While accepting the truth might be hard with the politically correct narrative of 'secularism' having diseased our discourse, the truth is that Islam as a religion was introduced in India through violent conquests and barbaric Islamic rulers who were alien to the nation India: A land with Hindu consciousness, which will forever be a natural home for Hindus While accepting the truth might be hard with the politically correct narrative of 'secularism' having diseased our discourse, the truth is that Islam as a religion was introduced in India through violent conquests and barbaric Islamic rulers who were alien to the nation Nupur J Sharma 10 September 2019 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Ever since the 2014 elections, India has experienced a sea change not just attitudinally, but also in terms of the policy. One of the policy decisions that aims to right a historic wrong is the Citizenship Amendment Bill. In 2016, the Modi government tabled the Citizenship Amendment Bill that aimed to cleanse the country of illegal immigration. The Bill, introduced in the Lok Sabha on July 15, 2016, seeks to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955 to provide citizenship to illegal migrants, from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, who are of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian extraction. The acceptability of the propositions furthered by the Citizenship Amendment Bill was split in the middle. As is India’s wont, the ideological divide was as stark as a bright sunny summer morning. The Left opposed the provisions tooth and nail. The ‘idea of India’ that has long been touted as the existential foundation of India had been shaken, as per them, with one swift motion. The Left has long espoused the principle that India is an all-giving, all-embracing entity, especially when it comes to Muslims. Whether this special corner of the heart that bleeds only for Muslims is a result of political compulsions, the Gandhian dystopia or the engrained false persecution complex is unclear. Perhaps it is a culmination of all of the above. Either way, while the Left detested the idea of law finally being honest enough to give citizenship to persecuted minorities from neighbouring Islamic nations, the non-Left rejoiced the decision as one that rights a historic wrong. The foundation for the citizenship amendment bill is rather simple – India is a natural home for persecuted Hindus, Buddhists and Jains from neighbouring Islamic countries. Essentially, all people belonging to non-Islamic religions should see India as their natural home. The objection that the Left raised was rather a simple (and expected) one as well – why are Muslims being left out when all others are being given the chance to become Indian citizens. An example of the outrage that is expressed by the Left is journalist Rajdeep Sardesai voicing his concerns during an interview with website Lallantop. An incensed Rajdeep spoke at length about how we are moving towards Jinnah’s India and how the Citizenship Amendment Bill should have a human element in it. He also spoke about how the Hindu refugees in India are political refugees and not those persecuted on religious lines. Before we go into the details of Rajdeep’s assertion that Hindu refugees are merely economic refugees and not ones borne out of religious persecution, it becomes essential to examine why the Citizenship Amendment Bill is bang on target and why India has to be considered the naturalised home for persecuted Hindus. Dominant religions of the world According to theregistere.co.uk, nearly 75% of the world’s population practices one of the five most influential religions of the world: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. To quote from the report, “Christianity and Islam are the two religions most widely spread across the world. These two religions together cover the religious affiliation of more than half of the world’s population”. if one sees the world map at a glance, the dominant religions, country-wise, draws a rather obvious picture. Country-wise majority religions. Source: pbslearningmedia.org (OpIndia doesn’t endorse the map of India depicted here, it has been used only to show the religious demographics of the world) The interactive map by PBS visually displays the countries of the world and the dominant religions in those countries. While the extent of the spread of Christianity is evident by the ocean of purple, Hinduism and Islam deserve a closer look. The interactive map can be used to see the spread of Hinduism and Islam. From the map, one can see that there are only 2 countries in the world that have a Hindu majority population today. India and Nepal. There is not one country where the Hindu population is between 40% to 70% and most other countries where there is a remote presence of Hinduism ranges between 1% and 10% of the population. In India’s neighbouring countries, Pakistan, according to this map, has a Hindu population of 1.9%, which some may believe is an exaggerated number in itself, Bangladesh has a Hindu population of 9.1%, Myanmar of 1.7% and Bhutan of 22.6%. Map showing Muslim population % (OpIndia doesn’t endorse the map of India depicted here, it has been used only to show the religious demographics of the world) Above is the map that visually displays the number of Islamic countries or countries with a Muslim majority in the world. According to the Pew Research Center in 2015, there were 50 Muslim-majority countries. Worldatlas.com (April 2017) identified 45 ‘Islamic countries’. Among the Islamic states are Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Oman, and Yemen. Other states where Islam is the politically defined state religion are Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Algeria, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Somalia and Brunei. Other Muslim-majority countries include: Niger, Indonesia, Sudan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sierra Leone, Djibouti, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Chad, The Gambia, Guinea, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Northern Cyprus, Nigeria, Senegal, Syria, Lebanon, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Turkey and Uzbekistan. According to a 2010 study and released in January 2011, Jones (2005) defines a “large minority” as being between 30% and 50%, which described nine countries in 2000, namely Bosnia and Herzegovina, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Macedonia, Nigeria, and Tanzania. Islam has 1.5 billion adherents, making up c. 22% of the world population. The argument about India being a naturalised home for Hindus stems first and foremost from the demography of the world. As is evident, India and Nepal are the only two countries in the world where Hindus are the majority population. With Nepal being a rather small country, the onus to be the naturalised home for Hindus falls on India, and rightly so. With 50 Muslims Majority countries and the entire world painted purple as is evident from the world demography map shared, there is no other country in the world that can be called their own other than India. India a ‘secular’ state? The obvious counter to this argument by the Left is that India is a ‘secular’ nation with no state religion. The concept of ‘secular’ was inserted in the Constitution only at a much later date by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. It was after the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution of