Every year India celebrates one of its most significant national holidays — Republic Day on January 26.  India also celebrated Independence Day every year on August 15. One may be curious to know what the difference is and why two events celebrate every year.
As many of us are aware that India got its Independence on August 15m 1947 from the British. India gained independence on August 15, 1947.  But it didn’t have its own set of laws or constitution right away. For the first few years, the country was still governed by British laws. 
A committee was formed to frame the Constitution to draft the rules and regulations to govern the country.  Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, N. Gopalaswami Ayyanger, Dr. B R Ambedkar, K M Munshi, Mohammad Saagulla, B. L Mitter, and D B Khaitan. 
With this Committee the Indian Constitution was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949. But it didn’t take effect right away. It was on January 26, 1950, that India officially became a republic, and its Constitution came into force. Since then, January 26 has been celebrated as Republic Day — the day India took control of its future. 
Republic Day isn’t just a holiday; it’s a vibrant celebration that features some of the most unforgettable events. The major event takes place in New Delhi, where the heart of the nation beats strongly. Every year, thousands gather at Rajpath in Delhi for the Republic Day Parade, a grand showcase of India’s culture, military strength, and unity. It begins with the President hoisting the national flag, followed by the National Anthem. Then comes the march-past, featuring military units, police forces, and colorful tableaux from each state, highlighting their unique culture and traditions. It's a vibrant celebration of India's diversity and strength. 
“India is the only country that is exploiting, not defending its majority religion, and rewarding minority religions. It sounds more like a continuation of the old British Raj than a country that honors its indigenous traditions, which in the case of India are ancient, vast and profound. Relative to India's foreign affairs, the country has rarely defended Hindu interests the way secular Western countries like the USA watch over Christian concerns throughout the world," David Frawley asserted.
On Jan 1, 1993, the RSS published a white paper denouncing the constitution as “anti-Hindu” and outlining the kind of polity it wishes to establish in the country. In its foreword, Swami Hiranand wrote: “The constitution is contrary to the country’s culture, character, circumstances, situation, etc. It is foreign-oriented.” He added: “We will have to think afresh about our economic policy, judicial and administrative structure and other national institutions only after nullifying the present constitution.” It had to be discarded completely.

“The damage done by 200 years long rule of the British is negligible as compared to the harm done by our constitution. The conspiracy to convert Bharat into India continues.” He lamented that “we are known as Indians the world over” and reminded the reader that “the freedom struggle was fought in the name of Hinduism. Vande Mataram was our national song… in post-Independence India, Hindustan and Vande Mataram have been exterminated”. It was a calculated move. On Dec 25, 1992, soon after the demolition of the Babri Masjid, its author Swami Muktanand held a press conference in New Delhi to give a call to the nation to reject the “anti-Hindu constitution”. He said: “We have no faith in the country’s laws” and “the sadhus are above the law of the land”. Also, India’s citizenship law, which deems all born in India as natural citizens, was called “humbug”. 
In January 1993, the then de facto RSS supremo, Rajendra Singh, said: “Certain specialties of this country should be reflected in the constitution. In place of ‘India that is Bharat’, we should have said ‘Bharat that is Hindustan’. Official documents refer to the ‘composite culture’, but ours is certainly not a composite culture. … All this shows that changes are needed in the constitution. A constitution more suited to the ethos and genius of this country should be adopted in the future. 
On Jan 24, 1993, M.M. Joshi, then BJP president, reiterated the demand for a fresh look at the constitution. The pamphlet complained: “Westernized people unfamiliar with the culture and history of India are the creators of our constitution.”
 It condemned reservations for the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and backward classes. The minorities fared worse. The constitution was denounced in intemperate language. “This constitution can be called a pile of garbage … the constitution of India is an enemy of the nation’s unity and integrity.”

