(With inputs from Bar & Bench)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post ‘Divine Or Bovine Intervention In Verdicts Breaches Judicial Oath’, Says Ex-Supreme Court Judge Hinduphobe Rohinton Nariman appeared first on The Commune.

The Supreme Court’s recent validation of the Emergency-era insertion of the word ‘secular’ into the Constitution reignited a contentious debate: is secularism in India a shield of equality or a sword of appeasement wielded selectively against Hindus? Under the guise of secularism, Hindu temples are plundered under government control, religious autonomy is granted selectively, and minority appeasement thrives unabated.

When “fraternity” becomes fractured, “equality” becomes skewed, and “liberty” becomes a privilege of the few, it is imperative to question whether secularism has lost its way, becoming an albatross strangling the very ideals it was meant to uphold.

The Supreme Court (SC) pronounced its verdict on 25 November 2024 on a July 2020 petition challenging the insertion of the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ during the Emergency period by upholding the insertions as valid.

Since ‘socialism’ is a politico-economic ideology, let us set it aside for this discussion and instead delve into the dissonance within this verdict and its implications.

It’s notable that that many of the amendments during the Emergency era, including clauses 4 & 5 of the 42nd Amendment, were repealed by the SC, the landmark one being Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors. (case number: Writ Petition (Civil) 356 of 1977. 

The verdict restored the constitutional validity of the courts/judiciary, reaffirming that Parliament does not hold absolute power, particularly in matters concerning fundamental rights.

With due respects to the Supreme Court and its eminent lordships in the highest regard, it is troubling to note that amendments made during the Emergency era concerning the judiciary are deemed highly relevant, whereas those addressing the concerns of the general public and victims of ‘secularism’ are often sidelined, citing the timing of such pleas.

From the political viewpoint, it is a not a clandestine affair that the word ‘secular’ encompasses not compassion for minorities of the country but sheer appeasement, right from the time of independence. 

On 17th October 1949, Shri Brajeshwar Prasad, a senior congress leader from Bihar, during discussions in the constituent assembly on the Preamble and Constitution said:

‘this word, ‘secular’ was dear to India’s national leaders and its inclusion in the preamble would tone up the morale of minorities as well as prevent disorderly activities’

Although the word ‘secular’ was not part of the original Constitution, it is now frequently invoked to benefit minority communities, often to the detriment of the majority Hindu community and its practices.

The Hon’ble Lordships have observed that the term ‘secular’ is “considered imprecise,” noting that some scholars interpret secularism as being opposed to religion. This ambiguity becomes more evident in states like Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, where the Hindu community faces neglect and, at times, disdain from the state and its rulers.

Hon’ble Lordship goes on to say: “India has developed its own interpretation of secularism, wherein the State neither supports any religion nor penalises the profession and practice of any faith”. The ideals espoused in the Preamble — fraternity, equality, individual dignity and liberty among others — “reflect this secular ethos”,

Let us corroborate these golden words with reality:

Fraternity

The contempt that the current ruling party in Tamil Nadu – the DMK, and the former ruling party in Andhra Pradesh – YSRCP, display toward Hinduism and its practices needs little explanation. Whether it is Udhayanidhi Stalin, a self-proclaimed atheist/pro-Christianity, wanting to eradicate Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism), or the Andhra Pradesh government’s alleged involvement in the adulteration of the Tirumala Laddoo, their actions consistently undermine social fabric of the country. This is how the state expresses its commitment to ‘fraternity.’

It is worth highlighting MK Stalin’s speech, where he disparaged Hindu marriage rituals while praising similar practices in other religions. Ironically, in a bid to secure votes, he later declared that 90% of his party’s members are Hindus.

Not to forget their skullcap fantasies during nights of crescent sky and penchant for cakes on starry December nights. 

Equality

The condition of temples under Tamil Nadu’s HR&CE Department offers a striking example of the government’s skewed interpretation of ‘equality’ within the Dravidian Model, especially when compared to the autonomy enjoyed by other religious institutions. The ruling dispensation routinely exploits temple funds as if they were its own, and, on occasion, unlawfully appoints non-Hindu personnel to key temple positions, undermining both tradition and legality.

Individual Dignity

DK the parent dupery and inspiration of ruling DMK take pride in cutting the sacred threads of the Brahmins in early 1970s. So much for ‘individual dignity’, the cowardly act still continues to this day when a 24-year-old Brahmin boy from Palayamkottai, Thirunelveli faced the wrath of these rogues in September 2024 was however denied by police.

