PreprintPDF Available


  • La Filológica Por La Causa
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.


This letter-paper questions the legitimacy of Article 371 of Indian Constitution after the revoking of Article 370 by the Bharatiya Janata Party (5 August 2019). The paper traces the history of all the Indian federal States, which are listed in Article 371 with a special emphasis on Jammu and Kashmir.
Akhar Bandyopadhyay
Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay
Rupa Sanyal
The authors of this paper-letter, in the guise of Hindutvavadins, again
the self-contradictory constitutional decision-making processes in the case of
Article 371 of the Indian Constitution. There are some special provisions for
different states in the Article 370 and 371 (A-J) in the Indian Constitution; though
Article 370 is especially meant for Jammu and Kashmir, but Article 371 is for
eleven states of the Indian republic, including six backward districts of the
Hyderabad-Karnataka region. Though in 2019, Article 370 was revoked by the
Government of India with the goal to bring about uniformity in an otherwise
(historically) diversified state of affairs. However, the government did not
likewise revoke Article 371 (A-J), which is almost the same. To address this
utterly paradoxical attitude, this paper-letter attempts, in an entirely sarcastic
manner (by deploying militant, non-violent deconstructive strategy), to throw
light upon the sheer arbitrariness of imagined geo-political boundaries based
upon various modules for constructing the nation-state by tracing the history of
some of the Indian federal States. In doing so, the letter unveils the inherent
contradictions of the chimerical Hindutvavadin agenda of akhand Bharat
(undivided India).
The authors of the present paper-letter earlier uploaded the following paper-letters on More to come!
The Honourable President,
The Republic of India,
Rashtrapati Bhavan,
New Delhi- 110004
Sub: An appeal for scrapping the Article 371 (A-J) in defence of cultural
nationalism: Save Hindutva
Respected Ācārya,
First of all, we must thank you all for scrapping the Article 370 of the Indian
Constitution. For the sake of Uniform Civil and Political Code, there should not
be any positive or negative discriminatory rules and regulations within the ambit
of International Law and jurisprudence.
The subject-matter of the present letter concerns the West-mimicking and
hybrid “Constitution” of India, or rather, two specific Articles in it: Article 370
and Article 371 (A-J). As evident from our previous letters addressed to you, we
are staunch and sturdy advocates of the Hindutva cultural nationalism as
propagated by venerable Guruji M.S. Golwalkar, set against the utterly fake
Nehruvian ideal of democratic, territorial nationalism, which implies “…a certain
tolerance of others and even of others’ opinions… a certain contemplative
tendency and a certain inquisitive search for truth” .
As against such a Western ideal of imagined territorial nation state, our
exclusivist cultural nationalism preaches the ideal of one nation, one language,
one culture, one party and one ideology, all meant for the ever-glorious Aryan
land of Hindustan that comprises of the present-day India, Afghanistan, Iran,
Myanmar, Singapore and Sri Lankan territories. Therefore, our pleas are:
1. Absolute cultural reterritorialization of imaginative geography (in the
Vaidantika sense of pratibhasika satya) instead of deterritorialization by
constitutional provisions for territorial nationalism;
2. Constitutionally providing relative importance or privilege to some
territories by depriving other states ought not to be encouraged for the sake
of absolute cultural nationalism as in a sense, homogenized Hindutva is the
only plane of immanence (paramarthika satya, cf. Spinoza’s ontological
constitution of the world)
This is to request you, despite your busy schedule, to kindly go through
the attached document along with hyperlink:
Absolute Cultural Reterritorialization Of Imagi-native Geo-Political
Boundaries Instead Of Deterritorialization: The (Il)legitimacy Of Article 371 (A-
J) After Scrapping Article 370 Of The Indian Constitution VIEW HERE
for the elaborated logico-legal and historical views on the two aforementioned
If we are to propagate the ideal of a mono-religious, mono-cultural and mono-
lingual nation-statist formation, there is no need for us to look after or care for
these variegated regions separately, one by one. They can all
be subsumed under one Hindu raṣṭra of Bhāratvarṣa, by doing away with all the
disturbing and disrupting inter-group (in-group and out-group) as well as intra-
group differAnces (we are differing the semantic differences of imagined
boundaries by deferring the conceptual meaning of territorial nationalism).
