Is secularism the other side of genocide and is it thus unconstitutional?

Can a constitution treat a murderer and a law-abiding citizen as equals?

Can a constitution treat a murderer and a law-abiding citizen as equals?
Can a constitution treat a murderer and a law-abiding citizen as equals?

Will such a constitution or application of secularism morally and ethically be valid by any stretch of logic and evidence? The honest answer is NO.

The term secularism was not present in the original Indian constitution framed by the Constituent Assembly and Bharat Ratna Dr. Ambedkar. It was undemocratically added by Indira Nehru while her party, the Indira Congress (not the Indian National Congress) was in power and had declared an emergency. The legacy of this dictatorial act of an illegitimate government has come to full fruition now with many judgements effectively declaring that secularism is to treat Hindus as non-citizens in their own land.

Even such vague policies as the latter are accepted as fair and just by many.

Everybody might be aware that drunken driving is an offence. Whether such a driver causes an accident or not they are arrested and prevented from driving as a “preventive” measure against accidents and fatalities. It is a matter of fact and logic that a significant proportion of those caught are highly unlikely to cause accidents even while drunk as different people have varying levels of resistance to the influence of substances and are known to drive relatively safely even while drunk! Yet, as a society, we take preventive and often punitive action (including arrest and punishments such as revoking the licence, etc.) against such drivers because it is almost impossible to predict when and who when drunk will cause an accident, fatal or not. So the idea of such a “preventive” policy is to reduce accidents and fatalities by prosecuting all drunk driving, which is generally considered a fair and just policy. There are many such “preventive” policies in force in most functional societies, such as “preventive” arrests or detainment for the prevention of unrest in the society, etc. Even such vague policies as the latter are accepted as fair and just by many.

If the above is the case (“preventive” measures) for isolated incidents of accidents and fatalities, should it not be the case that anything that significantly increases the risk of genocide should not be allowed but banned and ruthlessly prosecuted as it is a crime against the entire humanity to allow forces of genocide to operate freely?

It is an undeniable fact of over two millennia of evidence that certain theologies and philosophies holding sway over vast sections of the population across the globe have been a repeat and continuous offenders of the outrageous crime of genocide against the entirety of humanity. The most important fact of this is that none of these theologies or philosophies has shown any reformative tendencies and stopped their behavior even in the slightest.

Islamists in India have committed one of the largest recorded genocide, often unparalleled in cruelty and evil.

In spite of Christianity being the cause and the justification for the White race to eliminate over 21 billion people (in today’s population count and density) across the globe, the entire races of native Americans, native Australians and many peoples of Asia and of course Africa, centuries of slavery and indentured labour, it is still seen fit and “secular” to allow the religion to exist without any change or amendments to its ideology whatsoever. Moreover, people argue as if Christianity is genuinely a religion of love (RoL) and has reformed itself. Has it? As recently as in the mid-1990s in Rwanda the Christian Church committed genocide of millions of poor Africans inside the Church premises themselves, and that too using the divide-and-rule policy where Christian Africans were made to kill fellow Christian Africans in the so-called places of god, the churches! [1]

Historically this has been justified by the Christians with various ludicrous “philosophical” arguments, such as non-Christians do not have a soul, it is the White man’s burden to civilise the “savage” non-whites, etc. However ridiculous it might appear these arguments still have sway as demonstrated by the current affairs and the past empirical facts of human history.

Similarly, Islamists in India have committed one of the largest recorded genocide, often unparalleled in cruelty and evil. Again, this is not a historical event or a historical series that has come to an end. As recently as in the early 1990s, all Hindu Kashmiris have been driven out of Kashmir. The almost non-existent Hindu population of Pakistan and fast-dwindling Hindu population of Bangladesh (now at less than 10 percent), from 25–30 percent mark in 1947 paints an undeniable picture of the continuing atrocities across the globe, especially the Indian subcontinent. [2]

Now, how does one constitutionally, morally and ethically justify supporting secularism that “equally” respects such empirically demonstrable forces of genocide and perpetrators of all sorts of crimes against humanity, such as these Abrahamic religions? How does one justify prosecution of drunk drivers but not proven genocidal forces by a constitution that guarantees the right to life of all law-abiding citizens? Can a constitution treat a murderer and a law-abiding citizen as equals?

Not all followers of these theologies are criminal in intent and many will never involve themselves in a crime perhaps, but can anyone guarantee that none of them ever will? If this society cannot tolerate drunk-driving, which appropriately it should not indeed, how can it tolerate forces of genocide (and other such unspeakable atrocities) to operate freely?

Of course, nobody can effectively do mind control and prevent people from believing in certain theologies or philosophies however demonstrably evil they are, but can a constitution guaranteeing the right to life of law-abiding citizens allow such theologies and philosophies to operate, organise and propagate freely under the guise of secularism, free speech and freedom of “conscience”? Is the promotion of genocide conscientious?

