No Dharma in Law.

The events in Judiciary today represent a watershed moment. The legal machinery manifests the principle that Indian Law is based only on Western Religious Thought and there is no space for Dharma In Law.

The Foundational Force of Law is always Religion in Modern Nation State. Law Requires Religious Principles to be its foundation before it gains a foothold on its own in Human Society. After The Law gains foothold, its religious foundation can be disconnected.

The religious foundation fades from the memory of the common public but not the religious institutions. However, The Sanatana Dharmic Foundations of our country have no role in Law-making process because Sanatana Dharma cannot be defined as a "Religion". Though Dharma can provide "Force" to Law, The Dharmic Force is seen as regressive and un-wanted in the modern world.

Firstly, The term "Religion" is always defined in the context of the Western Abrahamic Judeo-Christian Context Only. The very word "Religion" Denotes the Western Way of Looking at How we must look, feel and use the Physical World. Life is meant to be lived as per the Religious Tenets and there is nothing beyond this "truth". Violation of the tenets brings harshest punishments after the life is over and sometimes enforced during lifetime itself. There is no Higher Consciousness that is possible for "Religious" People. Following the Religious Dogma is the Only Duty in Life. All Activities in Life is in the direction of the Religious Dogma. This was the Lens that was imposed upon us by Islamic Colonialism and European Colonialism. There was no scope for Dharma here to offer the perspective of the Indian Nation. Religion is an end in itself whereas Hindu Dharma goes beyond Religion. Everyone can establish Dharma but Everyone cannot establish Religious Dogma. The source of Inequality is Not Dharma but Religion. There was no need for "Religion" in India prior to Colonialism.

It is an undisputed fact that the foundation of the Jurisprudence in India set down by the British was Roman Law - Latin Maxims. The foundation of Criminal Law in India is Actus Reus Nisi Mens Sit Rea. The foundation of Adminstrative law is Delegatus Non Potest Delegare. The Foundation of Separation of Powers in Constitutional Law comes from the principle of Separation of State and the Church. Where was Hindu Dharma in all this?

On Examination of the Colonial Era Literature Legal and Indology included, we can learn that the intention of the British to introduce a Legal system modelled after Christian Europe was to isolate "Hindu Dharma" and remove Dharma from Political And Social Life. The goal was to accomodate Islamic and Christian Dogmas in order to further the larger agenda of conversion of the Indian Natives in the name of "Bringing Civilisation to India". Since, Islam and Christianity both originated from the same sources, the British accommodated Islam more than Hindu Dharma even when they opposed or disagreed with Islam globally.

The author SN Balagangadhara in his Book What Does it Mean to be 'Indian'? writes

that the most detrimental effect of Colonialism is that Native Indians were denied access to their traditional way of life by inducing Culture Shock by Two Methods. One is the cultural approach to wean away Indians from accessing their own culture. The other is the Legal approach by approaching legal issues in the native population by applying the Western Legal Lens.

The Legal approach pre-independence era saw a domination of Christian Colonial Lenses. Post-Independence has seen a meteoric rise of Islamic Legal Lens and Communist/Marxist Legal Lens on top of the Christian Colonial Legal Lens. The result being that No Principle of Dharma is even permitted to be proposed as a possible solution to a legal problem. The below is a discussion of a few examples of this legal phenomenon and is by no means an exhaustive list.

The modern understanding of dowry in India has been shaped by the historical overlay of Christian life and values upon the Indian cultural framework. This superimposition has distorted the Indian psyche to the extent that foreign concepts of dowry have been internalized as native tradition. Consequently, the legal system rooted in Western moral reasoning addresses dowry-related offences through punitive frameworks that neither heal familial rifts nor uphold justice. Instead, most legal resolutions in matrimonial disputes amount to formalized conspiracies that erode the conscience of individuals and families alike, leaving no space for genuine reconciliation or resolution.