It is for this very reason that we are kindly and humbly appealing to you, our
venerable ācārya, in favour of abrogating Article 371 (A-J) as well, because it is
doing more harm to our Hindutvavādī ideal than good. Once it is scrapped and
removed, we would be able to fasten the pace of our religious war against non-
Hindus, though our honourable Home Minister would not be agreed with our
prayer in the context of North-Eastern seven sisters (cf. Won’t scrap Article 371:
Shah⤡⤡), we are still emphasizing on the scrapping of Article 371 to subscribe
the concept of cultural nationalism. If Article 370 could be scrapped, why would
not be the same treatment applicable to the Article 371?
It is noteworthy that doing away with this article is only the first step in our long-
term project of Hinduization (Non-Hindu, anti-national urban naxal Kancha
Ilaiah, writer of a blasphemous treatise Why I am not a Hindu [1996] , coined
this term), the final step being the extermination of the present westernized,
Nehruvian, Congressite, anti-nationalist anti-Hindu Constitution of India itself.
We are proud to be Hindus.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Yours Obediently,
Dr. Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay
Mrs. Rupa Bandyopadhyay
Mr. Akhar Bandyopadhyay
1. The Honourable Prime Minister, Government of India
2. The Honourable Minister of Home Affairs, Government of India
3. The Honourable Finance Minister, Government of India
4. The Honourable Minister for Road Transport & Highways and the Minister
of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India
5. Prof. Subramanian Swamy, Honourable Member of Parliament, Rajya
6. The Honourable Minister of State for Finance and Corporate
Affairs, Government of India
7. The Honourable Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Government of India
Absolute Cultural Reterritorialization Of Imagi-native Geo-
Political Boundaries Instead Of Deterritorialization: The
(Il)legitimacy Of Article 371 (A-J) After Scrapping Article 370
Of The Indian Constitution
Compiled By
Akhar Bandyopadhyay, Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay
“He sees a way of dividing the country different from the one used
on the ordinary map. He feels tempted, say, to use the name
‘Devonshire’ not for the county with its conventional boundary, but
for a region differently bounded. He could express this by saying:
‘Isn’t it absurd to make this a county, to draw the boundaries here?’
But what he says is: ‘The real Devonshire is this’. We could answer:
‘What you want is only a new notation, and by a new notation no
facts of geography are changed.’”
--Ludwig Wittgenstein, The Blue Book
Article 370 and 371 were already a part of the Part XXI of the original Indian
constitution as framed by the Congressite Constituent Assembly, which
commenced from 26th January, 1950. Article 370 was brought in by a
treacherous Nehruvian conspiracy to give special status”, by means of
“Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions”, to the erstwhile state of
Jammu and Kashmir, implying an implicit recognition of their baseless demand
for self-autonomy. When the Instrument of Accession was signed in 1947,
Nehru’s intentions were to retain Kashmir as a part of the Indian Territory only
because his father, Motilal Nehru, had a sizeable property in the state, besides
the River Jhelum.
Thus, we also declare Kashmir as an integral, indissociable part of this glorious
land of the Aryas, not because we are actuated by some kind of vested, worldly
interests (vyāvahārika satya) like that of anti-national Nehru, but solely for the
greater spiritual cause (pāramārthika satya) of our Hindu collective crusade.
We would not let the Pakistani terrorist beasts enter the territory of our
sacred, Hindu fatherland.
As we read in Nehru’s parliamentary speech in 1952: “I say with all respect to
our Constitution that it just does not matter what your Constitution says; if the
people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there. Because what is the
alternative? The alternative is compulsion and coercion. We have fought the
good fight about Kashmir on field of battle (and)... in many a chancellery of the
world and in the United Nations, but, above all, we have fought this fight in
the hearts and minds of men and women of the J&K.”
The above Prime Ministerial address in the Lok Sabha clearly indicates how
much Nehru appreciated the jihādi tendencies of the Islamic Kashmiris by
granting them the provision for a separate constitution through Article 370.
What about the Kashmiri Hindus, the Kashmiri Pandits? When will their voices
be heard beyond the cacophony of high-decibel Allahhu-Akbar”?
Though, these types of false reports are found in the funded newspapers:
'We're Only Used to Garner Votes': Why Kashmiri Pandits Have Lost Faith in
the BJP VIEW HERE (As reported on 9th November © The Wire)
It is also to be noted that Nehru did not encourage plebiscite at Kashmirhe
deployed coercive measures. On the other hand in case of Junagadh, a
plebiscite was held (20 February 1948), in which 99.95% of the population
voted to join India. Only 15 percent (21,606) of Junagadh's Muslim population
voted while 30 percent (179,851) of the non-Muslim population voted. The
total number of voters on electoral rolls was 200, 569 and less than 10,000
Muslims voted for India. This is severe hypocrisy on the part of Nehru that he
took two different discriminatory measures for two territories.