India in 1976 that the Preamble to the Constitution asserted that India is a secular country. It is thus fair to assume that the makers of the Constitution did not envisage India as a secular state, to begin with. Moreover, even if accept that India is a ‘secular’ state by virtue of the 42nd amendment to the Indian Constitution, that would only mean that India does not have a State religion. As Pakistan is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, India, is not a Hindu state where the state religion is Hinduism. For the purpose of the Citizenship Amendment Bill, that still does not take away from the fact that by virtue of demography, India will remain a naturalised home for persecuted Hindus. It is often the wont of the Left that they tend to recognise the existence of India from the moment of its political freedom. They recognise the Indian State as having come into existence only after the political boundaries were drawn in 1947. However, Bharat exists for as long as civilisation has existed. The consciousness of Bharat does not exist from the moment political boundaries were drawn. The sacred land as described by our scriptures is India. This land is the mother of our entire existence. All our heroes, our greatest stories, our greatest accomplishments, our entire history basically, happened in this piece of land. India’s consciousness will, forever, remain Hindu. While accepting the truth might be hard with the politically correct narrative of ‘secularism’ having diseased our discourse, the truth is that Islam as a religion was introduced in India through violent conquests and barbaric Islamic rulers who were alien to the nation. Does this mean Indian Muslims are not just as Indian as the Hindus? Certainly not. However, the very cultural and existential foundation of India has been and shall forever remain Hindu even if the Indian State has no State religion constitutionally speaking. The Nehruvian Blunder After the partition, which was squarely based on religious lines owing to the demands of Jinnah, widespread riots had broken out in India and the newly formed Pakistan. The non-Muslim citizenry who were in Pakistan started making their way to India and the Muslim citizens in India started making their way to Pakistan. The migration is well documented and proven. In 1950, an accord was signed between Nehru and Liaquat Ali Khan where each side pledged to secure its minorities and give equality of citizenship regardless of religion. Both sides promised to help recover looted property, assist in the recovery of abducted women and not recognise conversions made during communal disturbances. Essentially, Jawaharlal Nehru scuttled the de facto population exchange with the 1950 Accord. After the Accord was signed, Muslims, who had left West Bengal, returned and Nehru ensured that their property was restored to them. However, the travesties heaped on the Hindus continue to this day, unabated in Islamic Nations like Pakistan and Bangladesh. Quoting a report from DailyPioneer: Syama Prasad Mukherjee resigned from the Cabinet on April 1, 1950, in protest against Nehru’s failure to take Pakistan to task for the continued suffering of his people. At a Cabinet meeting the same day, Mukherjee said, “What do you care for us Bengali Hindus? What do you care for the criminal assaults on our women?” (Soundings in Modern South Asian History, ed. DA Low) Enraged at the renewed exodus of Hindus, which he viewed as deliberate, he suggested an exchange of populations, which Nehru rejected vehemently. Nehru, in his communication to the then West Bengal Chief Minister, had further said (as quoted in the DailyPioneer report): “I have been quite certain right from the beginning that everything should be done to prevent Hindus in east Bengal from migrating to West Bengal…I think the Hindu leaders of East Bengal, who have come away, have done no service to their people. If as you suggest things have gone too far already, then naturally, we shall all do what we can but I shudder at the prospect and the magnitude of the human misery that will come in its train. To the last, I shall try to check migration even if there is war”. Jawaharlal Nehru was thus, quite vehemently against population exchange and was, in fact, willing to fight a war to ensure that persecuted Hindus are not allowed to migrate back to India. While since the time of Nehru, Hindus were disallowed from migrating to their natural homeland, India, despite persecution, the influx of Muslim illegals continued un-checked. If today, the Citizenship Amendment Bill seeks to right that historic wrong that, in the name of ‘secularism’, sacrificed Hindus at the altar of Islamic Jihad, the Left must introspect why it is vehemently against the move in the very name of secularism. One has to ask at this point, where else are Hindus supposed to go if not India. The double standards of the Left While the Left has vehemently opposed the Citizenship Amendment Bill in the name of secularism, in the very name of secularism have rallied behind Rohingya illegals and demanded that the Indian State accept the influx from Myanmar. The Left has demanded that on humanitarian ground, India should accept Rohingya Muslims as refugees in India. India has, in its part, repeatedly asserted that firstly, India has no legal obligation to accept international refugees and secondly, Rohingya Muslims pose a security threat to India. It is thus intriguing that while the Left does not recognise India as the natural home for Hindus, the only country in the world apart from tiny Nepal that has a Hindu majority, it is insistent that India strain itself by accepting Muslim refugees who pose a security threat. Interestingly, even Saudi Arabia, the country which is considered to be the birthing place of Islam, has also deported hundreds of Rohingya Muslims from the country. Al Jazeera had reported that hundreds, who had outlived their visa had been put in detention camps and deported. The ones who resisted were handcuffed and deported. In fact, some who had lived there for their entire lives were also deported from the country when the police found that they did not have adequate documents. This begs two important questions: 1. If the Left is so concerned about the dignity of Human Life as it claims to be, then how is it that they have a problem with India accepting Hindus, Sikhs and even Christians persecuted in neighbouring Islamic countries? 