前沿 | 社会-法律研究杂志（英国）最近的讨论聚焦：印度的宗教、民族与法律

《社会-法律研究》第33卷，第5期

M. Sudhir Selvaraj, Raphael Susewind

摘要：印度越来越多地被描述为“族裔民主”、“民粹主义多数派专制”或“族裔统治”：一种由基于种族认同的选举多数派支持的统治形式，其有限且不断削弱的制衡机制无法保护少数群体。在过去的十年里，宪法安排发生了变化，通过了“狗哨”法律，法律机构也缺乏资源。在研究这些发展时，我们希望通过解构印度特有的民粹主义/多数派/专制法律，将对普遍性民粹主义/多数派/专制法律的研究建立在具体情境的基础上：印度教民族主义作为一种政治意识形态和当前的政治代理人是如何理解法治的性质和功能的？他们希望法律遵循哪些规则？我们将结合研究印度教民族主义本身的意识形态承诺的论文，以及追踪立法或司法实践的物质变化并分析其对印度少数群体的不同影响的论文，最终对专制环境下的法治规则进行更广泛的反思。

Abstract

India is increasingly described as an ‘ethnic democracy’, ‘populist majoritarian autocracy’ or ‘ethnocracy’: a form of rule supported by an electoral majority rooted in ethnic affiliation, with limited and eroding checks and balances that would protect minorities. Over the past decade, constitutional arrangements shifted, ‘dog-whistle’ laws were passed and legal institutions starved of resources. In studying these developments, we want to ground generic studies of populist/majoritarian/autocratic law by unpacking the specific Indian version of it: how does Hindutva as a political ideology and the current dispensation as political agents conceive of the rule of law, its purpose and function? Which rules do they want the law to follow? We combine papers that trace Hindutva's own ideological commitments with those tracking material changes in legislation or jurisprudence and map out their differential consequences for India's minorities, culminating in a wider reflection on the rule(s) of law under autocratic circumstances.

M Mohsin Alam Bhat

摘要：本文着重探讨了印度民主衰落的重要方面，即印度教多数派国家的崛起及其与法律的关系。文章认为，法律是印度教多数派项目的核心，但其影响往往以隐蔽的非正式方式出现。印度的多数派国家试图通过使少数群体无法适用法治原则来彻底重构印度的社会生活。通过从当代印度的日常社会法律生活汲取一系列例子，文章展示了如何通过支持、确认和默许基于民族主义价值观和利益的任意和非法国家暴力来认可和支持这种做法。文章还从理论上发展了“非正规”这一新颖的解释框架，以捕捉法律的族群化、通过激烈的政治动员将非法行为合法化的民族主义正当化，以及在不正式纳入分等级公民身份的情况下生产从属少数族裔公民身份的做法。

Abstract

This article focuses on the important aspect of India's democratic decline, the ascendance of the Hindu majoritarian state, and its relationship with the law. It argues that the law is central to the Hindu majoritarian project but often in obscurely informal ways. India's majoritarian state seeks to radically reconfigure the law in Indian social life by making the rule of law inapplicable to its minorities. Through a series of examples drawn from the everyday socio-legal life in contemporary India, the article shows how arbitrary and extralegal state violence is endorsed, affirmed, and acquiesced on grounds of serving ethnonationalist values and interests. It theoretically develops the novel interpretive framework of ‘the irregular’ to capture the practices of the ethnicization of the law, ethnonationalist legitimisation of extra-legality through intense political mobilisation, and the production of subordinated minority citizenship without the formal incorporation of graded citizenship.

Indrajit Roy

摘要：在印度向民族主义国家转型的过程中，法治的前景如何？本文基于“薄”的法治概念，认为备受争议的《公民身份修正案》是对将印度教民族视为印度国家核心的政治理想的回应。本文引用了印度执政党人民党（BJP）意识形态源头——印度教民族主义组织“印度教民族主义先锋队”（RSS）领导人的声明、作为社会思想输送带的右翼期刊的分析以及《公民身份修正案》（CAA）的条款，突出了该法案背后激励印度教民族意志的核心主题：（1）在印度穆斯林人口占多数的邻国对印度教少数群体的迫害；（2）达利特（Dalit，即印度种姓制度中最低种姓）所面临的歧视；（3）将印度建立为印度教的以色列。在第一节中，作者阐述了“民族主义国家”的概念。第二节通过分析争议性CAA引入的社会正当性，反思了民族主义国家中的法治命运。在第三部分中，作者将这些动态置于印度向种族主义国家过渡的更广泛背景下，并探讨塑造这一过渡的政治理念以及从这一过渡中产生的共同社会规范，这些规范又反过来影响着种族主义国家的法治。

