Throughout 1980s and 1990s, largely Muslim grooming gangs ran amok in cities of UK targeting Sikh and white underage girls. Despite strong evidences, in most of cases, police and courts refused to entertain pleas of victims and their parents. Reason was simple. Taking action on grooming gangs would bring highly organized and politically-conscious Muslim community of cities on the streets and create significant law and order problem. Also, cops and judges were running danger of being labelled as Islamophobe and racist by largely liberal media. Most of politicians were courting Muslim leaders in their constituency and used to put pressure on law enforcement to bypass these charges. State was held hostage to street veto and narrative veto of Muslim community. This is one example where decisively white state refused to help primarily white victims against crime committed by an Asian community because it wanted to retain status quo even at cost of justice. State want to retain status quo with minimal investment. Had Sikh and white community had armed themselves and came on streets, state would have definitely acted in order to protect itself. It is true of all democracies. Irrespective of party in power (conservatives party ruled Britain during 1980-1995) , state is biased in favor of people who retain street veto and narrative veto while ordinary law-abiding citizens have to suffer in silence. State is more concerned about self-preservation than justice and typically surrender to noisiest group in society. That rules applies to all democracies around the world and definitely true in case of highly-monitored noisy democracies like India and America. That also answers why Hindus are treated with disdain and nonchalance despite Hindutva icon firmly ensconced in South Block.

Take CAA for example. There was absolute Muslim street veto on CAA since passage of law in parliament. National capital was held hostage for nearly two months. There was no counter to street veto from Hindus. As a result, despite best intentions, government is not able to notify rules even after 2 years. Only veto from Hindus came against threats of Islamic violence and blockage of key city roads. Counter-violence and street mobilization from Hindus forced state to act and all occupied sites in question were eventually vacated and daily ritual of violent Islamic appeals ended. One more example is Farm laws where a street veto from rich farmer lobby effective killed the reforms. If I remember, one SC judge made an observation that laws must be scrapped because there are no counter-protests in their favor and there is no petition which is explaining benefits of laws.

One thing has to be understood very clearly that Narendra Modi is not be all and end all of state. Judiciary, Bureaucracy, intelligence agencies and mainstream Media form Indian deep state. Governments are transitory and elected but deep state is selected and permanent. since British era, Indian deep state was groomed over generations to hate Indians and Hindus, in particular. As Congress leadership was more or less co-opted by deep state by 1947, instead of being dismantled as collaborators should have been done, deep state not only survived but spread its tentacles in every sphere of life. These organs of deep state work with singular goal of destruction of last pagan civilization in the world. That’s why you see persistent attacks on our festivals and our traditions by judiciary and media. Hindus have surrendered their street veto and diluted celebration for their festivals. For example, most of Hindus were not incensed by ban on Kanwar Yatra as it is traffic nuisance for them. It is interesting that same Hindus have no issues when Muslims block roads for offering Friday prayers. Similarly, most of Hindus were content blaming Kumbh for corona despite there being no proof for the same. We have heard instances of police arresting Hindus for bursting crackers on Diwali. Can you imagine any policeman arresting a Muslim for violating lockdown norms during offering Namaaz ? Courts and police know that coming between Muslims and their religion would lead to severe law and order problem and that encourage them to mind their own business. However, Hindus are restrained from celebration under false pretexts. A SC judge dismissed IIT Kanpur report without any basis which proved that crackers are not source of pollution in Delhi. This won’t be possible if Hindu masses start bursting crackers on the road in defiance and challenge state to act against them. Jallikattu and Sabarimala are too examples where state had to run away with tail between its legs. It is true for state in all spheres. That’s why a abusive couple is kept in jail for 2 months when they violate Covid protocol while SC judges get an attack of dysentery when asked to take action on corona super spreader like farm protests.

Hindus can ask why we need Modi in power and BJP if we have to get down on streets ? Well, state intervention are mostly against making changes that would be in favor a group. State intervention would mostly be focused on retaining the status quo with stalemate. Over the years, BJP and Modi has ensured that state intervention would be in favor of Hindus. For example, same Hinduphobic judiciary which keep looking for ways to undermine our festivals and traditions, was forced to award Ram Mandir decision in favor of Hindus. Article 370 was removed and process of resettling Kashmiri Hindus has begin. Most of BJP government are passing Love Jihad and cow protections laws because there is street support in favor the same. On Sabarimala, you would be naive to think that a communist government would have stood with Hindus in absence of a BJP waiting to ride on the issue. Had BJP not trying to take advantage of the issue, rest assured that Sabarimala temple would have been closed for indefinite period till the issue is resolved. Rise of BJP has made Hindu veto more relevant to our politicians and actually created unforeseen challenges to deep state. However, with advent of sophisticated Internet Hindu and typical hatred of Bajrang Dal and VHP among educated Hindu classes, street veto capabilities of Hindus have taken a beating in last few years. More recently, there was a hue and cry of slow pace of judiciary on cases related to Bengal post-poll violence. One cannot be surprised with anger if we consider the speed and inclination of judiciary in taking suo motu cognizance of random videos on social media. However, what have Hindus done to force state to take up cases for urgency ? State does not care weak people. State only care about people who can put its existence in danger or people belonging to noisy powerful lobbies. It would not take state to take up case of Bengal violence if Hindus take violence to other side and create a cycle that can annihilate state. With Modi in power, rest assured that whenever state would intervene, it would be in favor of Hindus. In Modi, Hindus have a friend in largely hostile anti-Hindu Indian state but he is no substitute to street veto.

DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text.