2. How is it that the Left heart beats only for Muslim refugees whom even the Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia are not accepting? The ‘secular country’ bunkum that is furthered by the Left is used to browbeat India into accepting Muslim refugees when over 50 Islamic countries are not coming forth to help them. The narrative is also used to ensure that India forgets its Hindu consciousness thereby following Nehru’s path to abandon the Hindus who are regularly persecuted in Islamic Nations. As discussed earlier, the argument of ‘secular country’ can only be limited to the political Indian State not having a State religion, however, the argument can in no way be used to erase the Hindu foundation and consciousness of the country. The fact of the matter is that Islamic Nations are violent towards ‘Kaafir religions’. It a fact that can no longer be glossed over with mere rhetoric. With India, being a large ‘Kaafir nation’ surrounded by Islamic nations that seek to annihilate it, one has to ask oneself honestly how well the ethos of ‘secularism’ will serve the interest of the nation. For the purpose of this argument, I will club Jawaharlal Nehru with the Left as well. While he was vehemently against the Hindu population of East Bengal coming into West Bengal, he firstly did nothing to arrest the influx of Muslim illegals. Secondly, with the 1950 Accord, he scuttled the full exchange of population that could have taken care of the woes of India that it is diseased with today. This is not to say that Muslim citizens of India should ‘go to Pakistan’, an argument often used by the Left to show the non-Left as anti-Muslims. However, the fact does remain that a full transfer of population between India and Pakistan was the only logical step when a nation was carved out of India on the basis of Islam. The Muslims who stayed back often like to cite that as an excuse to whitewash the crimes of the Muslim community in India. However, the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) is a testament to the fact that while several Muslims stayed back, the full population exchange was scuttled by Nehru and several of them are certainly loyal to India, the Ummah does reign supreme with a large section of Muslims. Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), which claims to be born after Indian Independence in 1948, is actually an off-shoot of Pakistan founder and Islamist Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s All India Muslim League (AIML). The All India Muslim League was succeeded by the Muslim League in Pakistan and the Indian Union Muslim League in India. In its website, the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) claims that its motto is secularism and communal harmony but has often openly indulged in carrying out objectives which are contrary to its own motto. The Muslim League had strongly advocated for the establishment of a separate Muslim-majority nation-state, Pakistan, which successfully led to the partition of British India in 1947 by the British Empire. The birth of Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) in December 1947 was part of that intention to keep the spirit of the All India Muslim League alive. Muhammad Ismail, the first President of the Indian Union Muslim League after it split up from the Jinnah’s Muslim League, had actively participated in the partition movement of the country and was an ardent supporter of the creation of Pakistan. Interestingly, Muhammad Ismail, who claimed IUML was a secular outfit had, in fact, supported the retaining of Sharia law for Indian Muslims in the Constituent Assembly after India’s independence. Thus, while a large section of the Muslim population in India still does advocate for Sharia and vehemently supports Pakistan owing to its Islamic foundation, Hindus have no home to truly call their own because of tenets of ‘secularism’. While a portion of the Muslim population still bats for Pakistan, Hindus have one land that they can call their own, that have them as the majority. The fact remains that India’s foundation is Hindu and when that is acknowledged, it would in no way mean that Minorities don’t get their rights since a Hindu Nation would not function as an Islamic nation that has the concept of Kaafirs. In such a scenario, one has to concede that while the change from ‘secularism’ to ‘Hindu nation’ would take years if not decades, at least for the purpose of the Citizenship Amendment Bill, India is and always will be the natural home for all Hindus. Just like Israel is considered the natural home for Jews or any one of the 50 Islamic Nations should be considered the natural home for Muslims. Conclusion The arguments against India being the natural home for Hindus are mostly based on facetious arguments. That India is a ‘secular’ country, that it goes against the ethos of humanity and often, scriptures quoted out of context to assert that Hinduism itself talks about embracing everyone. Other arguments against the Citizenship Amendment Bill talk about why Ahmadiyyas, who are also persecuted in Islamic countries are not a part of the section of people who deserve asylum. The last argument has an explanation, albeit, a rather harsh one. Muslim Nations often persecute certain sections of the Muslim community because they claim that certain sects are not following the ‘true’ version of Islam. Hindus, cannot be held responsible for the internal troubles of the Muslim world. That is something that the Muslim world needs to reform to tackle all on its own. India is the only land that has a Hindu majority. Hinduism, Sanatan, is engraved in its consciousness since before the political boundaries were drawn. Our stories, our heroes our legacy is attached to this land and no other. Hindus deserve a land they can come back to when the world seems too harsh, when their rights are denied and when they are persecuted because of their very identity.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. It would be a great injustice to Bharat if the very doctrine that stabbed her and made her bleed would be beyond analysis and reproach - especially in a Bill that otherwise makes much-needed changes, protecting real victims. One can only hope that the parliamentary debates on the IPC draft address these concerns and necessary caveats and exceptions are added. Why Section 195 of Draft Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita needs relook: A ‘religiously neutral provision’ that may end up criminalising criticism of Muslim separatism Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. It would be a great injustice to Bharat if the very doctrine that stabbed her and made her bleed would be beyond analysis and reproach - especially in a Bill that otherwise makes much-needed changes, protecting real victims. One can only hope that the parliamentary debates on the IPC draft address these concerns and necessary caveats and exceptions are added. Nupur J Sharma 12 August 2023 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Muslims protesting against CAA in India (Image credit: Bloomberg) On the 11th of August, Home Minister Amit Shah introduced 3 new bills to revamp the criminal justice system of India. These bills Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill will replace the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian Evidence Act respectively. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita draft bill is meant to replace the current Indian Penal Code. Speaking on the three bills in the Lower House, Amit Shah said, “Under this law, we are repealing laws like Sedition.” “From 1860 to 2023, the country’s criminal justice system functioned as per the laws made by the British. With these three laws there will be a major change in the criminal justice system in the country,” he said. Essentially, the bill was presented as a progressive bill that strikes down colonial-era laws and gives far for freedom to a citizen, at least as far as his freedom of expression does, than the IPC does, however, as one says, the devil is always in the details. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita draft bill with 356 sections and several sub-sections and clauses is a vast bill that required a thorough reading to fully understand whether it is as progressive as was initially supposed. Like in any bill, there are sections that welcome additions. For example, the bill takes a leap towards dealing with the menace of Love Jihad by explicitly adding that establishing sexual relations under false pretences would be considered a crime. This means that the Islamists who pretend to be Hindus to trap Hindu girls, later forcing them to convert, would be a crime under the IPC – a historic step for Hindus. Further, there are laws about unlawful assembly that would make the involvement of elements like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the anti-CAA riots a criminal activity upfront. Another example of the positive changes brought about by this draft is sub-clause 2 of the very law I intend to criticise in this article. Section 195 (2) says, “ Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine “. This would mean that the Allahu Akbar chants and religious provocations during Hindu processions, even if passing through so-called Muslim areas, would be considered criminal activity. In fact, this provision would also explicitly consider it criminal when Maulanas spew seditious statements in Mosques during Friday prayers, inciting several attacks against Hindus by Islamist mobs. There are, indeed, several provisions that aim to fix the areas that colonial-era laws had not considered or the previous governments had no will to address. It is because of these positive provisions that I believe the intent of this draft is to ensure equality and security for all citizens, including the Hindus of this country. It is only because I believe the intent of the dispensation to take this bill in the right direction, do I now write this scathing indictment of the provision I believe is draconian and misplaced. Chapter XI of the draft bill deals with offences against public tranquillity. Clause 195 under this chapter essentially criminalises academic criticism and analysis of Muslim separatism explicitly, even though it does not mention Islam as a specific religion. For the purpose of this article, we will analyse each sub-section and clause of section 195. Section 195, sub-section 1, clause (a) 195. (1) (a) says: Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise,— (a) makes or publishes any imputation that any class of persons cannot, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established or uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India; shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. This law is rather simple. If anyone says, writes or illustrates that certain persons or a group of people hold no allegiance to the Indian Constitution or that they have a propensity to not uphold the sovereignty of India, they are liable to be thrown in jail for 3 years. The obvious defence of this section is that it does not mention any community or religious group specifically and therefore, it is a fair clause that every denomination can use to their safeguard the dignity of their community. However, laws are to be understood in societal contexts and realities. The power imbalance Let us take the example of gender-neutral laws. There have often been demands that rape laws must be made gender-neutral and one can, if one tries, see the merit in these arguments to the extent that men need to be safeguarded as well. However, it is imperative that we understand the power dynamics in society that make it important for laws that are focused specifically to protect women. While men do suffer the consequences of heinous crime, women are disproportionately affected by sexual crimes and that is a fact that can’t possibly be denied. When a section of the population is disproportionately affected by a specific nature of crime, laws must be made to specifically provide safeguards to that section. This is essentially the argument made in favour of laws that are specifically made to protect women against sexual exploitation. Now, while we hold that line of argument, let us consider two statements: Brahmins can’t be true to Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s constitution because it aims to annihilate caste. Brahminism is antithetical to equality, which is the cornerstone of the constitution Dr Ambedkar wrote. Muslims can’t submit to a secular constitution because Islam aims to create Dar-al-Islam. The concept of Ummah is antithetical to modern notions of nation-state, loyalty to whom our constitutions demand. It is the societal reality of today that the first statement sounds academic in nature, even ideal activism while the second sounds like ‘hate speech’ not just to average folks, but even the highest judiciary of the land – this is where my fear lies. If one analyses decades of judicial activism, one would find several statements that talk about a casteless society, brahmanism, caste atrocities etc. However, it is the same court that reads out the Quran even to pass a judgement where the basic rights of Muslim women are upheld – like in the Triple Talaq case. In fact, we had a sitting judge smile at the thought of a Brahmin Genocide while listening to a case about hate speech against Muslims. Such is the power imbalance against Hindus at the highest echelons of the Indian State. There is a reason why Hindus for a while got no law protecting their life and limb specifically against Jihadi violence despite several genocides leading up to the partition – the power imbalance is almost insurmountable. Let us take another example. While the framers of the constitution explicitly focussed on caste annihilation in the constitution and enshrined specific safeguards against the marginalised sections of the society with the specific aim of reforming the Hindu society, it was the Muslims who managed to preserve their personal laws on the basis of religion. From Mohammad Ismail to Mahboob Ali Beg, the argument made when UCC was being discussed in 1946 was that personal laws are a part of the religious beliefs of Muslims and therefore must not be touched. Ultimately, even though Dr Ambedkar was in favour of reform, the Muslim personal laws prevailed untouched. Historically, it was after Rangeela Rasool was printed and Muslims went on a rampage, was Article 295A passed by the British. It was not passed when the Muslims had published two books insulting Hindus, in whose response Rangeela Rasool was printed. Even after 295A was passed by the British to assuage the ever-hurt sentiments of Muslims, despite the fact that the insult first came from the Muslims against Hindus, the Muslims still went ahead and murdered Mahashay Rajpal. The power structure is certainly not equal and therefore, even if a law treats Hindus and Muslims as the “same”, the two religious denominations are not the same by any measure. The argument is that Hindus can use this law too in order to legally punish those who hurt the sentiments of Hindus, but is the system ripe for the usage of the law equally? Has it ever been? Was it not evident from the comments against Nupur Sharma by the Supreme Court itself? The two religious denominations are not the same. They certainly don’t behave the same in a societal context and therefore, a law that aims to protect religious sentiments equally of both communities will only benefit the most intolerant because hatred against the tolerant community has already been normalised to such an extent that it is not even considered hate speech anymore. Since no religion is mentioned, it would apply to all religions equally – the fallacies of that argument The assumption that because a specific religion is not mentioned, it would apply to all religions equally, stems from the misplaced notion that all religions are the same and all religious groups behave in the same manner – more dangerously, it assumes that all criticism is equally applicable to all religions. The ‘all