Liberty

The list of arrests by the DMK government in Tamil Nadu after their election to power in 2021 is long and still extending. Actor Kasthuri faced a brief jail term for her dinky comment in a stage protest, arrested by a battalion of police.

While Mubin, accused of Coimbatore blast is a Voldemort whose name should not be spelled out. The Dravidian Model government still calls it a cylinder blast!

People who make insignificant comments on the government policies or criticize rightfully are facing gallows, resembling medieval United Kingdom under fascist King Charles III. 

The torchbearers of liberty in Tamil Nadu cannot even protect the downtrodden people like in Vengaivayal, who are still waiting justice for an insensate act against them, while the perpetrators are still at large.

We would like to humbly request the judiciary, where the so-called fraternity, equality, individual dignity and liberty are in practice, let alone other words that echoes fundamental rights.

The judiciary must carefully consider the nature of the faiths with which they expect the Hindu community to coexist harmoniously. Temples and places of worship have faced challenges from multiple fronts. On one hand, there are faiths that oppose idolatry—the very essence of Sanatana Dharma—as illustrated by this passage:

“All who fashion idols are nothing, and the things they delight in do not profit. Their witnesses neither see nor know, that they may be put to shame. Who fashions a god or casts an idol that is profitable for nothing? Behold, all his companions shall be put to shame, and the craftsmen are only human. Let them all assemble, let them stand forth. They shall be terrified; they shall be put to shame together.” (Isaiah 44:9–20)

On the other hand, we have another faith, who doesn’t need to enter Hindu administrations but can claim a 1,500-year-old temple in Trichy, Tamil Nadu as their own. In fact, they had the liberty of claiming any land they like, thanks to the Waqf Amendment Bill 1995 brought by Congress government. Their faith enclosed in a single book, God and messenger calls for violence against idol worshippers. (Surah At-Tawbah (9:5)

The word “secular” has, over time, increasingly become a redundant and burdensome concept within the Indian Constitution, with its application disproportionately falling upon the Hindu community. While the Constitution enshrines the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion under Article 25, this provision seems to shine brightly for certain religious groups, who are allowed to exercise their faith without undue hindrance. In contrast, the Hindu community often finds itself trapped in the paradox of “secularism,” where their religious practices are subject to scrutiny, regulation, and marginalization. This uneven application of secular principles has led many to question whether the secular ideal, as envisioned, is being implemented in a truly equal manner.

Barath Seshadri is a professional from Tanzania.

Subscribe to our Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram channels and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Secularism Or Selective Secularism? A Deep Dive Into The Supreme Court Verdict And Its Impact On Hindus appeared first on The Commune.

In a significant ruling, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has underscored the need to uphold secularism during staffing in government-funded minority educational institutions. The court emphasized that when schools receive state financial support, their staffing must reflect the state’s secular principles, allowing candidates from diverse religious backgrounds to be considered.

Justice G.R. Swaminathan, who issued the judgment, stressed the constitutional responsibilities of these government-funded minority educational institutions.

He stated, “When the state funds salaries, the fundamental tenets of secularism require that the hiring process be open to all qualified candidates. Restricting applications to individuals of a specific religion contradicts constitutional ethics.”

Suggestions

Justice Swaminathan also suggested that new legislation is necessary to address this issue. He proposed creating a “Transparency in Appointments of Staff in Private Aided Educational Institutions Act” to ensure equitable and secular recruitment practices. This recommendation arose from a petition filed by C. Manohar Thangaraj, the elected treasurer of the Tirunelveli Diocese, who sought to prevent the Bishop from making unilateral decisions regarding hiring teachers and administrators in diocese-run schools.

The judge was clear in his criticism of the alleged flaws in the appointment process within these institutions. He noted, “It is well-known that commercial interests often influence appointments in aided private schools, though some exceptions exist. It is fair to expect that receiving state aid for teaching comes with a duty to hire the most qualified teachers.” While acknowledging the right of minority institutions to manage their appointments, Justice Swaminathan insisted that job openings must be advertised widely to allow all qualified candidates, regardless of caste, religion, or denomination, to apply.

In the case at hand, the judge deemed the diocese’s plan to appoint individuals from its seniority list unconstitutional. Consequently, the court upheld the petition and set a new standard for future cases.

The issue of religious favouritism in government-supported minority institutions has been a contentious matter in Tamil Nadu. Critics, including political pressure groups such as Hindu Munnani, have accused these institutions of hiring based on religious affiliations rather than merit, intending to advance religious agendas under the guise of education. They argue that these institutions while receiving government funds, impose restrictions on students’ religious expressions, such as wearing wristbands or religious symbols, while not imposing similar limits on items like hijabs or rosaries.

