Americas, Europe and India (for sure) are Hindu Rastras

Not usurping others' wealth, even surreptitiously, is Dharma of Gita as well as preamble of the modern constitution.

Dharma and modern constitutional preamble (as a rule of governance of mankind) is attained in equilibrium (which means social stability or civilized coexistence).

One does not need general dynamic mathematical equilibrium to see that such Dharma or constitutional preamble is necessary for civilized coexistence of mankind. It is because without this Dharma or modern constitutional preamble people will kill each other until the mightiest survives. The mightiest will then have no one to serve and so will perish despite all the wealth.

Now, suppose that following Dharma makes someone a Hindu. Then, those who must abide by the modern constitutional preamble (akin to Dharma) must be Hindus. This means Americans, Europeans and Indians (for sure) are Hindus.

Organized religions like Islam, Christianity and Buddhism came 1000's of years after Dharma was scripted in Gita 5000 years ago.

So, what is wrong in calling India a Hindu Rastra that Mr. Sashi Tharoor (ex-UN Assistant Secretary General and ex-Indian government minister) speciously contests?

Mr. Sashi Tharoor has just unleashed irrational propaganda in Indian Express and during his one-to-one chat on NDTV (reproduced below) that Constitution and [RSS founder Deen Dayal] Upadhyay cannot go together because Upadhyay believed "Constitution should reflect [that India is a Hindu Rashra], which of course it does not."

I have rationally (or scientifically) proved that if being a Hindu means (defined rationally as) a follower of Dharma-Gita, then this Hindu is rationally (or scientifically) a true believer of Indian Constitution and a non-Hindu is not a believer of Indian Constitution, which is a blend of American and European constitutions.

I have also rationally proved that Dharmic or Constitutional rules of governance attained in general economic equilibrium are unanimously agreeable (trumping democratic majority), stable (precluding social unrest), and economically efficient (necessary for eradication of poverty and enhancement of economic prosperity).

My proof is based on a rational, mathematical dynamic general equilibrium model of the economy, which is more general than any ever scripted in human history.

Thus, current rational research discovery* shows that by being a constitutional Rashra, India has become, constitutionally, a Hindu-Dharma Rastra. What Mr. Upadhyay meant in his statements a long ago is incidental.

Mr. Sashi Tharoor has presented no rational general equilibrium model of the economy to derive his conclusions. He is thus purely dogmatic to say that that a constitutional Rastra, that India has become, is antithetic to being Hindu Rastra. Mr. Tharoor's statements imply that he is, rationally, not a Hindu - namely, a believer of Dharma of Gita - because belief in Dharma is one-to-one with being constitutional.

With profound regards,

Dr. Sankarshan Acharya
Director, Academy of Unanimously Agreeable, Constitutional, Dharmic and Rational Philosophy of Governance

*"Scientific Juggernaut of Unanimously Agreeable Philosophy of Governance Crushing Unscientific British System of Robbery,"
http://pro-prosperity.com/Juggernaut-UAPG-crushing-BSR.pdf

"Diktats of Unanimously Agreeable Governance and of Universally Acceptable Religious Beliefs Necessary for Civilized Coexistence," http://pro-prosperity.com/triumphantphilosophy-two.pdf

"Triumph of Ancient Philosophy, Unanimously Agreeable Governance, Economic Policy and Constitution for Civilized Coexistence," http://pro-prosperity.com/triumphantphilosophy-one.pdf

-----------------
Constitution and Upadhyay cannot go together: Shashi Tharoor to PM Modi
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/constitution-and-upadhyay-cannot-go-together-shashi-tharoor-to-pm-modi-5042521/

Tharoor said Upadhyay believed the Constitution "rests on the flawed premise that the nation is a territory of India and all the people on it. You need a Hindu nation, a Hindu rashtra and that is what the Constitution should reflect, which of course it does not."

By: PTI | Jaipur | Published: January 28, 2018 6:49 pm

Taking a dig at Narendra Modi, politician-writer Shashi Tharoor has said that while the prime minister describes the country’s Constitution as “holy”, he also hails Hindutva icon Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay as a “hero”, and asserted that the two stands cannot go hand in hand.

Speaking at the ongoing Jaipur Literature Festival, the 61-year-old Member of Parliament said there was a dire need for Hindus to stand up and recognise what was being done “in their name” and speak out against it.

“We need to call a spade a spade. We are living in a country where on the one hand the prime minister says the Constitution is his holy book and on the other hand he extols as a hero and instructs his ministries to study the works, writings and teachings of Deen Dayal Upadhyay, who explicitly rejects the Constitution and who shares that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed,” the former Union minister said.

The two thoughts, he said, were contradictory. “You can’t have these two thoughts in the same sentence… To have it both and to be allowed by our public discourse to get away with it for so long seems to me somewhat troubling,” he said to thunderous applause from the audience at the packed front lawn, the largest venue at the iconic Diggi Palace where the festival is being held.
Tharoor said Upadhyay believed the Constitution “rests on the flawed premise that the nation is a territory of India and all the people on it”. “Whereas he (Upadhyay) says that is not correct, the nation is not a territory, it is a people and it is therefore the Hindu people. Which means you need a Hindu nation, a Hindu rashtra and that is what the Constitution should reflect, which of course it does not,” he said.

That, Tharoor added, was the essential contradiction. “(You) cannot hail Upadhyay and the Constitution … at the same time,” he said.

The Thiruvananthapuram MP described himself as a “devotee” of Swami Vivekananda’s teachings, and said the acceptance of differences was at the heart of Hinduism.

“Hinduism is not a faith of absolute certitudes… How such a wonderfully capacious faith so open, so classically liberal in that sense can be reduced by some into a badge of identity akin to that of a British hooligan, reducing our wonderful metaphysics to a chauvinistic rampage I don’t know,” he said.

The time had come, he said, to take Hinduism back to the “real” Hindus. “There are a lot of people going around expressing thoughts, condoning actions in the name of Hinduism that most Hindus starting with the likes of Swami Vivekananda would not recognise,” he said.

Tharoor, who has written 16 books, was in conversation with poet Arundhati Subramaniam, and threw light on his new book, ‘Why I Am a Hindu’. He said Hinduism was totally compatible with a modern, liberal and pluralistic society and was in many ways almost the “perfect” religion of the 21st century.

“It is being reduced and traduced into something that it is not. We need to have a serious taking back of Hinduism and facing up to what it teaches because very often the alternatives that are being taught are actually dangerous to our social peace and cohesion,” he said.

Some people were not only willing to “advertise their Hinduism”, but claimed that it was the only possible way of being a Hindu, he said. “This is a sort of Hindu wahabism… It is high time that for those of us who believe that we are good Hindus, that we take back our faith from these people who portray it that way and that is what this book seeks to do,” Tharoor said.
He said a great deal can be learnt from the Mahatmas of the past, noting that it was not only their teachings but also their lives that offer lessons for today’s Hindus. “If indeed people are willing to immolate themselves over a film that they have never seen or burn buses and attack school children to protest somebody else’s freedom of expression then there is something wrong with our society and we have to understand that answers need to be found,” Tharoor said.

These people, he added, were “anti-Hindus”. “Instead of punishing themselves which the likes of Gandhi and Vivekananda would have approved of, the people are going around punishing others, attack others, write against others, lynch others. They are the anti-Hindus,” he said.