In contrast, In Dharmic History never viewed marriage through the lens of victimhood or oppression. The marital bond is symbolized by divine pairs—Shiva and Shakti, Vishnu and Lakshmi—emphasizing balance, mutual respect, and spiritual complementarity. Dharmic history celebrates the autonomy and dignity of the wife, who could rightfully distance herself when her identity was wronged, and expects the husband to accommodate and honor her unconditionally. Even Children can question their parents on Dharmic Duties. The continued sanctity of great Dharmic sites such as Palani, Tirupati, Srirangam, and Kamakhya attests to this enduring principle. The distortion of this balance through imported moral codes invites deeper reflection and necessitates a return to indigenous frameworks for understanding marriage and familial harmony.

The evidentiary value of a Dying Declaration is based upon the Latin maxim Nemo Moriturus Praesumtius Mentire which means A Dying Man Will Not Meet His Maker with a Lie In His Mouth. Every procedural safeguard set down by the Judiciary is an attempt to reinforce belief in the Dying Declaration.

In Dharmic History, where Life is understood to continue after death, Dying Declarations are not given much weight because the question whether the dying soul has accepted its fate or is burning with revenge would determine the course of action in the next birth. If this Dharmic principle is applied then the weightage of the Dying Declaration will either become the maximum or become nought.

The modern legal treatment of murder, culpable homicide, and death by negligence is rooted in the Biblical commandment “Thou shall not murder.” This Western moral framework, inherited through colonial jurisprudence, continues to shape India’s criminal law, prioritizing dogma over truth. The distinction between “murder” and “killing” remains blurred in Christian Dogma, and the Christian Invented concept of “justified killing” As a result, justice systems focus on proving guilt or doubt rather than uncovering the truth, leading to grudging and reluctant acquiescence of revenge killings, police encounters, and even the death penalty that manifest because of moral confusion perpetuated by flawed Western religious influence.

In contrast, Dharmic jurisprudence treats the act of taking life with profound seriousness and multidimensional analysis. It demands that any killing be a last resort, carried out only to minimize suffering and preserve dharma. Truth, not dogma, lies at the center of this system. The accused must openly demonstrate a righteous reason for their act, ensuring moral clarity for both the judiciary and society. Such an approach eliminates the need for elaborate legal narratives and offers a path toward societal healing—where every act of taking life reveals lessons for preventing future violence rather than perpetuating cycles of bloodshed.

The History of the Offences in Chapter XVI of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Of Offences Relating to Religion /Chapter XV of Indian Penal Code is chequered and openly demonstrates how Dharma has no place in law. The word "Worship" is the contentious issue with regard to this chapter and the auxiliary legislation of Independent India - The Places of Worship Act, 1991 in the issues surrounding reclamation of temples of Kashi and Mathura. The emerging moot point is the definition around the word "Worship" and how there is no "worship" in Dharma. It remains to be seen how this meaning of the word "Worship" will be addressed by the Judiciary. The history behind enactment of Section 295-A IPC/S.299 BNS 2023 is illuminatory. A study of the cases decided by The Judiciary under this chapter give a clear answer as to why The Judiciary is not able to address attack on Dharmic Sentiments Effectively as that of other Religions. This is apparent in the cases relating to TN HR&CE where recent judicial pronouncements have been nullified by a hyper-fast legislation in the State Assembly.

I have Already written How Islamic Personal Law is being made universal foundation in issues such as Marriage, divorce etc hence, here it is suffice to say that Islamic Personal Law is largely "Untouched" by the judiciary even when "Secular" issues

are at stake. Unless the Heat of The Issue becomes too unbearable such as the Shah Bano Case, Triple Talaq Case and the Wakf Amendment Case, the Judiciary does not interfere. This is not the case where Hindu Issues are concerned for Hindu Dharma is seen as the Punching Bag for "Secularism".

Law and Legal System In India today cannot be the only answer to all issues. Many Issues can be solved by delving deep into the Dharmic Consciousness of this country. If Courts Continue to use Colonial, Socialist Lenses for approaching legal issues, it would only further the Missionary, Islamic and Marxist Cause of destroying the civilisation of this nation. No Citizen of India is against reform, but it is a undeniable fact that a legitimate expectation exists that reform must come from within the Dharmic Civilisational Ethos.