Similar Ruling By the Supreme Court

This ruling by the Madurai Bench aligns with earlier precedents. In January 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that government-aided minority institutions do not possess absolute rights in teacher appointments. The court upheld the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008, establishing a panel for teacher appointments in government-funded madrasas. The Supreme Court found that the Act was constitutional as it ensured a merit-based selection process while accommodating the interests of the institutions.

In contrast, a June 2024 judgment from the Delhi High Court granted government-aided minority institutions complete autonomy in staff appointments. Justice C. Hari Shankar ruled that these institutions have the exclusive right to select their staff, with the Directorate of Education’s role limited to setting qualifications and experience requirements for key positions.

(With inputs from Organiser)

Subscribe to our Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram channels and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Madurai Bench Of Madras HC Upholds Secularism In Govt-Aided Minority Schools, Calls For Transparent Hiring Amid Tirunelveli Diocese Dispute appeared first on The Commune.

In this 2024 election year, the subject of religion-based reservations and special benefits, came to the spot light in both national and regional news.

Recently, the BJP was in the news on the subject of religion-based reservations, when its regional alliance partner, Andhra’s TDP party (Telugu Desam Party) almost succumbed to pressure from the state’s YSRCP party (a break-away Congress party unit) in offering an attractive religion-based reservation to Muslims. Pradesh polled for a 175-seat state assembly election as well as a 25-seat parliament(Lok Sabha)election on May 13 with the final counting exercise to be conducted on June 4th.

Chandrababu Naidu’s TDP party proposed a Muslim-reservation electoral promise, in an attempt to compete with Jagan Reddy-led YRSCP party’s announcement of continued religion-based reservation for Andhra’s Muslims, with many speculating that it could eventually result in a similar benefit for converted Christians. In further consultations with its national partner, the BJP, the TDP did not go ahead with the proposed religion-based special benefits for Muslims or Christians. The BJP has made it clear to its alliance partners that it is firmly against religion-based reservations, as promised in its national manifesto. The BJP’s stance on this subject is well aligned with the intentional omission for religion-based reservations in the Constitution of India.

It is important to note that Jagan Reddy and his Christian family including his late father, Y S Rajasekhar Reddy, the Christian, Congress party chief minister of the larger undivided state of Andhra Pradesh, have often been accused as among the first to propose a separate reservation for Muslims in the country. This family, true to its pseudo-secular, policies, reminiscent of their deep roots in the Congress party, have also been openly challenged on the allegation of being the master minds and facilitators behind the burgeoning number of unchecked Christian conversions through fraudulent means including state-sponsored financial incentives in Andhra and Telangana, monthly stipends for church pastors and encouraging money-laundering Christian NGOs (non governmental organizations) of dubious intent, supposedly involved in the business of charity.

The Reddy family with its die-hard Congress party roots and links, holds the unsavoury record of being the first state in the country, to introduce a pilgrimage subsidy for Christians, to pilgrimage sites in Israel. All of the above were in addition to the Congress party’s other minority-appeasement policies, including a decades-old free or subsidized pilgrimage for Muslims. Such prejudiced, unwarranted state-sponsored schemes, come at a massive, damaging cost to the native Indic faiths, culture, heritage and true secularism. What place do such biased offerings based on religion, hold in the Constitution of India? Can they be challenged in the top courts?

The Indian Constitution does not provide for reservations and special government-sponsored benefits, based on Religion. The main architects of the Constitution, in their wisdom, envisioned a reservation for a limited period of time, only for certain historically disadvantaged communities based on the practice of caste within the native culture. The temporary reservations recommended in the Indian Constitution was meant to be implemented in good faith, only among certain communities within the purview of the native faiths.

Why did the visionaries of the Constitution not advocate religion-based reservations? This was with good reason, based on the history of our country, along with several historical precedents, which actually indicate the reverse – that both Islam and Christianity do not need protection! In fact, if recorded and verified Indian history is the base for it, it is the native religions that need to be aided with protective measures :

– so that, the Indigenous beliefs and culture may withstand the aggressive preaching and proselytizing practices of Islam and Christianity.
– so that the native faiths, culture and heritage may be preserved for future generations.

Both Christianity and Islam are highly organised, centralized, hierarchical, “self” driven religions, whose goals of self-preservation, self-promotion and increasing their numbers globally, far surpass the unorganized, non-centralized, non-proselytizing native, Indic religions (Hindu and other native faiths), that are far more accommodating, tolerant and assimilative.

