Rohingya Controversy
1. The Hero During Nupur, the Villain During Rohingya — Same Judge, Different Agenda
In 2022, when Justice Suryakant made sharp remarks against Nupur Sharma, the entire left-liberal ecosystem:
- Congress
- Left front
- Islamist advocacy networks
- Foreign-funded NGOs
- Western press
celebrated him as:
- Defender of Constitution
- Warrior of secular morality
- Voice of justice
But when in 2025 the same judge simply asked during the Rohingya hearing:
- “Should those who break the national borders be given a red-carpet welcome?”
the same ecosystem turned against him overnight:
- “Inhuman”
- “Anti-minority”
- “Unconstitutional”
This proves:
- The judge didn’t change. The ideological agenda did.
2. What the Supreme Court Actually Stated — Law, Not Sentiment
CJI Suryakant clarified:
- Rohingyas are not recognized as refugees by the Indian state
- They are legally illegal entrants
Therefore India is not constitutionally obligated to provide:
- shelter
- food
- benefits
- education
- permanent settlement
This is not cruelty, but a legal position of sovereignty and territorial control.
- Refugee status does not come from media pressure or NGO activism—
it comes only through state recognition.
3. The Open Letter Lobby — Morality Used as a Political Weapon
On December 4–5, 2025, CJAAR, former judges, left lawyers & NGO coalitions issued an open letter accusing CJI Suryakant of:
- being “inhumane”
- violating “constitutional morality”
- ignoring Article 21
But critical questions remain:
- Does Article 21 automatically apply to every illegal infiltrator?
- Does “human rights” override national sovereignty?
- Can border-violating entrants claim lifelong constitutional protections?
Human rights cannot become a shield against national security.
4. Congress–Thugbandhan Ideology — Constitution Is Sacred Only When It Serves Them
For decades, the Congress–Left–Thugbandhan ecosystem has operated under one permanent doctrine:
- Whatever benefits their vote-bank and political survival is automatically “constitutional, humanitarian, legal.”
- Whatever protects national security, demographic balance, borders, or sovereignty becomes “fascist, undemocratic, unconstitutional.”
They do not treat the Constitution as a foundational civil document—
they treat it as a political instrument.
- They do not defend the judiciary for justice— they use it when it suits them, attack it when it restrains them.
Thus:
- When the judiciary speaks against Hindus → “Brave, constitutional justice”
- When the judiciary speaks against illegal infiltration → “Inhuman, authoritarian, communal”
This is not constitutional morality. This is constitutional opportunism.
5. Foreign-Funded Activism & the Rohingya Advocacy Network
Active players in the Rohingya narrative:
- Open Society & Soros-linked networks
- UNHCR, Amnesty, HRW
- Left–Islamist NGOs in India
- Western advocacy think tanks
Their uniform demand:
- “India must grant permanent settlement, welfare and citizenship to Rohingyas.”
Yet these same groups are silent about:
- Pakistani Hindu refugees
- Bangladeshi Hindu genocide survivors
- Tibetan Buddhists
- Sri Lankan Tamil displacement
This is selective humanitarianism, not universal concern.
6. Security Dimension — Not Just Migration, But Demographic Engineering
Intelligence inputs have repeatedly identified:
- links between Rohingyas and ARSA terror cells
- counterfeit document networks
- hawala financing trails
- narcotics trade routes
- coordinated demographic settlements in border belts
This makes the issue far beyond humanitarian protection:
It becomes:
- a border strategy
- a demographic tool
- a long-term political pressure bloc
This is not refugee rehabilitation— it is infiltration + demographic leverage.
7. Left–Congress Double Standards — Justice Is Sacred Only When It Serves Them
Justice Suryakant:
- During Nupur → “Protector of democracy”
- During Rohingya → “Threat to minority rights”
This reversal is not legal— it is ideological conditioning.
They protect the judiciary only when:
- it attacks nationalism
- it pressures Hindu expression
- it weakens border enforcement
And they assault the same judiciary when:
- it defends territorial sovereignty
- it confronts illegal demographic intrusion
- it speaks the language of national security
8. Historical Pattern — Judiciary as Hostage & Shield
This selective morality is not new.
- 1975 Emergency: SC pressured into silence
- 1990s: judge manipulation blocs
- 2004–2014: activist capture of legal discourse
- 2020–2025: NGO–media–left nexus using judiciary as political weapon
- They defend judiciary only to the extent it remains suitable to their ideology.
- Once it defends the border and the country, they declare it “intolerant, unconstitutional.”
This is the same pattern of constitutional hostaging repeated for decades.
9. The Real Question — Is India a Sovereign Nation or a Permanent Asylum Zone?
Critical questions no one from the left lobby answers:
- Should every illegal entrant get Article 21 protections?
- Should India absorb every religious conflict of the world?
- Should national security be subordinate to select human rights narratives?
- Should demographic invasion be masked as humanitarian crisis?
This is not compassion vs cruelty. It is sovereignty vs infiltration.
10. This Is Not About Mercy, But National Survival
- CJI Suryakant did not deliver majoritarian hatred nor ideological hostility
- He delivered a pure constitutional position: “Illegal entry remains illegal, regardless of emotional arguments.”
- The attack on him is not legal—it is ideological revenge for refusing to bow to the global–liberal–Thugbandhan pressure structure.
This controversy is not:
- left vs right
- Hindu vs Muslim
It is:
- India vs demographic trespass
- Law vs border erasure.
- Sovereignty vs ideological convenience.
🇮🇳Jai Bharat, Vandematram 🇮🇳
For old Blogs please visit our website www.saveindia108.in
👉Join Our Channels👈