I also highlight here that simply quoting Dharmasastras or Karma theory in judicial pronouncements will not have the effect of bringing the legal frame work in line with dharma. A real attempt has to be made by the legal fraternity in understanding the specific principles behind dharmic approaches to various disputes and incorporate those principles within the current legal framework. It is not an easy task. If done wrongly, communist backlash is one of the social shocks likely to ensure. Already the signs are showing where Many Hon'ble Judges are regularly being pulled up by the Leftists for being supporters of Hindutva.

The Judiciary is not able to justify "Moral Convictions" in Criminal Trials because the reasoning behind such convictions are "inferred" and not "expressed". Most ( not all) Moral Convictions are based upon the Dharmic Consciousness within the psyche of the particular Judge and the fact that such consciousness cannot be expressed in legally recognized language demonstrates the current state of Dharmic Consciousness in our legal system.

I am not saying that Courts should start applying ONLY Dharmic Lens to all legal disputes. But why is that a Dharmic lens is not permitted to be even "analysed" as a possible solution to a legal problem?

Why is the Judiciary acquisecing to the Leftist demand that only Colonial Legal Lens or Communist Legal Lens be applied as the case may be?

Is it because of Fear that Colonial/Marxist Indoctrination Education crafted over centuries is going down the drain as Lost Investment ?

When the University Grants Commission issued a Framework Draft that recommended "invocations to Devi Saraswati, analysis of Kautilya's Arthasastra and Veer Savarkar's Indian War of Independence 1857" as part of the higher education curriculum, it is being stoutly opposed by Leftists and Progressive Groups. The same is welcomed as Pinnacle of Secularism.

The Feeble Opposition of the Hindu Right rests on the twin facts of absence of similar opposition when west-recognised religious texts are inducted into curriculum and that Arthasastra is being taught to American Military.

Such Opposition is same as leaking the question paper to the other side and The Progressives are easily ready with answers. The real opposition should be that any entity that speaks against the civilisational ethos of this country does not deserve to exist in this country and rendered legally not- recognizable . This calls for a de-recognition of the Left and Progressive Jurisprudence which without a doubt will rattle everyone including The Hindu Right and there lies the greatest triumph of the Left and the Western Jurisprudence.

There are many instances where Law Enforcement has roped in counsellors for radicalised Islamic Youth from the Islamic fold to de-radicalise the youths.

Why a similar approach is not being taken with respect to Caste Honour Killings in Hindu Youth by taking assistance of the respective religious heads?

This route is not even considered by the Judiciary neither is it proposed by any of the legal luminaries who appear for the parties. In fact, a closer examination of the legal practitioners who appear in such cases of Honor Killings would reveal that all of them belong to the Communist - Marxist Ecosystem who denounce Hindu Dharma as a regressive culture completely and do not even consider the possibility that Dharma based solutions could be explored. Now, If the same principle that applies to de-radicalisation of Islamic terrorists through religious heads is applied to Honour Killings then instead of Committees of Retired Judges to answer questions of caste based violence, the State must approach the various Dharmic Religious Heads for an answer.

That is not the case because the goal of Every State Machinery is to reduce the involvement of Dharma in Society and increase the injection of Progressive, Marxist and Leftist Ideologies into the society which is seen as the only solutions to social problems.

It is not out of ignorance of the violent ideologies of the Left - Genocide, Oppression Narrative, advocation of Violence on Non-Combative Communities that this process is continuously being done. It is done with the clear intention to bring about violence in the society at some point in the future in order to re-establish that "Those Born In India Living in India and depending upon India" cannot rule themselves and require Western Jurisprudence to keep Indians Civilised.

The Communist Party of India recently announced that inter-caste marriages will be allowed to be solemnised within their Party offices - a declaration that applies only to Hindus as per the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 2023. The concept of a Non-Religious person is unknown to Indian Philosophy and Indian Law. Any person who does not belong to Abrahamic Religions will automatically be considered as a Hindu Only as per the legal definition of Hindu. The concept of "being brought up as a Hindu" is unknown. One has to remember that simply taking on or giving a Christian or Muslim name does not make that person a believer of that religion but everyone who is born in India is without a doubt considered a "Hindu" in law unless they show proof of the contrary under The Personal Law.