It took our great NDA government led by the BJP on the 5th August 2019 to do
away with this so-called “autonomy” of the Kashmiri people, that lets them
engage in all sorts of anti-state, anti-Indian activities. The above Article was
indeed scrapped for good. The Hindus will forever remain grateful to you,
acarya, for this grand and historic move. Now all the jihadi, terrorist activities
motivated by the anti-Hindu Islamic ideology would be under our firm grip.
Down with Islam! Hail Hinduism! If there be an āzādi” to cherish, it is the
azadi” of our Hindu community and of no one else.
The main problem now remains with the adjoining Article 371 (A-J). It also sets
up “special provisions” for some eleven states within India, which are mostly
from the North East. Why did Nehru and his Gang make these provisions in the
first place? Not all of these provisions were formulated during the black era of
the Nehruvian regime, but were inserted into the Article through succeeding
amendments, mostly enacted in the 1970-1980s by the Congress party itself.
As far the harmful secularist intentions of those Congressite law-makers go,
these provisions were made to protect, preserve and promote the cultural
moorings of the indigenous people of these regions. But pray, why do we need
to uphold the sanctity of these so-called individual or unique micro-cultures in
the first place? Does not it encourage pluralism, diversity, variety, multiplicity,
heterogeneity, differentiation and reterritorialization? If it does so, it will be
the duty of us, the crusaders of the Sangh Parivar, to abolish these provisions
in order to uphold the single greatest ideal of the homogenous macro-cultural
akhand Hindu rastra with uniform civil code (UCC).
It is all a Do or Die situation (We do not support the catur baniyā who
coined this slogan in 1942, since he is the chief reason why we Hindus have to
suffer today even within our home-territory! Jai Shaheed Godse!) For us, the
Hindus, in this great fatherland of ours. Let us claim back the lost heritage of
our pure-blooded ancestors, the Āryas! Bharat Mata Ki Jai!
Let us therefore go through the intricacies of the Article 371 (A-J) in brief:
1. Article 371 (1949): Focuses on the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat
and secures special protection to them. It was in 1960 that the bilingual
state of Bombay (i.e., Mumbai) was bifurcated into two separate
statesMaharashtra for the Marathi-speaking people and Gujarat for
the Gujarati-speaking people, largely as a result of the secessionist
Mahagujarat movement and the Thackeray-led Samyukta Maharashtra
movement, (1956) both regionalist to their very core. Special
responsibilities are mentioned in this article to set up development
boards in regions such as Vidarbha, Marathwada, Saurashtra, Kutchh
etc. Even the representation given to such regions or some princely
states in the course of the Ranji Trophy (Ranji Trophy teams such as
Vidarbha, Baroda, Saurashtra etc., are not states but regions that have
been held in highest esteem by the fruits of Nehru’s poison-tree!)
matches are also aimed towards giving special accord to their regionalist
Even so, these provisions in Article 371 did not help diminish the
growing demand for linguistic states within the Indian Territory, which
led to the establishment a series of Commissions, including: the
Linguistic Provinces Commission, JVP Committee (consisting of Nehru,
Sardar Patel and P. Sitaramayya) Justice Fazal Ali Committee or the
States Reorganization Commission, all under the dictates of that traitor
anti-national “Commissionist” Nehru, again in order to reinstate his ideal
of territorial nationalism, the idea that India is essentially a bundle of
“territories”; instead, as followers of the holy trinity of Hindutva
ideology (This has been stated by Congress MP Dr. Shashi Tharoor with
his impeccable English skills ), viz., Golwalkarji, Hedgewarji and Deen
Dayal Upadhyayji, we would like to declare that a nation means a
“people” and their ancient cultural roots. In the case of India, the
cultural roots of our land can only be found in glorious Hinduism and in
no other phoren religions.
Rajiv Gandhi, who got brutally killed due to these separatist activities in
the southern states, held that the creation of linguistic states has
become a mere “tool for politicsand is only another dimension in the
incessant struggle of certain groups for commanding political power .