Will such a constitution or application of secularism morally and ethically be valid by any stretch of logic and evidence? The honest answer is NO.



[1] Lisapo ya Kama. Available at: How the Hutu and the Tutsi have been created  [Accessed September 1, 2018].

[2] Ambedkar BR (1941) Thoughts on Pakistan (Thacker and Company Limited).

A medic and a graduate of the University of Cambridge, England,involved in inter-disciplinary research for the inculcation of a scientific rigour in the outdatedfields of humanities: putting "science"
into social sciences.
Murali KV


  1. This is the first time I read this kind of argument. It makes good sense. What next?
    Here are a few possibilities.
    One could take this to international fora and ask them to debate this. BBC is one example. The head of one Hindu organisation in the UK is busy making videos. He might be persuaded to take this issue up and knock at BBC doors.
    The world Hindu Congress is busy discussing research papers. They might be asked to change course.
    The great unselfish Saint ruler of India is busy with business. Maybe he could one could beg with him to take action.
    My point is, there has to be some action.

  2. In our country the so called SECULARISM was inserted by the dynasty ruling clique in belive just before 1975 emergency. We used to discuss in the ORGANIZER too. Late Indira split INC and we have had two Congress parties – one Old Congress and new Cong-I lead by late Indira. It is a mystery that BJPs spokes persons even to this day call Cong-I as a “grand old party” as if it has still retained “cow and calf” as its’ party symbol thereby forgetting “hand” is their present party symbol. We also objected to misusing national flag as a party flag too while Mahatma Gandhi asked the then freedom movement called Congress to disband it totally after getting Independence! It takes time to delete that dirty phrase called Secularism as long as these secular skunks survive in our polity!!

  3. Soul of Indian Constitution was assassinated by Indira Feroze Ghande during 1975 Emergency Era, when in order to strengthen her position against the Prayagraj High Court order, which held her election as an MP of Lok Sabha invalid. So in order to strengthen her position she declared internal Emergency on her own and sent it to then President Fakruddin Ali Ahmed for approval, who had signed it knowing well that proposal declaring internal emergency came to him without cabinet approval. The anomaly was rectified later by Siddarth Shankar Ray, who was Man Friday, for Indira Feroze Ghande then. Whenever Nehru/Ghande clan is political position is threatened, they resort to crass communal acts, not minding the consequences of their action to our Country. One such act was insertion of SECULARISM, SOCIALIST in the preamble of Indian Constitution. India is secular from time immemorial because it is predominantly Hindu, whose policy is LIVE AND LET LIVE PEACEFULLY. Who is responsible for foisting the UNDEMOCRATIC, AUTOCRATIC, RABID MUSLIM it was the GREAT MOHANDHAS KARAMCHAND GANDHI, who was belated killed by Freedom Fighter Shri Nathuram Godse. He should have been eliminated / removed from the political scene long time back, when he protested the Election of Shri Subhash Chandra Bose as President of Congress and made him to resign. The same M K Gandhi did repeat the treacherous act of killing the decision of Sardar Vallabhai Patel as Congress President not once, but twice. He deliberately thwarted the election of Shri Sardar Vallabhai Patel as the Prime Minister of Independent India, when 13 Congress regional presidents voted for him. Nehru got the backing of JUST TWO Members. M K Gandhi killed the democratic decision of Vallabhai Patel’s election as PM of India in 1947 and prevailed upon him to make way for the USELESS THEN GREAT PAPPU & GREAT WOMANISER Jawaharlal Nehru. Result is ourCountry is suffering the result of WRONG DECISION forced on the people of India, by losing large tracts of land to Pak in 1947-48, China in 1949-50 & 1962 and the holy Kailash Manasarovar, which was under Indian administration for many years usurped by the China surreptitiously under the slogan Hindi Chini bhai bhai.

    Now, what we should do is to undo the Indira Feroze Ghande’s decision of SECULARISM, SOCIALISM from Indian Constitution and make / declare it AS HINDU RASHTRAM. Any way it was originally envisaged and planned so in the Indian Independence Act passed by British Parliament, whereby Muslims will be given Pakistan and the rest of India for HINDUS.

  4. Our Hindu way of life was subjugated under Islamic and Christian rule. Despite us being blessed with Vedic knowledge and wisdom, we remained politically naive and disunited. Thus the Islamic invaders exploited the satrap mentality of Hindu kings. the Brits , per 1941 census, ruled and controlled millions of us with barely 145,000 white British people in the country….the Gandhi family ruled Hindus with an appropriated name ( fake Gandhi) and we served with indentured servitude! Unless Bharat assumes its identity and bans “religious conversion” to PROTECT ethnic religiosity, the western concept of religious freedom will continue to exploit and dominate the gullible.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here