Offstumped – Commentary on Indian Politics

Having established a set of core principles over the last four posts on how Hindutva ideology must guide on a range of issues, this final post applies those principles to contemporary issues to articulate what actions would have moral sanction from Hindutva.

1. Partition – It violated the separation of church and state, resulted in a theocracy, clearly there can be no moral sanction from Hindutva for the partition.

2. Secular Constitution for India -?A Constitution that stands for true separation of church and state with governance undmindful religion would have moral sanction from Hindutva. The current Constitution is deficient on this account.

3. Uniform Civil Code – It naturally follows that laws that apply differently based on religion are not just in violation of minimalistic secularism but also do not have moral sanction from Hindutva

4. Kashmir issue with Pakistan?- Has to do with National Interest and Hindutva as an ideology that stands for national inerest should have no role to play beyond guiding one to act in the interest of the entire Nation

5. Article 370 – Has to do with National Interest and Hindutva as an ideology that stands for national interest should have no role to play beyond demanding parity with the rest of the nation.

6. Federalism and States rights – Has to do with rights of local communities to make choices on socio-economic issues. More autonomy to states and local governments would be consistent with Hindutva as it stands for the freedom or right to choose.

7. Article 356 – An extension of above point, use of article 356 to ride roughshod over state’s rights would not have moral sanction from Hindutva unless of course National Interest is threatened.

8. Role of Governor – An extension of point 6, unelected governors acting at the Center’s behest to trample State’s Rights would not have moral sanction from Hindutva.

9. Special Economic Zones – A consensus process that treats local communities as stakeholders and is both democratic and representative of the local communities would have moral sanction from Hindutva e.g. Gujarat Model unlike the West Bengal Model.

10. Public projects like SSP – same as SEZs, with the caveat that when local communities make their choice they must be guided by “desireless action” which means that the consensus has to help not hurt which should address questions of inclusivity. Forced consensus that rides roughshod over the interests of some communities would not be “desireless” and hence would have no moral sanction.

11. Sethusamudram, Ganga Expressway – It is legitimate to claim a stake for an entire religious community however to legitimately exercise the rights as a stakeholder and to have a say in how these projects are executed requires a consensus process which is democratic and representatives. Demands by vocal lobbies which are not the result of a democratic process cannot be taken to have moral sanction from Hindutva.

12. Ram Janmabhoomi – Babri Masjid, Varnasi, Mathura etc – It would be an extension of point 11. Both the religious community and the local community must be considered stake holders. Those who purport to speak on their behalf must earn their legitimacy from a consensus process which is democratic and representative. It is important to identify legitimate stakeholders and to eliminate illegitimate ones. For example if the VHP does not have the mandate of the Hindu community via a democratic consensus then it cannot claim to be a stakeholder. Similarly if the AIMPLB cannot show such a mandate it too cannot be a legitimate stakeholder. Ultimate consensus view must arise from both stakeholders recognizing?that the State has?no role to play, it is up to the stakeholders to make a socio-economic choice and?the right?choice would be one that is desireless or one that serves the interests of all the stakeholders. To attempt to force a consensus by threat of violence or by a central legislation would not have moral sanction from Hindutva.

13. Fighting Jihadi Terrorism – Has to do with National Interest and Hindutva as an ideology that stands for national inerest should have no role to play beyond guiding one to act in the interest of the entire Nation. Fighting Jihadi Terrorism is a National Duty. Taking a tough and uncompromising stance on security issues has nothing to do specifically with Hindutva and has everything to do with serving National Interest. To insinuate someone as being communal or resorting to Hindutva for aggressively fighting terrorism?is a disingenuous argument and amounts to hurting National Interest.

14. Death Penalty for Convicted Terrorists – Has to do with National Interest and and Hindutva as an ideology that stands for national inerest should have no role to play beyond guiding one to act in the interest of the entire Nation. Carrying out court upheld death sentence of a terrorist is a National Duty. Taking a tough and uncompromising stance on this has nothing to do specifically with Hindutva and has everything to do with serving National Interest. To insinuate someone as being communal or resorting to Hindutva for aggressively demanding such an execution is a disingenuous argument and amounts to hurting National Interest.

15. Fighting Communal Socialism – Has to do with National Interest and Individual Freedom.?Hindutva as an ideology that stands for a Minimalist Secular state with freedom of choice for individualas and local communuities should have no role to play beyond guiding one to ensure laws are applied unmindful of religion and socio-economic choices are left to local communities. Taking a tough and uncompromising stance on this has nothing to do specifically with Hindutva and has everything to do with serving National Interest. To insinuate someone as being communal or resorting to Hindutva for aggressively opposing Communal Socialism is a disingenuous argument and amounts to hurting National Interest.

Filed under: Flat World Hindutva, Uncategorized