Shatrubodh : An insight about the civilizational threats

No, this article is not about defining law. But in order to set the background, we must understand this from the social point of view. The codified version of the collective morality of a particular society which applies uniformly to the common populace to some extent, is called law. While there might be improvisations or exceptions made in the law as per the circumstances, law in general is reflection of the society for which it is drafted.  Let's hop on to Indian society, and ask ourselves a fundamental question: Who drafted the laws and legal system for this country in the contemporary world? Answer to this question is quite obvious, the white Christian British coloniser. If you look into the debates of imperial legislature in Britain, you'll get to know that they intended to enforce their version of morality on diverse Indian society or say Hindu society.While these laws look very distinct from religion, the reality might be otherwise. As previously stated, law is collectiv...

Three important objectives stated in preamble of our Constitution: Equality, Fraternity, Liberty (Let's ignore justice for a moment) Liberty- freedom. Freedom can be freedom to move and live and explore and have access to all economic opportunities or humanly pleasures. Freedom can, freedom to choose community, religion, religious practices. The first set of freedoms, aim at individual liberty, they keep individuals and individualism at focal point. The second set of freedoms, keep communities and community lives at focal point. Edifice of individual freedoms is Judeo-Christian dogma that all men are born equal. This eventually aims to atomise the society and put an end to a community life. While fraternity on the other hand again aims to promote communities, community lives and eventually community interests. Thus, liberty can either be described with respect to equality or with respect to fraternity. But aren't these two standing against each other, as how can atomisation ...

Quite often I encounter people who say that India was never a nation.. It's amusing to see their deep love of a divided Bharat. I must reply them, that their knowledge of nationhood is quite narrow. I'm sorry to say, but there can be different basis of nationhood in different regions. In Europe nationhood was derived from ethnicity or linguistic basis, in middle East basis of nationhood was religious (Islamic caliphate) and in East, South Asia onwards, the basis of nationality was civilizational. In Vishnu Purana which is not some recent text Bharat is defined as उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् ।   वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र संततिः ie, “The country (Varsam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bharatam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata" people, despite the absence of a political unity in the administration of India, used to roam freely without having a feeling of being in some other foreign land. For a very long time ...