Legal question (governmental policy on Indian Fascism and extremist Indian political ideologies)

Legal question (governmental policy on Indian Fascism and extremist Indian political ideologies) by Rookie(Pallapati)

I would like the appellant to present himself and post his argument for this appeal.

(send him the link)

Hello. I am ready to began my case.

Through my research on Savarkar, I have read excerpts of his book ‘The history of the war of independence’. I have also read works of Marzia Casolari. An italian researcher. I came across some quotes that in fact puts Savarkar in my eyes, the fascist.

He has said “The very fact that Germany or Italy has so wonderfully recovered and grown so powerful as never before at the touch of Nazi or Fascist magical wand is enough to prove that those political ‘isms’ were the most congenial tonics their health demanded." In a meeting of the Mahasabha. He also said "the Indian Muslims are on the whole more inclined to identify themselves with Muslims outside India than Hindus next door, like Jews in Germany.” These quotes show that Savarkar had deep admirations for the Fascist and Nazi philosophy.

Savarkar supported Israel due to the fact that it is a move against the Muslim and Arab world. In the words of Subho Basu and Suranjan Das "This was not only in accordance with his theory of nationalism, but he also saw in the Jewish state a bulwark against the Islamic Arabic world." He held prejudiced against Muslim, I do not know if it fleshed out to be islamophobia but he did hold some grudge, most likely dated to the Mughal era, notably Aurangzeb.

Sorry typo, The book is "The Indian war of independence" by Savarkar

Noted
What kind of action does appellant wants the Government to take action on Savarkarists?

Savarkar was a progressive and a freedom fighter, read essentials of hindutva, he was a ashiest, he fought for freedom of his country and if nationalism is fascism for you we know who to ban. Ig you are a nri so you dont know the significance of our freedom fighters. Whatever he did was for his country and his community, non of the Savarkarite is fascist nor Savarkar was. As if so you say he admired the nazi and fascist ideology its not a fact because he had his own ideology of Hindutva. Like this someone can come tomorrow and say ban communists because they are just a bunch of hypocrites and are totalitarian, authoritarian themselves , maoists to be specific.

I am savarkarite myself but do you see me propagating the nazi fascist ideology in-fact I oppose it.

Savarkar has praised the growth of Italy and Germany during the Fascist and Nazi rule; he believed that at that specific point in their history, Nazism and Fascism were "the most congenial tonics, their health demanded." Savarkar criticised Nehru for opposing Nazism, arguing "Surely Hitler knows better than Pandit Nehru does what suits Germany best". However, in the very next sentence of his speech, he goes on to say, "India may choose or reject, particular form of Government, in accordance with her political requirements". In his 1949 book, Hindu Rashtra Darshan, Savarkar wrote "Nazism proved undeniably the savior of Germany". Savarkar often compared Germany's German majority and Jewish minority as analogous to India's Hindu majority and Muslim minority, though Savarkar never mentioned the persecution of Jews in Germany. Savarkar never said that he was a proponent of murder and genocide against minorities, and instead desired peaceful assimilation. Savarkar condemned both German Jews and the Indian Muslims for their supposed inability to assimilate. In 1938, he said, "But if we Hindus in India grow stronger in time, these Moslem friends of the league type will have to play the part of German Jews."

Savarkar supported the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel, which was not only in the spirit of his nationalism but also what Savarkar saw in the Jewish state as a barricade against the Muslim Arab world. Savarkar said in his statement titled, 'A Statement on the Jewish International Question', "I have every sympathy with the Jewish people in Europe and elsewhere in their distress".

Savarkar's supposed anti-Muslim views at that time and their being potential traitors proved to be true when the same "Indian" Muslims demanded for a separate Muslim homeland Pakistan as they were too narrow minded to live with the Hindus of India. To have views on people based on facts and not mere sentiments is the quality of a true intellectual, which Savarkar was. Savarkar's own ideology was Hindutva which he thought was best for a nation like India and he expressed his admiration for Nazism and Fascism for he thought those were best for those particular countries like Germany and Italy at that point in history. Times Magazine declared Hitler the Person of the Year 1938. Hitler almost miraculously recovered German economy and made it the best in Europe within a span of very short time. Before WWII most of the world viewed Hitler and his policies as mostly harmless. And these views of Savarkar's on Nazism and Fascism was well-before the WWII. He just observed the positive effects of the ideologies and hence expressed positivity on them, but in no way was Savarkar himself a fascist. The books he wrote while he was imprisoned at the Kalapani Jail in Andaman inspired many later freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh and Netaji. Veer Savarkar deserves as much respect as Gandhiji or Netaji deserves.

Savarkar had the same views as Kennedy, where he said Democracy is best for US and UK, fascism is best for Germany and Italy, Communism is best for Soviet Russia

Do not comment on this issue unless you have been asked to, otherwise you shall be charged with contempt of court.

Maghad Rajya wrote:Savarkar was a progressive and a freedom fighter, read essentials of hindutva, he was a ashiest, he fought for freedom of his country and if nationalism is fascism for you we know who to ban. Ig you are a nri so you dont know the significance of our freedom fighters. Whatever he did was for his country and his community, non of the Savarkarite is fascist nor Savarkar was. As if so you say he admired the nazi and fascist ideology its not a fact because he had his own ideology of Hindutva. Like this someone can come tomorrow and say ban communists because they are just a bunch of hypocrites and are totalitarian, authoritarian themselves , maoists to be specific.

Noted.
Would you take up the defense for Savarkar and present points countering Pallapati's regarding the legal question?

Your honour, I suggest appointing parties and their respective judges for maintaining the decorum of the court.

Whole India wrote:Your honour, I suggest appointing parties and their respective judges for maintaining the decorum of the court.

Since this is a very sensitive issue, this case shall be judged by a 3-member bench.

Furthermore, I would advise that a person be appointed to represent the government.

Personally speaking, one must understand the gravity, verifiability, rationality, and most importantly the humanity of one's beliefs and ideologies. Self-righteousness that calls for an active suppression of the natural liberty of mankind cannot be in good faith be viewed as coming under the scope of "free speech". The Court, in my honest opinion, should be predisposed to balancing freedom of expression with morality and public order, with the former being defined as the effective coordination between the conflicting interests of several groups and the administrative cooperation to amicably resolve disputes without jeopardising the fundamental Rule of Law, which transcends societal norms and opinions to establish an impartial administration of justice. In this regard, through this personal, interim observation, I wish to express that any political ideology that advocates for genocide, unscientific eugenics, demonization of minorities (here, Jews and Muslims) and indirectly calls for the destruction of a minority's essence as regards its customs, traditions and other defining features, cannot be permitted to establish a ground in a truly free democracy.
This is a personal observation , and other judges have the liberty to either approve of it or express one of their own.

I derive my opinion from clause 2 of the section concerning the Freedom of Speech under the 4rth article or the Constitution of India.

Does the appellant want to say something?

Since I am about to leave office, I temporarily hand over this case to Deadshot. Please expedite Justice to the best of your abilities.
Rookie has been telling me that he doesn’t have permission to send messages on this thread. Kindly look into it, Whole India.