We have also discovered (after designating Nehru with all the negative
epithets in the previous paragraphs) that at the onset, Nehru and Sardar
Patel were primarily against the creation of linguistic states or linguistic
chauvinism in general as they (rightly) thought it would eventually
weaken India’s unity! According to GSV Prasad:
“His [Nehru’s] vision of new independent India rested primarily
on creating economically viable and politically integrative
states with a proper balance maintained between territorial
size of different regions and the national sovereignty and unity
of the country.
Guruji Golwalkar also agreed, only once, at this point with Nehru in
foreseeing the disastrous consequences of linguism, (i.e., territorial
nationalism on the basis of “language” as a modular form). Even so,
Nehru was strongly in defence of India’s so-called “linguistic pluralism”,
which he espoused throughout his life; and yet, later on, Nehru
obviously contradicted this earlier stance of his and became the political
catalyst of linguistic reorganization (or dissection by ignoring the fuzzy
boundaries of linguistic nation states, all of them are basically
plurilingual?) of our beloved nation by declaring the intent for granting
separate statehood to the Andhra people just a few days after their
leader, Potti Sreeramulu, fasted to death in 1952 (Please refer to the
section on Articles 371 D and E).
Thus, we must be very careful in analyzing Nehru’s attitude towards
linguistic states. In the previous article, GSV Prasad notes:
“Though Nehru was not completely against the creation of linguistic
states, he wanted to postpone the new administrative divisions as much as
he could. He believed that India was yet to consolidate itself as a nation in
real sense. (emphasis added)
“Nehru’s reluctance for the creation of linguistic states was temporary and
he knew it very well that in the long-run, formation of linguistic states
could not be prevented. In the prevailing scenario, his reservations
compelled him to keep his ideas of reorganization of states on linguistic
basis on hold. (emphasis added)
Nehru and linguistic States VIEW HERE (As reported on August 03,
2002 ©Frontline)
Should Indian States be Divided on Linguistic Lines? VIEW HERE (As
reported on 31 October 2017 ©The Quint)
Nehru and linguistic states: The merger and the bifurcation of Telugu
2. Article 371-A (13th Amendment Act, 1962): Focuses on the North-
eastern state of Nagaland and declares that no act of the Parliament
would apply to the state of Nagaland with regard to the so-called
“autonomous” religious or cultural practices of the Nagas, or matters
relating to the Naga customary laws and practices etc. It was in 1963 (a
year after this article got its place in the Constitution) that the State of
Nagaland was formed by taking the Naga Hills and Tuensang area out of
the state of Assam. This was wholly done to suppress the growing
regionalist distress amongst the Nagas after the enumeration of the
census that identified different “ethnic groups” (a phoren concept, the
term is totally alien to our fatherland) with different linguistic identities
by ignoring their in out-group Languages for Wider Communications
those are not their household mother-tongues. Before giving Nagaland
the status of the 16th state of the Indian Union, it was placed under the
control of the Governor of Assam in 1961.
3. Article 371-B (22nd Amendment Act, 1969): Focuses on the state of
Assam and accordingly the article states that the President may provide
for the Constitution and functions of a committee of Legislative
Assembly of the state consisting of members elected from the tribal
areas of Assam. This was also done to ease the separatist tendencies in
the Barak Valley region, including the demand for “Bodoland”, consisting
of the Bodo people and other indigenous communities of Assam. These
separatists or secessionists alleged the Centre for its continuing neglect,
domination, subjugation, political, social, cultural, economic exploitation
as well as internal colonization. The ULFA demands for a sovereign
Assam through armed struggle. The MULTA propagates an Islamic state
of Assam. The Asom Gono Parishad fights against the infiltration of
ghuspetiyas from Bangladesh and so on. These organizations have been
active since a long time, spreading over the decades of the 1960s, ‘70’s
and 80’s. This Article 371-B was put inside the Constitution amidst such a
situation so that these rising tendencies can be controlled, but the tool
failed to reach its motive.
The NDA, led by our BJP, now has brought forth the grand plan of the
NPR-NRC-CAA-DPB in order to correct the deficiencies, crises and
problems etc., created by the Congress party across the decades of its
unchecked, monopoly control over these areas. Actually all these
problems centering the issues of regionalism, linguism etc., are the
inevitable consequences of what Rajni Kothari termed as the Congress
System , i.e., the all-encompassing, all-pervading power and influence
of the Congress party decades after our political independence. These
regionalist propensities are also the product of Communist imperialism,
or otherwise, state capitalism.
