At a time when there is a strong clash between the Left, dissenting against’s Modi ‘Brand India’ and the Right, leaning towards a nationalist ‘Hindu secular’ state which accepts a majoritarian rule over other minorities in the country, the government is staunchly catering to the Right, in its rallies, statements; which has created a strong Left. This polarisation is seeing its worst effects in states such as UP, where homes of Muslims are being raided illegally by the police, there is terror on the streets, with people damaging, vandalising property of Muslims, 16 people getting killed out of which at least 14 were killed by a firearm, and 21,500 people getting booked in a single city.
Contrary to government claims, preparations for NRC have already begun through the National Population Register (NPR). The government claims that the NPR is not related to NRC, but such claims are nonsensical, as it states in the 2003 rules itself that the NPR is to be followed by the NRC.
The Killing Indifference
The government is making the implementation of NRC seem like an uninteresting, run of the mill bureaucratic measure, but it can have far reaching consequences if implemented. The state has been preparing for such a situation slowly in bits, over the course of time, through various legislations and judgments inter alia – to make India ‘Hindu’:
The government is making the implementation of NRC seem like an uninteresting, run of the mill bureaucratic measure, but it can have far reaching consequences if implemented. The state has been preparing for such a situation slowly in bits, over the course of time, through various legislations and judgments inter alia – to make India ‘Hindu’:
Firstly — There have been various Supreme Court judgments that ban cow slaughter as being a practice against ideals of Hindus. But what about pork meat? Why haven’t the Courts, banned pork meat, as being against the ideals of Muslims? There is a lingering Hindu sentiment suffusing in the machineries of the state, the Judiciary, the Legislature; and the Executive to execute such a sentiment, socially.
Secondly — The word ‘Hindu’ (which does not include Muslim, Sikh, Christian, or Parsi) encompasses Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, and includes every other person in the territory of India, even those without a religion. Some may call it a legislative strategy to avoid multiple legislations, but this has a far reaching consequence. Every person, not belonging to Muslim, Sikh, Parsi, or Christian community, all of which are minorities, is a Hindu; by default, and this includes the children of parent(s) who is/are Hindu. Everyone by default is a Hindu in the eyes of the law. It adds to the power and the dominance of Hindus over others.
Thirdly— In the series of such instances where the state through the Judiciary and Legislature, has been supportive of the Hindu sentiment, comes the Babri Masjid judgment. The Supreme Court of India reduced it to a property dispute, when the issue was — the demolition of the mosque by the miscreants. The Supreme Court in its communal judgment, acquitted the ones who — demolished the mosque in an act of state-sponsored violence.
Fourthly — Now I will explain the pièce de résistance — how the BJP government through various provisions will retain in India and save from any harm all Hindus from the test of NRC.
There are 4 categories of ‘Hindu’ that are relevant:
- The Hindus that were living at the time of commencement of the Constitution in India and i) were or ii) whose parents were born in India or iii) were ordinarily resident in India for 5 years before 26 January, 1950 shall be citizens of India.
- The Hindus i) born in India from 26 January, 1950 onwards till 30 June 1987 and ii) born to a citizen of India 1 July, 1987 onwards till 6 January, 2004 and iii) born to citizens of India or, a citizen of India and not an illegal migrant 7 January, 2004 onward shall be citizens of India.
- The Hindus who are asylum seekers and have been allowed to reside in India by the government, such as Tamils.
Also read: Development For Whom?: What The 2019 BJP Manifesto Has To Say
It is imperative to note that the above three categories will include all Hindus staying in India with valid documents. However those Indians without documents will be ‘saved’ as follows,
4. Hindus who had come from or have some connection (through property, ancestry) to Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan as illegal migrants and have stayed in India for at least 5 years till 2014, shall not be treated as illegal immigrants and shall be allowed to stay in India and be citizens of India.
So it goes that everyone except Hindus (and Christians, Parsis who are collectively 2.5%) is not safe. Everyone except Hindus — including Muslims, Adivasis, and everyone that is poor stand the risk of losing their citizenship, their property, their land.
So it goes that everyone except Hindus (and Christians, Parsis who are collectively 2.5%) is not safe. Everyone except Hindus — including Muslims, Adivasis, and everyone that is poor stand the risk of losing their citizenship, their property, their land.
Who Gets ‘Saved’ and at the Cost Of Who?
We have come to a stage when ‘Hindu’ has become the norm, and all that are ‘not Hindu’ are seen as ‘other’. And it doesn’t stop at that; there is an intersectionality of religion, sex, and the Varna system (even though it was abolished). Which leaves only one category that is benefiting and is the ‘one’ — i.e Hindu upper-caste males, who are privileged, and wish to keep that privilege — at any cost.
Also read: BJP And Feminism: How Has BJP Been Treating Indian Women?
The law is the safeguard of justice, or so it is said. But the Government is using the law against its people. It’s turning its back against its own citizens. We need to decide what we want – whether it is a ‘Hindu secular’ India — where some are more equal than others, or a ‘Secular’ India — where all are equal and no one is above the law. Whether we want to forget the law, or uphold it. Is something for us to decide.
I rest my case.
Raghav is an avid reader and writer who shows interest in critical legal philosophy and is currently in the 4th year of law.
Featured Image Source: The Telegraph