religions are equal’ claim stems from notions of religious pluralism. Religious Pluralism essentially says that firstly, all religions must acknowledge that certain truths exist in other religions as well, thereby declaring that it is not only their own religion that is the ‘only truth’. Further, it says that all religions must acknowledge that every religion teaches basic universal truths that have been taught since before the advent of religion itself. When one delves into the principles of religious pluralism as a construct that can enable religions to co-exist without sectarian violence, it becomes important to ensure that all religions are brought down to the same surface level and hence, the claim that all religions are the same takes a beastly proportion where cultural context is often lost. At the very outset, it suffices to say that Islam lays out a doctrine for the humiliation of Kafirs. Stemming from that reality is the fact that all religious sections do not behave in the same manner in a society, especially one like Bharat, with an ancient Hindu consciousness. When one talks about Islam, it is important to acknowledge certain realities: Islamic doctrine itself ordains the humiliation of Kafirs and the conversion of Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-Ul-Islam. This is not an imputation on every Muslim, however, reality of the doctrine cannot be glossed over to chase mythical dreams of harmony and brotherhood, especially in a nation that has been torn apart once based on the tenets of this very doctrine. Islamists have little to no regard for the law of the land. There is a law that, of course, criminalises murder, however, that does not stop the Islamist from picking up his knife and beheading Kanhaiya Lal. There exists a law which deems Kamlesh Tiwari as an offender who deserves to be in jail, however, the Islamist has little to no use of the law because, for him, his religious doctrine requires him to slay Tiwari and Kanhaiya Lal – and slay he did. No other community is as perpetually offended as the Muslim community – that inherent offence stems from the fact that their religious doctrine considers itself the last, final and only true word of God – in that scenario – any other assertion that goes against their religious tenet is one that offends them. There are limitless words, phrases, averments, assertions, suggestions and opinions that can offend them. Essentially, no law can limit their offence and therefore, their propensity to indulge in street violence when they do get offended – because the moment you X offends them and therefore, must be criminalised, they will start getting offended by Y – all the while – dispensing justice per their religious doctrine as they did in the case of Kanhaiya Lal. A nation that is not Islamic in nature must be turned into an Islamic land. Lastly, their religious doctrine avers them to place their faith in the Ummah and not nation states – any nation state which does not conform to the Ummah is one that is an enemy state. These are merely facts. These facts have long been established and repeated by several scholars over decades. Now, when we say that Section 195 (1)(a) is applicable to all religious denominations equally because it does not specifically mention a religious group, what we are essentially doing is being blind – wilfully – to these realities that stem from the Islamic doctrine. The law in this case criminalises two specific imputations: That a person or a group of people don’t bear allegiance to the Constitution of India because they belong to a certain religious group That a person or a group of people cannot uphold sovereignty or integrity of India because they belong to a certain religious group. Now, realistically, given Bharat’s history and its current realities, which community is most likely to not bear allegiance to the Constitution of India and/or not have the propensity to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of Bharat as a nation-state? For Hindus as a religious denomination, Bharat is a civilisational state that has the blood of their ancestors and the consciousness of their Gods and God Kings. It is the land they fought for and bled for. It is the land that they could preserve for themselves after the Islamic community tore their civilisation apart based on their religious tenets – based on the two-nation theory where they claimed that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together in the same nation because the Muslims are a nation unto themselves. While even the most “extreme” Hindu’s crime is saying that this is a Hindu land – taking ownership of this civilisation and vowing to preserve it – the most extreme Muslim has a completely opposite view. He believes that India is Dar-ul-Harb which must be converted to Dar-Ul-Islam. When such notions are harboured, there is obviously no allegiance to the Constitution and it is precisely the sovereignty and integrity of the nation that they wish to hurt – as it was during the brutal partition of the nation. 195 (1) (a) would essentially outlaw and criminalise a discussion on these very basic tenets based on which India has not only been torn apart but has been made to bleed for centuries. Academic criticism and evaluation of Islam and its tenets directly impact the course a civilisation would take – especially one with a substantial Islamic population. Criminalising the analysis of certain established facts that we have seen play out practically in front of our eyes not even 100 years ago is harakiri of the worst kind. If this draft does become a law, essentially, for a Muslim to say that he believes in the supremacy of the Quran over the Constitution would be his religious right, because that is precisely what his religious doctrine preaches. He can defend that belief based on the religious freedom guaranteed to him by the Constitution of India (ironically). However, if someone was to point out that he believes in the Quran over the Constitution of India because he follows Islam, that person would be liable to be thrown in jail for 3 years (along with a fine). And this is certainly not a figment of my imagination. Samajwadi Party leader ST Hasan had only recently said that the government can make laws but Muslims will only follow Sharia. TMC Minister Siddiquilla had said that the Quran will always prevail over the Constitution and this sentiment was also expressed by a Bollywood actor. Even the state of Kerala was all set to declare the supremacy of Sharia over the Constitution in the court of law and vouch for its legal and constitutional validity. The sentiment expressed by these leaders, who swear by the Constitution when they are elected no less, are not surprising – thousands of Muslims harbour the same sentiment. Again, this is not my assertion. Here is what Dr BR Ambedkar had said in his book Pakistan or Partition of India: “Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast, Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half-truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is a brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity,” BR Ambedkar wrote in ‘ Pakistan or Partition of India ’ . “ The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria [Where it is well with me, there is my country] is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin.” On the question of Muslim loyalty to his country vis-a-vis his loyalty to Islam, Ambedkar wrote: “Among the tenets, one that calls for notice is the tenet of Islam which