Anand Ranganathan says the discrimination against Hindus is so entrenched in our constitution, policy, laws, and judgments that it makes them not just second-class citizens but “eighth-class citizens.” He points to the minority appeasement on an industrial scale: “Right from the Khilafat movement to the cushioning of the Mopla massacre to the Rangila Rasool incident to discriminatory state and central articles and amendments to school curriculums to Hajj subsidy to ignoring prohibition of Child Marriage Act to Shah Bano to the declaration by a sitting Prime Minister that minorities have the first right to resources, every single time the minority has been appeased it has only emboldened their leaders and political fronts for further extortion and blackmail.” 
Article 30 - 
Ther is no other country in the world where the majority community is discriminated and made the second-class citizens, nay eight class citizens.
Article 30 must be amended immediately, and all sections of Indian society must be granted equal rights for running educational institutions.
We are repeatedly told that all Indians are equal before the law but not told how some laws apply unequally to the majority community. The right to managing educational institutions is an example.
Article 30 (1) of the Constitution states: “All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice”.
The initial draft versions of the Indian Constitution prepared by Dr K M Munshi had proposed explicit, and equal, educational rights to all communities. However, when this section was referred to the minorities sub-committee of the Constituent Assembly, what came out was a very different version.
It reads:
All minorities, whether of religion, community or language, shall be free in any unit to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, and they shall be entitled to state aid in the same manner and measure as is given to similar state-aided institutions.
Freedom to practice Hindu religion: Hindu religious practices are selectively and systematically being interfered with by enacting Hindu-specific personal laws, ignoring the constitutional directive in article 44 for a uniform civil code; by criminalizing Hindu religious beliefs as superstitions whereas non-Hindu beliefs and thousands of ‘Healing and Prayer Missions’ to convert Hindus are passed off as rational; by demonizing and hounding Aghoras, Ananda Margis and other Tantric practitioners; and by outlawing, restricting and discouraging the celebration of Hindu religious traditions and festivals such as those in Sabarimala, Shani Mandir, Jallikattu, Kambala, Diwali, Holi, etc.
Government control of Hindu Temples: Article 26 guarantees freedom to all to manage their religious affairs. But almost all Hindu temples are nationalized by state governments. The Supreme Court has also ruled against state control of temples.
Temples are the life and soul of Hinduism. Hindu Temples were the center of all activities in the community. Temples provided institutional capacity for religious education, self-correction and self-defense, and sustenance of the priestly class, artistes and various related service occupations. They also helped raise resource capacity to serve the needy and destitute Hindus. Government takeover of temples has completely crippled Hinduism. It is estimated that more than 1,00,000 Hindu temples, along with lakhs of acres of their land, their movable properties worth lakhs of crores, and annual incomes running into thousands of crores have been nationalized by the state governments. 
Is India a secular Country?
India is secular because Hindus are secular. The minority religious people took advantage of secular concepts with backing politicians and started abusing the system. Only Hindus are expected to be secular. Muslims and Christians are exempt from secular ideals, they can practice their religion and attack Hindu Temples and deface Hindu Gods because their religion would not respect Hinduism. In India, Hindus cannot afford to be a proud Hindu because India is secular. He cannot have any religious rights and practice his faith, but Muslims and Christians can practice. Anti-Hindu nature of Secularism is written all over the Constitution, political decisions and even the justice system.
In practice the Government of India and the legal system do not treat all religions, and particularly the Hindu faith with equal respect, nor does it treat all religions equally under the law. There are countless examples, of which some of the most egregious are the separate civil law provisions for Muslims, in which the civil law sections of the Indian Penal code do not apply to Muslims. 
What are the privileges Muslims and Christians enjoy but are denied to Hindus:
•    Minorities are allowed to establish educational institutions, but not Hindus.
•    They can make Hindu Temples stop their worship services because they interfere with their practices.
•    Imams and Pastors are given salaries by the government, but not the pundits
•    Governments can take over Hindu Temples, but not Churches and Mosques.
•    Looting Hindu Temples money and land continues unashamedly, not from Christian and Muslim faiths.
•    Government pays subsidies for Muslims and Christians to go to Mecca and Jerusalem.
