have been asked my views on the Constitution's Coloniality, I have clearly said that I am yet to complete the research on that issue and form my final view on it. I have even suggested that the document cud be partly colonial.

5. As I said, conceptual and epistemological objections to Decoloniality aside, it would help to have an evidence-based approach to the history of the Constitution as opposed to winging it. Also, I have never declared myself fully "decolonial" because it is an ongoing process.

6. I guess it boils down to this -is Hindutva Hindu modernity or Hindu Decoloniality?I don't think that's d question.The question is which path facilitates & enables greater access to indigenous thought & its application to contemporary issues & situations. To me,that's d focus.

7. Since I don't wish to be sly about the context of these tweets, these are my thoughts on @Iyervval's take on Decoloniality and my book. Happy to discuss further.

8. Just to add on the question of individual rights versus group rights, again, such questions are typically framed and answered with reference to a specific context. For instance, Sabarimala is different from the Hijab controversy. Again Sabarimala is different from Haji Ali.

9. Sabarimala is different from Achankoil. Tirupati isn't the same as Padmanabhaswamy. Similarly, a school is not the same as a Temple. A private school isn't the same as a public school. A denominational Temple isn't the same as a non-denominational one.

10.What is Dharma & which set of rights must prevail in a given situation is a function of context.That's y I have caveated my position in d book to say that blanket assertion of primacy of individual rights,as in d Sabarimala case,is both unconstitutional & against group rights.

11. Happy to take this forward after the third week of April with @Iyervval on a mutually acceptable platform. Third week of April because I should be done with the Manuscript of the second book by then.

12. Just to clarify - I do not have a personal axe to grind with either @Iyervval or @kushal_mehra or anyone else. My disagreements are vocal and clear but not malicious. So those looking for vicarious pleasure thru a gladiatorial contest can count me out.

13. Also, these twitter debates have very little or no impact on the ground, at least for now. So the purpose of these debates, if any, is perhaps some degree of clarity on positions with the clear acknowledgement that none of us is trained formally in Dharmic darshanas.

14. I have zero interest in labels and camps either online or offline. The larger challenges are clear and I'd rather stay focused on them to the extent I can. Beyond that, the pravaham/flow of Dharma has its own course and niyati. None of us can change it. Over and out.