The supreme zeal and drive of Islam and Christianity for self-preservation, self-promotion protection and defence as witnessed through the lens of human history, makes it clear that they do not require protection or special state-benefits of any sort. B R Ambedkar and a majority of India’s leaders of the time, including leaders who collaborated with Dr Ambedkar on framing and finalizing the Constitution, were wise enough to understand the ground reality of these two religions aside from what their scriptures promote.

It was with good reason that the stalwarts of the era ignored religion-based reservations while whole-heartedly agreeing to caste-based reservations within the larger Hindu/ native Indic communities, for a limited period of time. The majority of the leaders of the time also prudently chose to omit the word “secular” with its foreign interpretation. Avoiding the term “secular” in the Indian Constitution implied that the native way of life based on the Hindu principles of universal values, acceptance and tolerance, which had survived numerous foreign invasions, would hold steady in its native land of birth – an India that was, is and will continue to be “Bharat” at its core.

Unfortunately, the word “secular” was steathily added in the Constitution by Indira Gandhi during her imposed Emergency period without proper legal procedure or parliamentary consent. In any case, what space does religion-based reservations have in a “secular” country which promises equal treatment of all religions? Aren’t such reservations against the core principles of the Constitution ?

Not a single nation joins “secular” India in the foolish practice of a government-sponsored special status, religion-based reservations and other benefits for their country’s minorities! Going by the historical context of both Islam and Christianity with their aggressive proselytizing agenda of gaining maximum converts to their respective religions, it is Hinduism and the Indic faiths that need protection. Not the world’s largest two religions, that are still growing at the expense of all other, pluralistic, Indigenous traditions!

Throughout the rule of India-Bharat by the various Muslim groups or the Christian British, it was the Indic native religions that were discriminated against in various forms! Ironically, it is Hinduism and the other native faiths, culture and way of life that require protection, in the very nation they were born and thrived before Islamic and Christian dominance.

The Congress and its pseudo-secular, crony political friends are responsible for a mis-guided, mis-placed sense of a silly ‘perceived’ sense of a higher moral high ground, when they call themselves “protectors” of the minorities!! Who are these politicians protecting the minorities from? Do these minorities need protection from the largely peaceful and accommodating, accepting-of-all-faiths, Hindu majority that has suffered at the hands of these very “minorities” at various points in history?

Is it morally or logically right for such political parties to continue with state-sponsored discrimination against the majority in our nation? Reservations based on Religion goes against the principles of these important tenets:

– It goes against true secularism which advocates, either ignoring all faiths equally or treating all faiths with equal favour.

– It goes against the principle of separation of “State and Church”, an attempt to separate governance from religion followed in most modern, progressive Western nations which India seeks to emulate.

– It eats into the share of those truly deserving of reservations based on centuries of community discrimination – the SCs and STs (Scheduled Castes and Tribes) as well as certain backward communities.

– It also impacts the share of reservations rightfully deserved by social groups such as people with various disabilities as well as families falling into the EWS category (Economically Weaker Sections).

– It goes against the intentional omission of religion-based discrimination in the Constitution of India

– Lastly, it’s a incentive to conversion and a threat to the social fabric of the country

Shivani is a freelance writer from Vijayawada.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Reservations On Religious Grounds: An Incentive For Conversion And A Threat To Social Fabric Of The Country appeared first on The Commune.

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court recently underscored India’s commitment to secularism, emphasizing the need for the State to treat all religions equally.

Justice GR Swaminathan noted that under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, which deals with the ‘refusal to register certain documents,’ properties owned by churches do not receive the same legal protection as Wakf properties or those managed under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

Justice Swaminathan expressed concern over the unlawful alienation of church properties, stating, “I have personally come across quite a few cases wherein church properties have been illegally and unlawfully alienated.” He pointed out the inconsistency in the Registration Act, which protects properties under Hindu and Islamic laws but excludes church properties. He suggested that this disparity exists because specific legislation covers Hindu and Wakf properties, while similar laws for church properties are absent.

Justice Swaminathan proposed that “the time has come to include church properties within the scope of Section 22-A of the Act.” These remarks were made during a writ petition filed by Shalin, who challenged the Sub Registrar of Tiruppathur in Sivagangai District for refusing to register a property he had purchased.

The Sub Registrar argued, citing a 2017 High Court ruling, that properties endowed to the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (TELC) require High Court permission for registration. The Special Government Pleader supported this position, urging the court to dismiss the petition.

However, the single judge bench clarified that the 2017 ruling was an interim order and emphasized that such orders do not extend beyond the conclusion of the main writ petition. The court noted there is no current standing order preventing the registration of TELC properties. The bench considered whether Section 22(A)(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, applied in this case. It observed that Section 22-A covers immovable properties belonging to religious institutions under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and Wakf properties under the Wakf Board’s jurisdiction.