•    Government built Hajj airports for Muslims to travel to Mecca. 
•    India forced more than 500,000 Hindus to flee from Kashmir.
•    A country, where killing or sacrificing cow is illegal, allows Muslims to slaughter.
•    Muslims and Christians are allowed to demean and insult our Gods in the name of “freedom of speech.”
•    Muslim leaders can say that they will wipe out Indians in fifteen minutes. No court will find fault in this statement.
•    A Hindu cannot even mention what is in the Bible or Quran. Hell will break even to read one verse from either of these two books.
•    A country where a Hindu can talk about equality of religions, but not from other religions.
•    Justice for Hindus takes 500,00 years as in the case of Ayodhya Rama Temple.
•    Muslims have their own Personal law – only country to have two different laws – one Muslims and another for Hindus.
•    In the case of Shah Bano, under the pressure from Muslims, Indian government passed a legislation in accordance with Muslim law, rejecting the Supreme Court decision.
These are only a few examples. The current law book explicitly defines India as a secular state, which means that it cannot favor or discriminate against any religion, including Hinduism. This is far from the truth.
Replace Secularism with Hindu Rashtra
 India should declare itself to be a Hindu Rashtra giving special recognition and accepting the preeminence of Hindu culture based on rich scriptures such as Vedas, Upanishad, Puranas, Darshans, Ramayana, Mahabharata and others. Principles such as “universal brotherhood,” “all humanity is one family,” “may all be happy and healthy,” “may there be peace among living and nonliving entities,” inclusive philosophy, and “live let live ideology” should form the rock-solid foundation for Bharath.  Any religion that advocates exclusive philosophy, condemns others to hell for not accepting their religion, seeks special privileges based on religion and destroys the places of worship of other religions should be subjected to sever punishment.
All Hindus irrespective of their party affiliation and philosophical outlook should realize that there are 58 countries for Muslims to call them as their homelands; hundreds of countries in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and other countries for Christians to call them as their countries; and Jewish people have Israel as their own country. It is only Hindus, with 1.4 billion populations across the globe, have no country to call it their own country with their cultural background.  The sooner we declare India as Hindu Rashtra, the better it would be for Hindus and every other religious group. Liberals, media, communists, Muslims, Christians and many other nations would make loud noises, criticize vehemently, denounce us as fundamentalists, condemn us as anti-Muslim and anti-Christian, and deprecate us as being undemocratic. The same people would not criticize, condemn, deprecate or criticize Muslims who depleted Hindus in Pakistan and brutalized Hindus in Bangladesh. The same people would not say even one word against Saudi Arabia for not allowing even a picture of Hindu God. They would not even open their mouth when Mullah’s issue Fatwa to kill people who criticize Islam.
Our failure to declare India, as Hindu Rashtra, would land us into the jaws of Islamic exclusive philosophy. It would become an Islamic Country in the next two-three decades as the Muslims increase their population with multiple wives and rampaging the country with terror, torture and killings. They will slowly deplete Hindu population from India the way has done in Pakistan and are doing in Bangladesh. Muslims have been advocating the breakup of India into three Islamic Countries – Mughalisthan, Dalitisthan and Dravidisthan.
The Hindus have always kept their religion and politics separate. They never imposed their religion upon other religious people. They never invaded any other country to convert people of other religions to their religion. Hindus always welcomed all other religions, hosted them, sheltered them and protected them. They never killed them, tortured them, looted them, raped them, plundered them, and converted them.  Let us remember the words of the former President of India, Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam: “In 3000 years of our history, people from all over the world have come and invaded us, captured our lands, conquered our minds. From Alexander onwards, The Greeks, the Turks, the Moguls, the Portuguese, the British, the French, the Dutch, all of them came and looted us, took over what was ours. Yet we have not done this to any other nation. We have not conquered anyone. We have not grabbed their land, their culture, their history and tried to enforce our way of life on them. Why? Because we respect the freedom of others.” That is enough justification to declare India as Hindu Rashtra.