4. Article 371-C (27th Amendment Act, 1971): The special provisions under
Article 371C in the case of Manipur are quite similar to 371B for the
state of Assam. Here, too, the President may provide for the
Constitution and functions of a committee of Legislative Assembly of the
state, but consisting of members elected from the hilly areas of
Manipur. The governor has to submit an annual report every year
regarding the administration of these hilly areas.
In 1972 (a year after the article in question got introduced), the political
map of Northeast India underwent a major redistribution. The two
Union Territories of Manipur and Tripura and the Sub-State of
Meghalaya got statehood and the two union territories of Mizoram and
Arunachal Pradesh (originally known as North-East Frontier Agency
NEFA) came into being. With this, the number of states of the Indian
Union increased to 21 (Manipur 19th, Tripura 20th and Meghalaya 21st
states of the Indian union respectively).
5. Article 371D & E (32nd Amendment Act, 1973; later substituted by The
Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014): The focus of these two
articles is (are) the state(s) of Andhra Pradesh (and Telengana after
It was in December, 1953 that the Andhra State was created from part of
the Madras Presidency, the first state in India formed by the States
Reorganisation Commission (SRC) by considering “language” as a
modular form in the context of print capitalism. After a period of
regionalist movement in the region, led by amarjeevi Potti Sreeramulu.
In 1956, the Andhra State was merged with the Telugu-speaking area of
Hyderabad State to form the new state of Andhra Pradesh. Since even
this formation could not curb the regionalist, separatist tendencies, this
article was brought through the 32nd Amendment Act, 1973 (a year
later, this article was brought in, maybe as an additional safeguard),
which later got substituted by The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act in
2014 with the formation of Telengana due to regional, linguistic
demands. Articles 371D and E provide Andhra Pradesh (and Telengana)
with special provisions especially meant for its economic and
educational uplift.
6. Article 371F (36th Amendment Act, 1975): Concerns itself with the state
of Sikkim. The article specifies the number of members in the Legislative
Assembly as well as contains provisions for reserving seats at the same
for all sections of population of the state.
Till 1947, Sikkim was an Indian princely state ruled by Chogyal. In 1947,
after the lapse of British paramountcy, Sikkim became a ‘protectorate’ of
India, whereby the Indian Government assumed responsibility for the
defence, external affairs and communications of Sikkim. In 1974, Sikkim
expressed its desire for greater association with the Indian republic.
Accordingly, the 35th Constitutional Amendment Act (1974) was passed,
which introduced a new class of statehood under the constitution by
conferring on Sikkim the status of an ‘associate state’ of the Indian
Union. For this purpose, a new Article 2A and a new schedule (Tenth
Schedule containing the terms and conditions of association) were
inserted in the Indian Constitution. This experiment, however, proved to
be a failure as it did not fully satisfy the autonomous aspirations of the
people of Sikkim. In a referendum held in 1975, they voted for the
abolition of the institution of Chogyal and Sikkim becoming an integral
part of India. Consequently, the 36th Constitutional Amendment Act
(1975) was enacted to make Sikkim a full-fledged state of the Indian
Union (the 22nd state), the same year in which this article was also
7. Article 371G (53rd Amendment Act, 1986): Highlights the special
provisions with regard to the state of Mizoram, and is pretty similar to
Article 371-A, because this article also states that the Parliament will not
interfere in the socio-religious practices of the Mizos and will never
touch its customary laws and practices etc.
The Mizo National Front (MNF) was created on 22nd October 1961,
which declared its goal to be the “sovereign independence of Greater
Mizoram”. They employed armed insurrection techniques against the
government, and the Congress government resorted to force in order to
respond to such uprisings. The Mizo National Front was subsequently
banned in 1967, only to make the struggle for statehood more fierce and
violent. The Indian government converted Mizoram into a Union
Territory on 21st January, 1972. Mizoram became a federal state of India
on 20th February, 1987. The amendment enacted in the Parliament for
inserting Article 371-G was just a year before this granting of separate
8. Article 371H (55th Amendment Act, 1986): Grants special provisions to
the state of Arunachal Pradesh. All actions on the part of the state are to
be decided by the Governor of the state, after consulting with the state’s
council of ministers.