Instead, both The Judiciary and the Political establishments choose to make Dharma the villain. A sitting MP Of The Rajya Sabha once said that Mahabharata is the reason for creation of Rapists. A Sitting Chief Minister of a State said that Hindu Dharma is not a equal society so conversions happen. The Deputy Chief Minister of a State called for eradication of Sanatana Dharma later claims his words mere mischievously mis-quoted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held this year that the offence of illegally converting someone from one religion to another is not as serious as murder, dacoity or rape. The Intellectual Nupur Sharma has highlighted several instances where the Judiciary has cracked its whip without restraint at issues involving Hindu Dharma but exercised high restrain when Abrahamic Religious Issues were involved. The State Legal Machinery is still based upon the British Raj. There have been several instances where the State Machinery has orchestrated riots, mob-violence and stampedes as response to Oppression by "Dharmic Fascism".

It is both surprising and alarming when the judgment in the Ram Janmabhoomi Case is treated as a completely "Abnormal" and totally out of the Ordinary by both retired and sitting judges of the Top Court of the Country. There are many other legal pronouncements in issues unrelated to Hindu Dharma that are truly out of the ordinary and extremely abnormal such as granting stay to just one Accused in a case and directing trial to proceed with respect to the other accused in the same case with the same facts and evidence! Many alarming questions such as "how many more temples will you claim" is being asked almost every other day both in Public Domain and Judicial Domain without considering that such questions undoubtedly hurt the sentiments of the common populace.

A Common Retort to this would be that Article 142 enables the Top Court to do "Complete Justice" against established law. However, time and again it is proved that the constitution only enables the court to do "justice" and not "dharma". Justice is an European Concept that requires the parties to BELIEVE in the concept of "Justice". People in India believe in the concept of "Dharma" and often do not settle for "Justice"! But why are we constantly confusing one for the other?!

An interesting article was written in Times of india

and quoted by ASI Mahalingam in his book "Caste-icide" where The Supreme Court seems to have taken upon itself to define "Hindu" and "Hindutva" but leaves questions of Western Religious thought to the respective Religious Ecosystem. It is without a doubt an attempt to cut Dharma into pieces and enable absorption into other religious folds.

It is my personal opinion that merely relying on the current legal system will not offer any solutions to any of the current social and personal problems. Even some of the bitterest issues such as Matrimonial Disputes, Caste issues have Dharmic Solutions. Law wants to make you forget your Dharma through 'Constitutional' Wars, sometimes people really die and everytime Dharmic Consciousness is asked to be killed off.

By the time I had come to writing this penultimate paragraph, events had culminated in the Infamous shoe-throw on The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India by a senior lawyer. I am not going to justify the act. It is to be condemned. However, the fact that the Mother and Sister of the Hon'ble CJI condemned the attack in a manner equating themselves to guardians of the Constitution is a disturbing trend. One wonders whether the judiciary will also fall under the control of Family Patriarchs/Matriarchs because they wield the Power of the Constitution by Blood Relations.

The Claim of Entire Leftist Jurisprudence is to ensure "Social Justice" and not "Social Dharma" in every walk of life - Social, Political and Personal.

The Jurisprudence is only a constant shift of power from one group to another, with the leftist ecosystem surviving by identifying the "oppressed" at every stage of the handover. This results in very expensive burden on the "Legal Infrastructure" of a State with more need for more laws for every power shift, more courts, more judges, more legal stake holders with no end to the cycles of indoctrination - collective rage - expression of the indoctrinated anger - manifestation of violence.

The only philosophy of the Left and Progressive jurisprudence is somehow establish Violence as the only Solution to all disputes. Ultimately the country's resources are drained and the citizens are left simmering with rage over everyone and everything. No one walks away satisfied that a dispute has finally been laid to rest - both mentally and legally.

This is a jurisprudence that is not only alien to our country but also forewarned by our Rishis and Saints - against enraged mob rule guiding Kings and Queens of Bharat with great care and great concern for the welfare of the citizens and the need to establish Dharma in every aspect of life.

There is No Dharma In Law. Don't Go Looking For Dharma in Law and Legal Systems. Look For the Leftist Ideology in Law You Shall Find It Easily.