The court noted that the petitioner had purchased the property from Vijaya, who acquired it through a settlement deed from M Premkumar Prithviraj, who had originally purchased it from TELC. Both the sale deed to Prithviraj and the settlement deed to Vijaya were registered, and the revenue records were updated accordingly.

Given these circumstances, the bench concluded that the impugned order should be set aside. The court allowed the petitioner to re-submit the document to the Sub Registrar, directing the latter to entertain and register it.

(With Inputs From Law Beat)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally. 

The post Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Calls For Equal Treatment Of All Religions, Calls For Bringing Church Properties Under Registration Act appeared first on The Commune.

The ruthless murder of a Karnataka Congress corporator’s daughter by her “jilted” lover in broad daylight sent shockwaves across the society. While many news outlets called out the perpetrator by his name, the leftist propaganda outlet, The News Minute, maintained its “secular standards” by avoiding calling the accused by his name or mentioning his religion. They stuck to “stalker”. 

Here is how The News Minute reported two news stories – omit the perpetrator’s name/religion if it is a minority but mention it if the alleged attacker is Hindu. 

Hideous hypocrisy in headlines from @thenewsminute. They deliberately omit the killer's name and faith, as 'Fayaz' doesn't fit their propaganda narrative. pic.twitter.com/ETP8vQ8we7

— The Common Swadeshi (@CommonSwadeshi) April 21, 2024

The headlines from @thenewsminute consistently employ a biased narrative, unfairly vilifying the Hindus while whitewashing the religious identity of minority perpetrators. Remember Shraddha Walkar? Check this headline as well as the other headlines. (1/2) https://t.co/MYKtqoCtZf pic.twitter.com/li4J9imkGF

— The Common Swadeshi (@CommonSwadeshi) April 21, 2024

The above examples villify the Hindu and show the “minority” community as the perpetual victim. 

Upon being called out, editor-in-chief of the “news” portal, Dhanya Rajendran shared screenshots of incidents of stalking and claimed they reported it in the same manner, irrespective of who the perpetrator or his background was.  

Hideously bad google search by you guys. https://t.co/isd8dcC1km pic.twitter.com/P66Nl1ea1T

— Dhanya Rajendran (@dhanyarajendran) April 21, 2024

But netizens repeatedly pointed out to her the follies and the hypocrisy that The News Minute indulged in, in the name of “journalism ethics” and secularism.

Epic Secular Journalism by @thenewsminute

– Neha's murderer has no *name*

– He is just a *stalker*

– But *Muslim* Organisations demanding strict punishment

– Against *accused* who has no name or religion. pic.twitter.com/tR6Du7YgtH

— BALA (@erbmjha) April 21, 2024

Here is another example. A few days ago, at a Catholic school in Telangana, the principal did not permit a few students to enter the school as they were wearing saffron clothes owing to Hanuman Deeksha penance. The News Minute hid the real story, peddled half-truths, and villified the Hindus by calling them a “mob” and that they forced the principal to chant Jai Shri Ram, etc. 

In another instance, a few ago in Bengaluru, three men were assaulted by Muslims for chanting Jai Shri Ram. The News Minute did not even report this news on their portal. Had it been the other way around, the headlines would have demonised Hindus severely. 

This happened at Bengaluru 3 days back, and Indian Express doesn't identify the two of them as Ms – despite being the fact that this was clearly an act of violence on religious grounds.

TNM never reported this news, this is how they show their solidarity, by maintainining… https://t.co/ptBd36METB pic.twitter.com/wqgmDo1Nk6

— Tamil Labs 2.0 (@labstamil) April 21, 2024

These are just a few examples of the hypocrisy of the Congressi mouthpiece which peddles the Leftist agenda all the time. Do read this list of 9 instances where TNM whitewashed incidents when the perpetrators belonged to a specific community.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post The News Minute’s Selective Reporting And Blatant Hypocrisy When Perpetrators Of Crime Belong To “The Community That Can’t Be Named” appeared first on The Commune.

The recent proceedings in the Supreme Court have shed light on the varying approaches taken by the judiciary when dealing with alleged religious offenses, particularly remarks made by public figures. In two distinct cases involving Samajwadi Party leader Swami Prasad Maurya and political spokesperson Nupur Sharma, the court’s responses reflect the complexity of interpreting religious sentiments and the delicate balance between freedom of expression and maintaining communal harmony.