says that in a country which is not under Muslim rule, wherever there is a conflict between Muslim law and the law of the land, the former must prevail over the latter, and a Muslim will be justified in obeying the Muslim law and defying the law of the land … The only allegiance a Musalman, whether civilian or soldier, whether living under a Muslim or under a non-Muslim administration, is commanded by the Koran to acknowledge is his allegiance to God, to His Prophet and to those in authority from among the Musalmans…” Ambedkar opined that the teaching of the Holy Quran rendered the existence of a stable government almost impossible. However, he was more alarmed by the Muslim tenets that prescribed when a country is a motherland to the Muslims and when it is not. “ According to Muslim Canon Law, the world is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-lslam (abode of Islam), and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war). A country is Dar-ul-Islam when it is ruled by Muslims. A country is Dar-ul-Harb when Muslims only reside in it but are not rulers of it. That being the Canon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and the Musalmans. It can be the land of the Musalmans—but it cannot be the land of the ‘Hindus and the Musalmans living as equals.’ Further, it can be the land of the Musalmans only when it is governed by the Muslims. The moment the land becomes subject to the authority of a non-Muslim power, it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead of being Dar-ul-lslam, it becomes Dar-ul-Harb ,” he said. “To the Muslims, a Hindu is a Kaffir. A Kaffir is not worthy of respect. He is low-born and without status. That is why a country that is ruled by a Kaffir is Dar-ul-Harb to a Musalman. Given this, no further evidence seems to be necessary to prove that the Muslims will not obey a Hindu government. The basic feelings of deference and sympathy, which predispose persons to obey the authority of government, do not simply exist. But if a proof is wanted, there is no dearth of it. It is so abundant that the problem is what to tender and what to omit…In the midst of the Khilafat agitation, when the Hindus were doing so much to help the Musalmans, the Muslims did not forget that as compared with them the Hindus were a low and an inferior race, ” BR Ambedkar had said . If the current draft were to be passed as a law, it is a given that Dr BR Ambedkar, had he written this book today, would have been jailed for 3 years (with fine). Not just Ambedkar, here is what Sita Ram Goel wrote in his book ‘Muslim Separatism’: “If the Hindus sang Vande Mãtaram in a public meeting, it was a ‘conspiracy’ to convert Muslims into kãfirs. If the Hindus blew a conch, or broke a coconut, or garlanded the portrait of a revered patriot, it was an attempt to ‘force’ Muslims into ‘idolatry’. If the Hindus spoke in any of their native languages, it was an ‘affront’ to the culture of Islam. If the Hindus took pride in their pre-Islamic heroes, it was a ‘devaluation’ of Islamic history. And so on, there were many more objections, major and minor, to every national self-expression. In short, it was a demand that Hindus should cease to be Hindus and become instead a faceless conglomeration of rootless individuals.” He continued, “On the other hand, the ‘minority community’ was not prepared to make the slightest concession in what they regarded as their religious and cultural rights. If the Hindus requested that cow-killing should stop, it was a demand for renouncing an ‘established Islamic practice’. If the Hindus objected to an open sale of beef in the bazars, it was an ‘encroachment’ on the ‘civil rights’ of the Muslims. If the Hindus demanded that cows meant for ritual slaughter should not be decorated and marched through Hindu localities, it was ‘trampling upon time-honoured Islamic traditions’. If the Hindus appealed that Hindu religious processions passing through a public thoroughfare should not be obstructed, it was an attempt to ‘disturb the peace of Muslim prayers’. If the Hindus wanted their native languages to attain an equal status with Urdu in the courts and the administration, it was an ‘assault on Muslim culture’. If the Hindus taught to their children the true history of Muslim tyrants, it was a ‘hate campaign against Islamic heroes’. And the ‘minority community’ was always ready to ‘defend’ its ‘religion and culture’ by taking recourse to street riots “. If Sita Ram Goel lived today and wrote this book after this draft had become a law, he would too, be jailed for 3 years (with fine). Not just them – you would potentially be in jail too simply for reproducing what they wrote and saying that you believe they were right. In essence, 195 (1) (a) criminalises the academic criticism and analysis of Muslim separatism and the religious tenets that convince them to hold allegiance to the Islamic Ummah over the concept of the nation-state. One has to wonder how we can possibly celebrate Partition Horror Remembrance Day when the conversation around the very root of that partition is criminalised. Section 195, sub-section 1, clause (b) Section 195, sub-section 1, clause (b) says, ….. “asserts, counsels, advises, propagates or publishes that any class of persons shall, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, be denied, or deprived of their rights as citizens of India shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both “. Section 195, sub-section 1, clause (b) seems to be a rather dangerous provision if one truly understands what it might be suggesting. Essentially, it says that one cannot ask for the suspension of rights of any group of people for being members of a religious, racial, language or regional group. What does this mean, essentially and how can it potentially impact an average citizen’s freedom of speech and expression? Let us take the example of 1990s Kashmir. Islamic brutes were committing genocide against Kashmiri Hindus. If this provision was a law at that time, and if a citizen said that “there must be a curfew imposed in Kashmir because Muslims are committing a genocide against Hindus”, or that “There is a genocide against Hindus because of Islamic supremacy and they must be thrown in jail for it”, one would be imprisoned for three years – this, because you are calling for the suspension of legal or constitutional rights of a group of people while identifying them on the basis of not only their religion but also their region. In the current context, Khalistanis demanding a separate state comes under waging a war against the nation and would be criminal. However, if a citizen points out that Khalistanis are separatists demanding a separate nation on the basis of their religion, and therefore, they should be thrown out of the country”, it could be potentially argued that the individual has demanded the suspension of the legal and constitutional rights of a group of people based on their religion, as therefore, must be thrown in jail for 3 years. As far as the Nuh violence is concerned, if one says that internet services must be suspended and a curfew must be imposed in Nuh after the recent violence, even without naming the religion of the aggressors, it could be argued that one is demanding the suspension of legal rights of a regional group and therefore, the individual must be thrown in jail. While these scenarios may seem like exaggerations, vague, unthoughtful laws do have an exaggerated effect and unfortunately, the provisions of Section 195 (1) (a) (b) (c) (d) would