It is also true to say that countries which were colonised are now merely decolonised and not necessarily “independent” in its true spirit. A second war of independence is justified to truly liberate ourselves and to reclaim our lost consciousness. The enormity of the task should not be a deterrent. The author is simply trying to put his biased narrow opinion forward. The author in a very shrewd way mixes up some random historical facts and mixes his opinion with them. And ultimately creates a new hochpoch khichdi conspiracy theory type narrative and present it to public. In addition to wealth transfer and proselytisation, there was yet another colonial objective. It was to influence the Indian constitution-making process with a view to alienate it from Bharat’s OET roots and rule it through postcolonial proxies. He lives in a fantasy that pre-Islamic and pre-Christian India was a utopia where everything was perfect and the invaders have destroyed every thing. There is very little effort from the author to understand history in its own terms rather than looking at it through modern lens. This may force the reader to assume that the author has a fundamentally Marxist perspective of history where history is seen as clash of civilisations and a constant struggle between groups of people. Even though the author makes it clear that he is not a Marxist, rather insists that he is an anti-Marxist, such a worldview is clearly evident from his writings.

The treatment is extremely detailed and most of the sections are very dense, and this is a book for serious reading on the subject. This was in Sep 2021 when a Minneapolis Church objected to the construction of a Hindu temple in the area. A society which looks at its culture and traditions through the eyes of colonizers is doomed for eternity. JSD provides a context of the partition of India by explaining in detail the sequence of events that led to the partition of Bengal, which he describes as the earliest manifestation of the two-nation theory in the early nineteenth century. The author busts the popularly held belief that Bengal’s partition was a result of Britain’s ‘Divide and Rule’ policy, highlighting how Muslim ideologues, including Muslim League leaders, vociferously demanded the partition of the state in such a manner so as to turn the erstwhile Bengali Hindu majority into minority and achieve Muslim dominance. PDF / EPUB File Name: India_that_is_bharat_-_Jsai_Deepak.pdf, India_that_is_bharat_-_Jsai_Deepak.epubAccording to Sai Deepak, the so-called liberal laws and Acts passed by the British were actually regressive towards indigenous systems which were threatening to the colonisers. The so-called neutrality of the British constitution and the separation of the church and the state were Christian ideas that were used to achieve their own goals. Thus decoloniality requires an understanding of the colonial period and its continuation in modern India must change to an Indian point of view, says the author. Ties between India and Canada have been strained after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made allegations of Indian involvement in the murder of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar on Canadian soil earlier this year. Nijjar was shot dead outside Gurdwara in Canada's Surrey on June 18. The colonial influence on the legal systems and constitution is still felt, mostly to the detriment of diversity and indigenous spirit. Traditionally, the colonies were forced to adopt legal mechanisms to preserve their integrity upon achieving independence to overcome the fissiparous tendencies created by the imposition of nation-statehood. The foremost among these was a constitution which was initially intended to be a means to forge a nation-state. This was often elevated to the status of a religious document. Judiciary in decolonized societies assumes a similar position as the Roman Catholic Church during Reformation. Instead of decentralizing morality and allowing the society’s indigenous cultural moorings to inform law and policy, blind and unthinking constitutionalism has effectively contributed to the concentration of totalizing powers over morality and world view in the hands of unelected institutions and individuals. This is a clear reference to the author’s own experience when he appeared in court to argue against the plea of feminists demanding entry into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. This temple forbids entry of women of reproductive age based on custom and legend of the deity who is worshipped as a brahmachari. The court ruled for entry of women in an immediately stunning though eventually fruitless verdict.

Deepak also argues that a number of laws and acts passed by the British government can sound liberal in the modern context, but were actually repressive to the potency of indigenous life that not only wished to thrive but perhaps even threatened the colonial purview. This ‘façade of neutrality,’ Deepak believes, was a ‘Christian neutrality’ insofar as the means of achieving their own ‘missions’ could meet the intended ends. “The word secular must always be understood as Christian secular,” Deepak writes. The writer suggests that ‘decoloniality’ has to be discovered as much as it is waiting to be asserted in ways that can re-hinge the understanding of this history and the present of this country through an Indic context. If one thinks it through, when coloniality rises, the acronym OET will have lost its first letter, because its indigenous organic past will have been slayed and put away as dead. It will have equipped itself with a single book to serve its epistemological needs and a single drill for its ritual routines. On whether you feel enriched by the breadth and depth of the OET you are heir to, or find it retrograde, depends your vulnerability to coloniality. His reason for laying out all this as part of evidence puzzled me at first. Then it hit me: we tend to dismiss colonialism merely as an exercise in greedy wealth transfer. We also tend to believe only Catholic countries of Southern Europe are of an evangelical bent, but not so an England after Henry VIII, and the Lutheran and Calvinist nations that had spun away from Papacy. In the next section, the author talks about Bharat as a civilization, which didn't come into effect after 1947 but it has its roots in Veda, Upanishad, Bhagvat Gita and many more ancient texts. It was named after great King Bharat with natural geographies encircled by seas and mountain Himalaya, bounded together by Shaktipeeth and Jyotilingas. He puts excerpts of debates from constituent Assembly on the very first Article one, which consists of the discussion around Bhartiya civilization based on which there was an emphasis to keep this civilisational state name as Bharat or BharatVarsh not India.When the proposed trilogy is published, a storm will have been stirred up. By then, I expect there will be in the books, knowledge enough to hold one’s ground, and maybe even engage in combat.