Unbelievable. When Nupur had simply quoted what is written in Islamic scriptures, the very same Supreme court told her: "You have ignited the whole country. You possess a loose tongue. Power has gone to your head. You should apologise to the nation."

Who was being touchy then? pic.twitter.com/UdZmZbqncb

— Anand Ranganathan (@ARanganathan72) January 25, 2024

Case 1: Swami Prasad Maurya’s Plea

Swami Prasad Maurya found himself in legal turmoil over alleged remarks made about Tulsidas’ Ramcharitmanas. The Supreme Court, during the hearing, raised questions about the state government’s sensitivity, emphasizing the matter’s interpretational nature. Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta highlighted that the issue revolved around interpretation, questioning whether it amounted to an offense.

The government’s argument, attempting to dissuade the court from staying criminal proceedings, faced resistance. Justice Mehta asserted that burning copies of the text could not be attributed to Maurya, emphasizing the importance of recognizing diverse perspectives. Eventually, the court issued notice for a four-week returnable period, staying the proceedings. However, the Allahabad High Court had earlier found prima facie grounds against Maurya, expressing concerns about incitement to rebellion and potential damage to communal harmony.

Case 2: Nupur Sharma’s “Controversial” Statements

In the case involving Nupur Sharma, a political spokesperson, the Supreme Court took a markedly different stance. Refusing to entertain her plea seeking the transfer of FIRs against her to Delhi, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala criticized Sharma for allegedly fanning flames across the country. The court accused her of arrogance and emphasized that being a party spokesperson did not grant a licence for inflammatory remarks.

The court, in strong terms, held Sharma “single-handedly responsible” for the situation and urged her to apologize to the entire nation. The rejection of her plea led to a withdrawal, underlining the seriousness of the court’s dissatisfaction with her conduct.

The contrasting approaches in these cases highlight the judiciary’s struggle to strike a balance between freedom of expression and the prevention of communal disharmony. In Maurya’s case, the court leaned towards protecting the right to interpret religious texts freely, expressing skepticism about the state’s sensitivity. On the other hand, Sharma’s case saw a more assertive stance, with the court holding her accountable for her statements and rejecting her plea unequivocally.

The judgments indicate the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining communal harmony and preventing the incitement of violence based on religious sentiments. However, the challenge lies in consistently applying these principles across cases, ensuring that the interpretation of religious remarks remains nuanced and unbiased. These cases serve as a reminder of the delicate nature of handling religious sentiments and the nuanced approach required to uphold constitutional values while safeguarding the social fabric.

Symbianian is a freelance writer.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post How The Supreme Court Handled Religious Remarks Differently In Nupur Sharma & Swami Prasad Maurya Cases appeared first on The Commune.

Peddling narratives is a familiar practice for The News Minute (TNM) and their ilk. This time, it not only opened Pandora’s box of the famous preamble but also highlighted Malayalam film stars in the industry who shared images of the preamble of the constitution. This happened on 22 January 2024 the day when the nation was preoccupied with celebrating Pran Prathishta and sharing images of the child Ram across the internet.

TNM declared that this action serves as a recall on the day when the Bharatiya Janata Party appears to have delivered on one of its prominent Hindutva pledges, juxtaposed against the foundational principles of secularism, socialism, and democracy embedded in the Constitution.

The edited version of the Preamble of the Constitution proclaims:

“WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity and to promote among them all;

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949 do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.”

The Constituent Assembly extensively deliberated on the Preamble of the Constitution on 17 October 1949. The discussions revolved around crucial topics such as the name of India and the potential inclusion of elements like God, Gandhi, and the Union of Indian Socialistic Republics. Despite numerous proposed amendments by members, these suggestions were either withdrawn or rejected. Ultimately, the Constituent Assembly decided to adopt the Preamble in the form presented to the Drafting Committee. It’s important to note that the concepts of Socialist, Secular, Unity and Integrity of the Nation were introduced during the dark days of the emergency era of Indira Gandhi through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976.

In a discussion during the Constituent Assembly, Prof. K. T. Shah proposed an amendment to include the term “socialist” in the Preamble of the Constitution. He expressed that socialism, as implied by the amendment, aimed at ensuring equal justice, equal opportunity, and contributions from every individual to their maximum capacity, with an assurance of meeting everyone’s needs for a decent civilized existence. He emphasized that this could be achieved without resorting to violent revolutions. Prof. Shah argued that socialism, as the only just order, would eliminate class privileges and restore natural rights. He saw no objection to describing the Union as a “Socialist Union of States.”