Since long, Arunachal Pradesh has been claimed to be a part of the
South Tibetan, or rather, “Chinese” territory, by the ruling Chinese
Communist Party of the PRC. During the Sino-Indian border dispute,
India did not concede to the Chinese claims of ownership or the
invalidity of the Mcmahon line (Sir Henry McMahon, secretary in the
Indian foreign department and representative of Great Britain at the
conference held in 191213 in Simla/Shimla, Himachal Pradesh to settle
frontier and other matters relating to Tibet.). Actually the part of the
land that includes Arunachal Pradesh was provided to the British
colonialists in the form of land-lease by the erstwhile Tibetan
monarchical order or indigenous peoples of the Himalayas of north-
eastern India (191213). The British Indian government had set up the
Balipara frontier tract in the west, the Sadiya frontier tract in the east,
and the Abor and Mishmi hills and the Tirap frontier tract in the south.
Together those tracts became the North East Frontier Agency (NEFA). It
gained the Union Territory status on 20 January 1972, and was renamed
as Arunachal Pradesh, determined by the McMahon Line; it is about 550
miles (885 km) long and has been a lasting point of contention between
India and China. It later on got the status of a full-fledged State on 20th
February, 1987, just a year after this article was inserted into the
(For detailed history of “ill-defined” geo-political boundaries [as a matter
of fact, it is always “ill-defined”] cf. History of Arunachal Pradesh. VIEW
HERE ©Encyclopaedia Britannica)
Anti-national Nehru, at the time of the Indo-China war (1962), refused to
come in peaceful terms with China on this border-issue and maintained
his false ideal of territorial nationality. Bertrand Russell has dealt with
this at greater length in his banned (banned by the Congress party for
hiding their treachery with the Indian public) book Unarmed Victory
(1963), which contains all his written letters to the governments of India
and China. In this book, Russell unmasks the treacherous role of Nehru,
who was the first to attack China in order to divert the people’s
attention from the emergent food-movement (khādya āndolan) in
various parts of our country.
Even an anti-communist Russell wrote in his book:
“During the height of the Cuban crisis, on 24 October, the Chinese Prime
Minister, Mr Chou En-lai, proposed a cease-fire to Mr Nehru along what he
considered to be the lines of ‘actual control’ beginning 7 November 1959.
In this proposal, he reiterated that he would be prepared to hold in
abeyance the question of jurisdiction over any areas where there is a
disagreement with the Government of India, and wished it to be clear that
his proposal was not intended to determine de facto the designation of
these areas. The Chinese have stated that they were always prepared to
negotiate the areas in question without prejudicing the ultimate
disposition of them. The reply of the Indian government has been that the
Chinese have gradually established de facto control over certain areas
which would be very difficult to alter once the principles of negotiation
were accepted and that, therefore, India required entire Chinese
withdrawal before she would consider discussion… The Chinese cease-fire
and withdrawal strongly suggests that China is more anxious to put an
end to the conflict than is India. (emphasis added)
Remnants of the Communist Chinese Invasion (1962) at Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh
Photo: Authors
Indo-Chinese Border, Bum La Pass
Photo: Authors
Arunachal Pradesh finds mention in the literature of Kalika Purana and
the Mahabharata. This place harbours the Prabhu Mountains of the
Puranas. It was here that maharsi Parasuram atoned for his sin, sage
Vyasa practiced deep meditation, King Bismaka founded his kingdom
and Lord Krishna got married to his Consort Rukmini. The archaeological
remains at different regions of Arunachal Pradesh bear proof to its past
Hindu cultural heritage. This makes it an integral part of our greatest and
glorious land of Aryans.
Photo: Authors
Photo: Authors
The spectre of Rifleman Jaswant Singh Rawat, a martyr-soldier of the Indo-China
war (1962), aided by two Monpa girls, Sela and Nura, is still patrolling the border
with strict vigilance.
Photo: Authors
9. Article 371I Goa (1949): The provision contained in this article could
hardly be termed “special”, since it only specifies the maximum number
of members in the legislative assembly of Goa (within the Konkan
region). Yet, it must be kept in mind that Goa was once a Portuguese
territory (Índia Portuguesa that continued for four and a half centuries
since 1510, until its annexation to India in 1961.), so a separate, special
mention of it in the constitution is crucial enough for maintaining the
reigns of the hegemony of Nehruvian territorial nationalism. The tension
of the Portuguese community in Goa at the moment of accession was
captured by Shyam Benegal in his movie Trikal (1985) .