Abstract

What is the fate of the rule of law in India that is transitioning to an ethnocracy? Drawing on a ‘thin’ conception of the rule of law, this article argues that the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act responds to the emergence of a political ideal that constructs the Hindu ethnos as central to the Indian nation. Drawing on a variety of sources that include pronouncements by leaders of the RSS, the ideological fount of India's ruling BJP, analysis of right-wing periodicals that function as a conveyor belt of social ideas, and the provisions of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), this article highlights the core themes that motivate the will of the Hindu ethnos in respect of the contentious legislation: (i) the persecution of the Hindu minorities in India's Muslim-majority neighbours; (ii) the discrimination faced by Dalits in particular and (iii) the establishment of India as a Hindu Zion. In the first section, I elaborate the concept of ‘ethnocracy’. The second section reflects on the fate of the rule of law in an ethnocratic India by analysing the social justifications for the introduction of the contentious CAA. In the third section, I situate these dynamics within India's broader transition to an ethnocracy, the political ideals that shape this transition, and the shared social norms that emerge from this transition, which feeds back to the rule of law in an ethnocracy.

Fahad Zuberi, Raphael Susewind

摘要：在当代印度，法律制度和框架是如何被利用来创造贫民窟社区的？通过三个案例研究——古吉拉特邦的《受干扰地区法》（the Disturbed Areas Act），2022年的“推土机正义（bulldozer justice）”现象，以及印度人民党选举中的“土地圣战（land jihad）”言论——我们认为，法律远不是反对多数主义的自由堡垒，而是越来越多地概括了原始权力，不受道德或事实的阻碍。我们通过汉娜·阿伦特（Hannah Arendt）的论点，将这一现象理论化，即极权主义的种子在于“合法化”的空心化和非政治化效果，为极权主义填补情感空白铺平了道路。但是，一旦跨越了极权主义的门槛，法律会发生什么呢？我们认为，在当代印度，阿伦特所描述的去政治化、技术官僚式的法律并不是唯一的法律病态；我们还见证了一种新颖的、高度政治化的、表现性的、信号性的、最终毫无意义的法律的出现，这是她完全没有预料到的。正是这两种法律病态之间的辩证关系——作为官僚化的合法化和高度政治化的信号——巩固了印度穆斯林日益不稳定的贫民窟化。

Abstract

How are legal institutions and frameworks exploited to create ghettoised communities in contemporary India? Across three case studies – the Disturbed Areas Act in Gujarat, the ‘bulldozer justice’ phenomenon of 2022, and the BJP's electoral ‘land jihad’ rhetoric – we argue that law, far from being a liberal bulwark against majoritarianism, increasingly comes to encapsulate raw power, unencumbered by either morality or fact. We theorise this phenomenon through Hannah Arendt's argument that the seeds of totalitarianism lie in the hollowing-out, depoliticising effect of ‘juridification’, paving the way for totalitarianism to fill the affective void. But what happens to law once the threshold to totalitarianism is crossed? In contemporary India, we argue, the depoliticising, technocratic kind of law that Arendt described is not the only legal pathology; we also witness the emergence of a novel kind of hyper-politicised, performative, signalling, ultimate meaningless law that she didn’t quite anticipate. It is the dialectic between these two legal pathologies – juridification as bureaucratisation and hyper-politicised signalling – that cements Muslim Indians’ increasingly precarious ghettoisation.