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar opposed the amendment, asserting that the Constitution is a mechanism for regulating state organs, not for prescribing a particular social organization. He argued against fixing a specific social form in the Constitution, as it would impede the people’s liberty to decide their societal structure based on changing circumstances. Ambedkar also pointed out that socialist principles were already incorporated in the directive principles of state policy outlined in the Constitution. He considered Prof. Shah’s amendment superfluous.

When discussing the concept of secularism, the understanding varies across different regions. In the United States, secularism entails the coexistence of the state and the church within the same human society without direct involvement with each other. In Europe, secularism has evolved as the rejection of all things religious, particularly in the realm of political functioning. Conversely, in India, secularism takes on a different meaning, emphasizing equal respect for all religions. In the Indian context, a ‘secular state’ safeguards all religions impartially and does not endorse any specific religion as the state’s official religion.

The question arises: Is India genuinely secular? If we examine the fundamental tenets of secularism as understood in the West, it implies that the state should not be intertwined with religion, and there should be no discrimination among citizens based on their religion or mode of worship, ensuring equality before the law for everyone. However, in India, this strict interpretation of secularism is challenged by the existence of distinct sets of laws for different communities. For example, the Muslim community has the Waqf Board overseeing their religious properties, while Hindu temples are administered by the respective state governments. Additionally, concessions granted to specific communities based on religion seem to contradict the theory of secularism, potentially fostering increased majority communalism despite Article 44 urging the state to establish a uniform civil code.

In the ceremony for the inauguration of the Ram Temple in India today, the government was not involved in any financial matters such as investment or collection, aligning with secular principles. The event encouraged participation from all members, irrespective of their religious beliefs, caste, gender, or political affiliations. 

Is it inappropriate for the Prime Minister or President of India to participate in a temple ceremony? Does such participation convey an endorsement of only Hindu Dharma?

Representing the diverse spirit of the new India, people from various walks of life, including Christian community and Sikhs like Harbhajan Singh, actively participated in the ‘Pran Pratishtha’ ceremony, highlighting the nation’s collective commitment to humanity. Dr. Imam Umer Ahmed Ilyasi, Chief Imam of the All India Imam Organization, emphasized the overarching importance of humanity and the nation, stating, “For us, the nation is first.”

The primary contributors to the Ram Temple were individuals from across the country who generously donated to the temple organization. Therefore, it is unfounded to use the preamble as a basis for criticizing the temple’s inauguration.

In reaction to the festivities, the actions taken by the political coalition I.N.D.I, such as the revocation of the Sanadhana and the refusal of invitations, emphasizing minority appeasement, are currently perceived as a political strategy against the Hindu community. The utilization of celebrities in these tactics is considered inexpensive and has ultimately resulted in negative consequences for the coalition.

Contrary to the accusations circulated, valuable lessons are being imparted to pseudo-secular leftists through their thought-provoking posts.

A netizen shared Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s narration of how the terms “Socialist” and “Secular” were included in the constitution.

The two words 'Secularism' and 'Socialism' were added by the Indira Gandhi govt.

People quoting the Preamble today should watch this.

Watch till end. pic.twitter.com/k6Fcz5wBIR

— Scarlet Heart (@_Saffron_Girl_) January 22, 2024

Another shared an illustration featuring Ram, Sita, and Lakshman in Part III, Fundamental Rights.

Original preamble and the Rama drawings in the constitution itself..@sgurumurthy @athreyashiva @TheMylaporean @theflyinggaruda #RamLalla #RamMandirPranPrathistha https://t.co/oAXGUM23g0 pic.twitter.com/guU0wBp3Ck

— Shri Venkateshwaran (@lordof7hills) January 22, 2024

Another video was posted showcasing Non-Resident Indians (NRI) expressing pride in their Hindu identity.

One of the best videos I watched today
Our Preamble .
We are Hindu.. Of course we have been cheated in the name of secularism.
We are proud, Unapologetic Hindus.
Say जय श्री राम, If you believe in true secularism and not selectively one https://t.co/eSQwQWxMAr pic.twitter.com/Iskv2GUaHy

— आत्मदर्शी मोदी का परिवार (@dha_kar_mika181) January 22, 2024

Satheesh is a freelance writer.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post The So-Called ‘Seculars’ Should Share The Original Indian Constitution And Not Indira’s appeared first on The Commune.

Former Member of Parliament and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi is on a three-city tour in the US. As a part of the tour, he engaged in a wide-ranging interaction at the National Press Club in Washington on 1 June 2023. During the session, he addressed various subjects, including opposition unity, religious freedoms in India, concerns of minority communities, and the state of the economy. In a conversation with the interviewer, he made a controversial statement regarding the Muslim League, a Muslim political party in India that played a significant role in the partition of the country along religious lines. Despite its historical implications, Gandhi asserted that the Muslim League was “completely secular.”