only end up favouring those who wish to hurt the sovereignty of India, giving them undue concessions, and penalise those law-abiding individuals who want the integrity of Bharat held sacrosanctly. Section 195, sub-section 1, clause (c) (d) Section 195, sub-section 1, clause (c) (d) says: “(c) makes or publishes any assertion, counsel, plea or appeal concerning the obligation of any class of persons, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, and such assertion, counsel, plea or appeal causes or is likely to cause disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will between such members and other persons; or (d) makes or publishes false or misleading information jeopardising the sovereignty unity and integrity or security of India, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both “. These two clauses are not very different from what was already included in the IPC. Clause (c), of course, one can argue that it gives some protection to Hindus, for example, when bile is spewed against them by Dravidian supremacists, however, again, it is the power imbalance that would make it a potent tool in their hands. One would imagine that if the law has to be liberalised from the legacy of the British, this would be tweaked, however, there is nothing contained in these two clauses that changes the status quo. Conclusion The Indian State has historically given concessions to the Muslim community simply to ensure that their forever-hurt sentiments remain assuaged. They have the right to be hurt – anyone does – but not the right to be riotous – and they are going to be riotous if you continue to legitimise their perennial hurt. The concession accorded makes them believe that their hurt is justified to the extent of giving calls to behead. Now once that concession is extended, their insatiable appetite will raise its ugly head. Once you accept their murderous sentiments, they will claim that your places of worship, your mandirs, are an affront to the Islamic faith. Once you concede that, they will say that you cannot even pray in your home because according to the Islamic community, there is no god but Allah and therefore, the fact that you believe in another god and pray to him is hurting their religious sentiments. The slide would end with them demanding your head on a pike because the very existence of Kafirs offends them. We must remember that the very basis of the partition was their demand for a ‘land of the pure” untarnished by the existence of Kafirs. When Gandhi allowed the Islamic community to run riots and murder Hindus, it validated their two-nation theory, enough for them to demand the dismemberment of India. When concessions were made to them about the Khilafat movement, terming it a nationalist movement instead of an Islamic one (that held allegiance to the Turkish Caliphate), MK Gandhi emboldened them to set their barbarity in motion and massacre Hindus in accordance with the Ummah they were fighting for. Bharat should not be giving yet another concession to the riotous Islamists by potentially criminalising even conversation around what led to the partition and the tenets that inspire thousands of Islamists to take to the streets – tenets that form the foundational existence of terror groups like PFI – tenets that aim to turn Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-Islam. Yes. These provisions can be used by both Hindus and Muslims but the societal realities are different from what we want them to be. Laws can also not be looked at from a partisan lens. Democracy is a revolving door and while you may believe that vague laws will be used to safeguard you when an ideologically aligned government is in power, vague laws are equally prone and more likely to be used against you by a state, regardless of govt in power, that is historically adept at taking a knee to violent, intolerant minorities who exert street power with impunity – it is for that reason that exceptions and safeguards for specific communities based on historical realities is necessary. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. It would be a great injustice to Bharat if the very doctrine that stabbed her and made her bleed would be beyond analysis and reproach. One can only hope that the parliamentary debates on the IPC draft address these concerns and necessary caveats and exceptions are added.

The government in power, on its own, is not responsible for shifting the Overton Window. Basically, they are responsible for recognising where the window is and then making policies that are commensurate with where the window is. It is people outside the acceptability spectrum that move the window by convincing the masses that what is radical today should be policy tomorrow. The greatest achievement of Hindus in the past 7 years: Shifting the Overton Window The government in power, on its own, is not responsible for shifting the Overton Window. Basically, they are responsible for recognising where the window is and then making policies that are commensurate with where the window is. It is people outside the acceptability spectrum that move the window by convincing the masses that what is radical today should be policy tomorrow. Nupur J Sharma 9 November 2021 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] In 2016, a year before I had joined OpIndia as their editor, I read an interesting article on the ‘MyVoice’ section of the website. It is essentially a corner of the internet where users can express themselves but OpIndia does not wholly endorse the opinions expressed thereof. The article was headlined, “Why I will celebrate the destruction of the Babri structure on 6th December”. I was agape at the audacity – pleasantly surprised. One has to realise how Hindus simply did not have the audacity to express their joy at the events of 6th December 1992. Babri was the outward anathema of our collective conscience. We were forced to be ashamed even if we secretly rejoiced Hindus finally reclaiming a piece of their heritage. I grew up in a house where my grandfather and father expressed insurmountable joy at the illegal structure being demolished. They fervently believed that Hindus were forced to take matters into their own hands because the secular state subjugated Hindus and chose to ignore their 500-year-old battle to reclaim the very spot where their Bhagwan Ram was born. It was a great source of pain that the State had forced Ram Lalla to live in a rickety tent. It was a great source of rage that in our own land, we could not truly express what we wanted , as a people. It was April 2019 when I truly realise how far we had come. I had been working with OpIndia for over 2 years when politicians made a controversy out of a sentiment that several Hindus like me secretly felt. Chanting “ Ram rashtra hain, rashtra Ram hain “, Sadhvi Pragya declared that she was proud of taking part in the demolition of the illegal structure called Babri Masjid that once stood on Ram Janmabhoomi. A litany of abuse followed, not just from Muslims but from politicians who had made a career out of holding Hindus by their hair and rubbing their nose on the ground, breaking their pride, hacking their self-respect. My colleagues and I were upset, enraged even. We decided, then to throw caution to the wind. The article I had read in 2016, sitting in my cosy office space had to be mainstreamed. As disparate people who had come together simply because we were sick of the media’s political correctness and literary subjugation of Hindus, we had