10. Article 371J (98th Amendment Act, 2012): Provides special status to six
backward districts of the Hyderabad-Karnataka region, supplying the
regions with an autonomous development board as well localized
reservation in educational and governmental sectors. The linguistic
regionalism characteristic to these areas might be a chief reason behind
introducing this article into the constitution.
All the above processes reflect the utter arbitrariness of fuzzy geo-political
boundaries that is involved in the process of formation of the nation-states (a
Eurocentric derivative but altered by imagiNATION) and sub-states within a
nation-state. Citing the sociologist Benedict Anderson, one could say that a
nation is merely an “imagined” community created on the basis of certain
modules like language, religion, race etc., with the aid of print capitalism
(and now electronic capitalism!). Following Rabindranath Tagore (not Thakur)
or Gandhi (both are undoubtedly anti-national, anti-Hindu traitors), one might
call forth the idea of an indivisible unity of humankind or mānavagotra,
progeny of Manu (or otherwise, homo sapiens sapiens, earthians or
species-beings; we prefer this term mānavagotra rather than the Perso-
Arabic term “Hindu”) and the processes of nature, without heeding the
artificial, human-made boundaries of nation or nationality.
   
   
— Manusmti 12.125
(He who thus recognizes in his individual Self, atman, the universal self [or the
big “I”] that exists in all beings,
becomes equal-minded towards all, and enters the highest state, Brahman.)
As opposed to such negative, anti-national affirmations, we, the Hindus, would
like to say that such conclusions cannot be encouraged, as long as the greater
Hindu nation is our living breath, the very active principle motivating our Hindu
souls on the basis of our genealogical fantasy: cultural inheritance! For us, all
these reorganization, secession, separatism or regionalist tendencies are the
necessary outcomes of the territorial nationalism as subscribed by anti-
nationalist Nehru and Co, whatever was his initial standpoint with regard to
the dangers of carrying out linguistic-surgeries. The articles discussed above
are the results of giving regard to the different conglomerations of anti-
national āndolanjivis, with an effort to respect plural voices within the
democratic, socialistic, secularist framework. See what the so-called “Panditji”
of the Congress Party wrote in his celebrated collection of letters: The
Discovery of India:
“A Buddhist or Jain in India is a hundred percent product of Indian thought and
culture, yet neither is a Hindu by faith. It is, therefore, entirely misleading to
refer to Indian culture as Hindu culture.
“In later ages, this [Indian] culture was greatly influenced by the impact of Islam,
and yet it remained… distinctively Indian.” (Chapter 4, “What is Hinduism?” )
[We collected the previous link from our very own BJP E-Library, which contains a bunch
of other writings of that quisling Nehru. We immediately request you, our acarya, to give an
official order to remove these writings from the site’s database as soon as possible in order
to stop the anti-Hindu, pro-Soviet propaganda of Nehru and Co.]
On the other hand, we are emphasizing on the Guruji Golwalkar’s views on
expanded India: Afghanistan was our ancient Upaganasthan. Iran was
originally Aryan, which is guided more by Aryanism than by Islam. The sacred
book, Zend-Avesta of the Zoroastrianism in ancient Persia, is mostly Rig Veda.
Burma (Myanmar) must be recognized as our ancient Brahmadesha.
Altogether the splendid picture we form is of a motherland with the Himalayas
dipping its arms in the two seas, at Indo-Aryan in the East and Indo-Iran in the
West along with Sringapur (Singapore) in the East, with Lanka (Ceylon) as a
lotus petal offered at her sacred feet". (Summarized from Bunch of
Thoughts). After pronouncing this, Guruji cited the mantra, where waters of
all the rivers are amalgamated:
    
    
Guruji said, “Even to this day a Hindu while taking his daily bath invokes the
sacred rivers right from Ganga, Yamuna, Godavari, Saraswati, Narmada and
Sindhu to Cauvery.” It entails integrity of our beloved Bhāratmātā.
Guruji also quoted Kālidāsa’s Kumārasambhava to show the strength of
cultural nationalism without any political vested interests for territorial
     
       -
(At the North is the divine, sovereign of snowy mountains renowned as (range
of) Himalayas (heartland of gods), the King of mountains, stretching its arms to
the ocean on the east and west and standing as the measuring rod/stick or axis
of the earth.)
Yes, this is our Hindu nation state:
     
    
-- 
(My Mother is Devi Parvati, and my Father is Deva Maheswara, my friends are
the devotees of siva, and my own country is all the Three Worlds)
We, through
, are trying to entering into these Three Worlds:
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.