The recent order by the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, directing the Centre to bring back Rakshanda Rashid—a Pakistani national deported after the Pahalgam terror attack—highlights a concerning trend in the Bharatiya judiciary’s approach to national security, civilizational priorities, and the cultural fabric of Hindu society. Rashid, who had been living in Jammu for 38 years on a Long Term Visa, was deported along with other Pakistani nationals after the government suspended visas in the wake of the attack. Despite her case being yet to be heard on merits, the High Court intervened on “humanitarian grounds,” ordering her return and citing the sanctity of human rights above procedural and security concerns.
The Judicial Rationale: Humanitarianism Over National Security
Justice Rahul Bharti’s order emphasized that “human rights are the most sacrosanct component of a human life,” and justified the intervention as an “SOS-like indulgence” even before adjudicating the merits of the case. The Court noted her health conditions and lack of support in Pakistan, and questioned the process of her deportation without a detailed hearing. While compassion is a judicial virtue, the timing and nature of this intervention—immediately after a terror attack, and concerning a Pakistani national—raises questions about the prioritization of individual rights over collective security and the broader interests of Hindu society.
The Pattern: Judiciary Siding Against National and Civilizational Interests
This case is not an isolated incident. There is a discernible pattern where the judiciary, under the guise of protecting rights and upholding constitutional morality, has repeatedly intervened in ways that undermine the security apparatus and the cultural ethos of the majority Hindu society.
1. Judicial Leniency Towards Islamic Terror Accused
Bharat’s Supreme Court, in several anti-terror cases, has exhibited a tendency to weigh civil liberties heavily, sometimes at the expense of security concerns, especially when dealing with minority accused. This approach, while rooted in constitutional ideals, often translates into a practical handicap for agencies fighting terrorism, particularly when the accused are linked to cross-border networks or radical ideologies.
2. Shielding Left-Wing Extremism and Maoists
The judiciary and sections of the political class have often been sympathetic to Maoist and Leftist extremists, casting them as victims of state oppression rather than perpetrators of violence. Recent operations against Maoists in Chhattisgarh have seen Left parties and activists appealing to the courts and the government to halt security operations, citing “human rights” and “Adivasi rights,” even as these extremists have waged a bloody insurgency against the Bharatiya state. The narrative of “extra-judicial killings” and demands for “peace talks” are frequently entertained by the judiciary, often leading to judicial scrutiny of security operations and, at times, the release of hardcore extremists on technical or humanitarian grounds.
3. Judicial Activism Against Conservative Hindu Society
The judiciary’s interventions have not been limited to terror or extremism cases. There have been numerous instances where courts have taken activist stances against traditional Hindu practices, festivals, and institutions, often in the name of reform or secularism. From interfering in temple management and rituals to imposing restrictions on Hindu festivals citing environmental or animal rights concerns, the judiciary has repeatedly overridden community sentiments and customs, sometimes while ignoring similar practices in minority communities.
The Civilizational Consequences
The cumulative effect of these judicial trends is a steady erosion of the Hindu society’s ability to defend its civilizational interests. The invocation of “universal human rights” and “constitutional morality” is often selective, and disproportionately applied in cases where the interests of the Hindu majority or the Bharatiya state are at stake. This not only emboldens hostile elements—be they cross-border terrorists or internal insurgents—but also weakens the cultural and social fabric that has sustained Hindu civilization for millennia.
Historical Parallels
History is replete with examples of societies that, in the name of abstract universalism, failed to defend their core values and ultimately succumbed to more assertive, less self-doubting adversaries. The ongoing persecution of Hindus in neighboring countries, where the judiciary and state machinery have failed to protect minorities, stands as a stark warning.
Conclusion: The Need for a Civilizationally Conscious Judiciary
The judiciary’s primary role is to uphold the Constitution and protect individual rights. However, this duty must be balanced with the imperative of national security and the preservation of the civilizational ethos of the majority. The growing trend of judicial activism—often described as “woke”—risks undermining both. If unchecked, it could make the judiciary an unwitting ally of forces inimical to Bharat’s unity, security, and the Hindu way of life.
The case of Rakshanda Rashid is a microcosm of this larger malaise. It is time for a serious national conversation on recalibrating the judiciary’s priorities—so that compassion does not become a weapon against the nation, and the defense of Hindu civilization is not sacrificed at the altar of misplaced humanitarianism.