to speak up. We published the article on main OpIndia website on 21st of April 2019. Babri Masjid Demolition – why people can be proud of it. It was out there. “Babri structure was a symbol of that tyranny and barbarism”, the article said. “I celebrate the destruction of that symbol. I celebrate the annihilation of brutality. I celebrate the restoration of equality. I celebrate 6th December. I celebrate self-respect. I celebrate freedom”, the author declared. I don’t think a lot of people realise the gravity of the decision to publish this article on OpIndia. Over the years, we as a people had been conditioned to edit our opinions to be commensurate with the imposed norms of political correctness. There had been renegades like Sita Ram Goel, Arun Shourie (before we lost him to the dark side), Ram Swarup and many others, but for the average unwashed masses, opinions inconvenient to the establishment were taboo. In our mind, we risked being ostracised by our social circles and probably booked by the secular state for daring to endorse the destruction of a symbol of Muslim oppression and tyranny. But that did not happen. While we feared friendly recoil, we were hailed for publishing an article that verbalised the sentiment of the people. Being the voice of those who could not voice these opinions themselves. The Overton Window had shifted. Forever. The Overton Window is a set of ideas and policies which are acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. The spectrum of acceptability ranges from what the society deems “unacceptable” to what set of ideas eventually becomes a government policy acceptable to the mainstream population. Joshua Treviño has postulated that the six degrees of acceptance of public ideas are roughly: Unthinkable Radical Acceptable Sensible Popular Policy The Overton Window, simply put, shifts when an acceptable idea becomes popular and then translates to policy. Or better yet, when a radical idea journeys its way through being considered ‘sensible’ to ‘popular’ and then translates into policy. The idea that the head of the state would proudly participate in the Bhoomi Pujan of Ram Mandir was “unthinkable” given that most of us in our 30s today had observed politics since the time the government in power went to the Supreme Court denying Bhagwan Ram’s existence. Interestingly, after the Supreme Court, on this very day in 2019, had ordered in favour of Hindus, Congress had come supporting the construction of Ram Mandir, though in muted tones. What was unthinkable then, became political policy now. The ripple effect of a some-what, tangentially Hindu centric party being in power has been subtle and driven by the masses far more than the government itself directly. What was taboo then, is mainstream now. We went from “Godse was a Hindu terrorist” to “Godse was a murderer, but there is no harm in saying he was a nationalist”. The challenge is to turn the shift in Overton Window into policy, which in this case, would be getting the government to declassify his last testimony in court. We went from saying that the demolition of Babri Masjid was a dark path on the syncretic culture of India to taking pride in Hindus reclaiming Bhagwan Ram’s Janmabhoomi. We went from wanting a hospital at Ram Janmabhoomi to wanting a Bhavya Ram Mandir and a pining to reclaim Kashi and Mathura. With the Overton Window shifting, the challenge now is to translate this to government policy, which would mean the removal of the Places of Worship Act. Subtly, taboos have been broken and what was once considered “unthinkable” or even “radical” has become “sensible” if not “popular”. Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the Overton Window shifting is that it has been done purely by the masses – how it should be. Much like the 2020 and 2021 Diwali celebrations. While the Secular state banned firecrackers assuming that it is only a celebratory tradition, Hindus took to the streets, defying the ban, even getting arrested, lighting the sky so our ancestors could find their way back to their abode after the Mahalaya Paksha was over. While the Secular state made a policy thinking that the idea of the ban was mainstream, the people rose up in dissent, asserting that the Overton Window had long shifted and what they thought was mainstream was now obsolete. But perhaps, the most “unthinkable” idea was that of India being a land of Hindu consciousness. The acceptability of the propositions furthered by the Citizenship Amendment Bill was split in the middle. As is India’s wont, the ideological divide was as stark as a bright sunny summer morning. The Left opposed the provisions tooth and nail. The ‘idea of India’ that has long been touted as the existential foundation of India had been shaken, as per them, with one swift motion. The Left has long espoused the principle that India is an all-giving, all-embracing entity, especially when it comes to Muslims. Whether this special corner of the heart that bleeds only for Muslims is a result of political compulsions, the Gandhian dystopia or the engrained false persecution complex is unclear. Perhaps it is a culmination of all of the above. Either way, while the Left detested the idea of law finally being honest enough to give citizenship to persecuted minorities from neighbouring Islamic nations, the non-Left rejoiced the decision as one that rights a historic wrong. The idea of the act was simply – India is the only land that has a Hindu majority. Hinduism, Sanatan, is engraved in its consciousness since before the political boundaries were drawn. Our stories, our heroes our legacy is attached to this land and no other. Hindus deserve a land they can come back to when the world seems too harsh, when their rights are denied and when they are persecuted because of their very identity. The only criticism of the Citizenship Amendment Act was perhaps the fact that it did go as far as to give Hindus a ‘right to return’, much like Israel gives to Jews. That would have been the truest establishment of a “Hindu Rashtra”. But CAA, even in its current form, was a policy borne out of the Hindus recognising the civilisational entity that is Bharat. Mainstreaming the idea that India is indeed a Hindu land. That idea then translated to policy. What was radical then, was policy now, albeit, one that fell short, but policy nonetheless. The government in power, on its own, is not responsible for shifting the Overton Window. Basically, they are responsible for recognising where the window is and then making policies that are commensurate with where the window is. It is people outside the acceptability spectrum that move the window by convincing the masses that what is radical today should be policy tomorrow. The Modi government being in power is sufficient for the Overton Window to shift. It is a government that is at the very least, if not proactively Hindu centric, tangentially so by being responsive to Hindu demands. How we create that demand is something Hindus need to decide. One must not have heard of Joseph Overton, but one has certainly heard of the chants of Jai Shree Ram in 2014. The chants of ‘Hind, Hindu, Hindutva’, ‘Mandir Wahi Banayenge’ and “Kashi Mathura Baaki hai”. One might not have heard of the Overton Window but one certainly remembers how we broke down, tears bedewed our cheeks when on 9th November 2019, the Supreme Court vindicated a battle Hindus had fought for 500 years. Hindus have not only shifted the Overton Window but shattered the glass, never to be implanted again.