Skip to main content

RSS opposed the Hindu Code Bill using several key arguments

The RSS opposed the Hindu Code Bill using several key arguments:
  1. Attack on Hindu Religion and Culture: They framed the bill as an assault on traditional Hindu values, claiming it would disrupt the social fabric of Hindu society and undermine its customs
    .
  2. Secular Intent: The RSS criticized the bill's secular approach, arguing that it aimed to impose uniform civil laws on Hindus while neglecting similar reforms for other religions, which they viewed as unfair and discriminatory

  3. Religious War: The opposition was characterized as a "dharmayudh" (religious war), with participants portraying themselves as defenders of Hinduism against perceived governmental overreach into religious matters
    .
  4. Caste Concerns: Some leaders, like Swami Karpatriji, questioned Ambedkar's authority to legislate on Hindu matters due to his background as a former "Untouchable," suggesting that a person of his caste should not interfere in Brahmin-dominated issues
These arguments fueled widespread protests and mobilization against the bill across India.

The BJP and Congress have markedly different approaches to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's legacy:
  1. Recognition vs. Appropriation: The BJP seeks to appropriate Ambedkar's legacy to align itself with Dalit and OBC communities, presenting itself as a champion of his ideals. In contrast, Congress historically recognized Ambedkar but is often accused of neglecting his contributions and failing to honor his legacy adequately.
  2. Political Narratives: The BJP uses Ambedkar's image to counter allegations of being anti-Dalit, framing its policies as supportive of his vision. Conversely, Congress emphasizes its historical ties to Ambedkar, portraying the BJP as disrespectful, especially in light of recent controversial remarks by its leaders.
  3. Cultural Integration: The BJP integrates Ambedkar into a broader Hindu nationalist narrative, while Congress focuses on his role as a constitutional architect and advocate for social justice, often highlighting the contradictions in the BJP's claims against its actions regarding caste and reservation policies

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Helen Mirren once said: Before you argue with someone, ask yourself.......

Helen Mirren once said: Before you argue with someone, ask yourself, is that person even mentally mature enough to grasp the concept of a different perspective. Because if not, there's absolutely no point. Not every argument is worth your energy. Sometimes, no matter how clearly you express yourself, the other person isn’t listening to understand—they’re listening to react. They’re stuck in their own perspective, unwilling to consider another viewpoint, and engaging with them only drains you. There’s a difference between a healthy discussion and a pointless debate. A conversation with someone who is open-minded, who values growth and understanding, can be enlightening—even if you don’t agree. But trying to reason with someone who refuses to see beyond their own beliefs? That’s like talking to a wall. No matter how much logic or truth you present, they will twist, deflect, or dismiss your words, not because you’re wrong, but because they’re unwilling to see another side. Maturity is...
Post a Comment
Read more

The battle against caste: Phule and Periyar's indomitable legacy

In the annals of India's social reform, two luminaries stand preeminent: Jotirao Phule and E.V. Ramasamy, colloquially known as Periyar. Their endeavours, ensconced in the 19th and 20th centuries, continue to sculpt the contemporary struggle against the entrenched caste system. Phule's educational renaissance Phule, born in 1827, was an intellectual vanguard who perceived education as the ultimate equaliser. He inaugurated the inaugural school for girls from lower castes in Pune, subverting the Brahminical hegemony that had long monopolized erudition. His Satyashodhak Samaj endeavoured to obliterate caste hierarchies through radical social reform. His magnum opus, "Gulamgiri" (Slavery), delineated poignant parallels between India's caste system and the subjugation of African-Americans, igniting a discourse on caste as an apparatus of servitude. Periyar's rationalist odyssey Periyar, born in 1879, assumed the mantle of social reform through the Dravidian moveme...
Post a Comment
Read more

India needs a Second National Capital

Metta Ramarao, IRS (VRS) India needs a Second National Capital till a green field New National Capital is built in the geographical centre of India. Dr B R Ambedkar in his book "Thoughts on Linguistic States" published in 1955 has written a full Chaper on "Second Capital for India" While discussing at length justfying the need to go for a second capital has clearly preferred Hyderabad over Kolkata and Mumbai. He did not consider Nagpur. Main reason he brought out in his book is the need to bridge north and south of the country. He recommended Hyderabad as second capital of India. Why we should consider Dr Ambedkar's recommendation: Delhi was central to British India. After partition, Delhi is situated at one corner of India. People from South find it daunting to visit due to distance, weather, language, culture, etc. If Hyderabad is made second capital, it will embrace all southern states. People of South India can come for work easily. Further, if Supreme Court...
Post a Comment
Read more