Yash Sharma, Laura Dudley Jenkins

摘要

印度的“爱情圣战（love jihad）”阴谋论声称，穆斯林男子欺骗性地引诱或绑架大量非穆斯林妇女，使她们皈依并与之结婚。印度的州法律已经开始控制改信——导致立法被视为虚假信息——并引发了针对穆斯林的暴力袭击。我们认为这是印度第三波州级反皈依法，并研究阴谋论是如何嵌入法律文本的，以及它与当前印度教民族主义统治时期的关系。结合对2021年古吉拉特邦修正案的叙事分析，以及对面临行政、警察和治安维持会暴力的跨宗教夫妇的日常经历的询问，我们分析了印度民族主义意识形态在当今印度占主导地位的基础设施和框架。我们的研究质疑了将印度定性为“民主国家”的假设，考虑到印度人民党领导下的当前政治、意识形态和法律结构。

Abstract

The “love jihad” conspiracy theory in India purports that Muslim men are deceptively seducing or kidnapping non-Muslim women in large numbers to convert and marry them. State laws in India have moved to control conversions—resulting in legislation as disinformation—and sparked violent attacks against Muslims. We identify this as the third wave of state-level anti-conversion laws in India and study how the conspiracy theory is embedded into the text of the law and its relation to the current period of Hindu nationalist ascendancy. Combining narrative analysis of the 2021 Gujarat amendment and interrogating the everyday experiences of interfaith couples who face administrative, police, and vigilante violence we analyze the infrastructure and frameworks of Hindu nationalist ideological dominance in India today. Our study questions the presumptions that underlie the characterization of India as a “democracy” considering the current political, ideological, and legal configurations in the country under the BJP.

M. Sudhir Selvaraj

摘要：现存关于印度反基督教暴力的学术研究很少，主要集中在身体暴力上。为了解决这一差距，本文探讨了宗教自由法（也被称为反转换法），作为印度基督徒面临结构性暴力的一个例子。到目前为止，学者们认为这违反了宪法，剥夺了基督徒的宗教自由。利用约翰·加尔东的暴力框架，本文试图将这些法律重塑为一种针对基督徒的结构性暴力形式。通过这样做，它将显示印度教教徒对人口和政治“基督教威胁”的焦虑是如何嵌入到法律中的。通过对南部卡纳塔克邦（卡纳塔克邦于2022年通过了《宗教自由权利保护法》）的探索，本文试图展示这种结构性暴力是如何相互作用的，并加强了直接和文化暴力的形式，创造了一个旨在维持印度“印度教多数”的反基督教暴力体系。

Abstract

Extant scholarship on anti-Christian violence in India is scant and predominantly focuses on physical violence. To address this gap, this article explores Freedom of Religion laws (also referred to as anti-conversion laws) as an example of structural violence faced by India's Christians. Thus far, scholars have studied these as a constitutional violation that denies a Christian's freedom of religion. Using Johan Galtung's violence framework, this article seeks to recast these laws as a form of structural violence against Christians. In doing so, it will show how Hindutva's anxieties about the demographic and political ‘Christian threat’ have become embedded into the law. Through an exploration of the southern state of Karnataka, where the Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion was passed in 2022, this article seeks to show how this structural violence interacts and reinforces forms of direct and cultural violence, creating a system of anti-Christian violence designed to maintain India's ‘Hindu majority’.

Amit Prakash

摘要：关于印度高级司法机构在司法声明中出现的错误和失误，人们已经花了很多笔墨。这种评论对于追踪政治-司法和社会背景的变化，以及这些错误和失误对基本权利和有关法律的影响是有价值的。然而，也许更重要的是，司法部门没有发表意见的案件，有时长达数年，尽管有许多受影响的当事人提出请求，有时则是在公益诉讼中。这种“司法口袋否决”的影响是，法律限制被允许运作，因此，专制法律主义的情况产生了，行政或立法机关的行动在技术上被视为合法，但在缺乏充分的司法审查的情况下，为整个政体创造了专制的结果，这反过来又加强了政府化，破坏了自由主义的剧本。

Abstract

Much ink has been spilt on the errors and lapses of juridical pronouncements by the higher judiciary in India. Such commentary is valuable for tracing changes in the politico-juridical and social context, as well as, the impact of such errors and lapses on fundamental rights and related laws. However, perhaps, more important are the cases where the judiciary has not spoken, sometimes for years, despite having been petitioned by numerous affected parties and other times under public-interest litigation. The impact of such ‘juridical pocket veto’ is that legal liminality is allowed to operate and thus, a situation of autocratic legalism is produced wherein the action of the executive or legislature is seen as legal in its technicality but in the absence of adequate judicial review, creates an autocratic outcome for the polity at large, which in turn reinforces governmentalisation and undermines the liberal script.