When questioned about the Congress party’s alliance with the Muslim League in Kerala, where Gandhi himself served as an MP, he responded, “Muslim League is a completely secular party, there is nothing non-secular about the Muslim League. I think the person has not studied the Muslim League.” This exchange has sparked debate due to the contentious nature of Gandhi’s claim.

Jinnah’s Muslim League, the party responsible for India’s partition, on religious lines, according to Rahul Gandhi is a ‘secular’ party.

Rahul Gandhi, though poorly read, is simply being disingenuous and sinister here…

It is also his compulsion to remain acceptable in Wayanad. pic.twitter.com/sHVqjcGYLb

— Amit Malviya (@amitmalviya) June 1, 2023

It is worth noting the historical background of the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), which claims to have been established after India gained independence in 1948. In reality, the IUML is an offshoot of the All India Muslim League (AIML), founded by Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the driving force behind the creation of Pakistan. The AIML advocated for a separate Muslim-majority nation-state, resulting in the partition of British India in 1947. The IUML’s formation was intended to carry forward the legacy of the AIML.

The founder President of the IUML, Muhammad Ismail, actively participated in the partition movement and supported the creation of Pakistan. Interestingly, Ismail, who claimed the IUML was a secular organization, even advocated for the retention of Sharia law for Indian Muslims in the Constituent Assembly after India’s independence.

The IUML has a history of indulging in communal politics and has been implicated in communal incidents in Kerala. For instance, the party was found to be involved in the planning and execution of the Marad massacre in 2003, as confirmed by the report of the Justice Thomas P Joseph Commission, which declared it a “clear communal conspiracy.” In 2017, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a fresh FIR in connection with the riots and named IUML leaders as accused of funding, conspiring, and carrying out the violence.

Gandhi’s characterization of the Muslim League as “secular” has drawn criticism, especially in contrast to his criticism of the BJP as a “Hindu party” and divisive. The BJP, while advocating for the welfare of Hindus, has emphasized the principle of inclusive development for all citizens. In contrast, Congress has faced accusations of pandering to terrorist organizations for the sake of appeasing its Muslim vote bank. The BJP has taken action against organizations such as the Popular Front of India (PFI), which has been involved in violence against Hindus and had plans to turn India into a Sharia state.

By calling the Muslim League “secular,” despite its history of communal violence and divisive politics, while berating the BJP as divisive, Rahul Gandhi has ignited a debate surrounding his party’s alliances and its stance on secularism. However, he has not provided substantial evidence to support his claim that the BJP generates hatred in society.

Click here to subscribe to The Commune on Telegram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “Muslim” League Completely Secular: Rahul Gandhi appeared first on The Commune.

Recently, it was reported that the CSI Anderson Higher Secondary School, a government-aided school in Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu run by Christians reportedly harassed and thrashed two students for wearing Hindu symbols like rudraksh and vibhudhi/thiruneer (sacred ash).

A complaint was filed by the parents of the two children with the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister’s Special Cell that mentioned that their wards studying in class 10 at the CSI Anderson Higher Secondary School in Kanchipuram were mercilessly beaten by their class teacher named Joyson for sporting a rudraksh and having vibhudhi smeared in their foreheads.

It has now come to light that Joyson had abused several other students at different points of time. Locals and parents of children studying in the school say that there are already some cases pending against Joyson.

Though multiple complaints have been filed with the police and education authorities of the state, there is yet to be any concrete action taken against the said teacher.

The students and their parents are practitioners of the Saiva Sidhanta school of Hinduism. Their cause has now been taken up by Saiva Samaya Thiruthondar Kootamaippu whose head Sivakumar has extended support to help them find a school that will give students to practice their own religion.

“The functioning of the school is highly reprehensible. School is a place where education is taught. That too the school is running on government funds. In such a case, it is not possible to allow religious hatred to be shown towards the student who is wearing the Rudratsam. It may be a Christian school. But we are Hindus. Our children come to school wearing Tiruneer and Rudratsam. We have warned the Anderson administration that they will not hesitate to besiege the school if they think of harassing Hindu students again.”, Sivakumar said. 

“We are currently receiving similar allegations from the families of students studying in various schools across Tamil Nadu. We have to find those schools and establish justice.”, he further added.

(With inputs from Kathir News)

Click here to subscribe to The Commune on Telegram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post CSI Anderson school teacher who harassed students for sporting Hindu symbols was a serial abuser appeared first on The Commune.