.. In the Manohar Joshi case, the court observed that distinction had to be maintained between Hindutva and Hinduism. On the Representation of the People act, 1951 and the appeal to religion for votes, the judges discussed the terms "Hindu", "Hindutva" and "Hinduism" and stated "that the term 'Hindutva' is related more to the way of life of the people in the sub-continent. It is difficult to appreciate, how in the face of these decisions, the term 'Hindutva' or 'Hinduism' per se, in the abstract, can be assumed to mean and be equated with narrow fundamentalist Hindu religious bigotry, or be constructed to fall within the prohibition in (Section 123(3) or (3A)".

The judges said the violation of the Law of Representation must be judged in "every case on a question of fact". Our submission is that the honourable judges have not taken into consideration the specific fact that the believers of Hindutva (or Hinduism) like Vir Savarkar, or Guru Golwalkar or the Sangh Parivar are equating Hinduism or its variant Hindutva as an Indian way of interpreting secularism. In reality it is equated with Hinduism. The BJP's election manifesto of 1990 stated: "The BJP believes in positive secularism which, according to the makers of the Constitution, meant Sarve dharma Samabha and which does not connote an irreligious state". The BJP admits that it believes in a religion-based state, which, here, means Hindu Rashtra. The honourable judges should not have maintained then that Hindutva is different. From Hinduism because the official document of the BJP and pronouncements of its leaders do not give rise to any ambiguity on the issue. Deoras of the RSS clearly stated:

"As such, the organisation of Hindus alone can be truly secular". Guru Golwalkar rejected the notion of politics without religion (which is the essence of secular politics) by observing that "religion, in its essence is that which by regulating society in all its functions ... " including governance.

In 1929 V.D. Savarkar published Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? The Hindu Mahasabha, the predecessor of the BJP, was championing the cause of Hinduism under the inspiration of Savarkar. What more evidence is needed by the judges?

The Judiciary is the ultimate defender of the essential values of the Constitution and if a judge observes that the concept of "dharma of the Hindus is not religion" in the narrowest sense of the term, it creates challenges to secularism.

Justice Hansaria, while interpreting the word "religion" in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, observed the word "religion" in these articles was used in the sense being conveyed by dharma.

Secular politics and a secular State is the only safeguard against excesses of "majoritarianism of the Hindus" in a multi-religious country and this was the spirit of secularism as enshrined in the Constitution. The judges have unwittingly brought a "majority" interpretation of Hinduism, and the Sangh Parivar has appropriated this testimonial of the Supreme Court ... (Source: The Statesman, 9 August, 1999)

Saeed Naqvi On Conversion

Since Buddha's adoption of Buddhism, arrival of Islam in India, establishment of Catholicism in Goa and Protestantism in Calcutta, the question of conversions has been frequently attracted attention.

In this century, Mahatma Gandhi himself engaged extensively in the debate, particularly after Ambedkar's dramatic call to the Dalits Yeola on October 13, 1935 to opt out of Hinduism en masse as a means of freeing themselves from social oppression ... More recently the conversion of about 200 Harijan families in Meenakshipuram, a small village in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu, in 1981 sparked anxious debates, inquiries, surveys.

There were ... reasons for the extreme agitation the Meenakshipuram conversion caused ... Against the backdrop of a combination of factors, Meenakshipuram seemed more menacing than it otherwise would have.

The political context (of the current excitement) has been provided by the elevation of Sonia Gandhi as Congress President ... Since Sonia Gandhi is perceived to be a Christian, her emergence on the national scene is supposed to have enhanced the selectiveness of Christianity as an option for the socially disadvantaged ...

The reason why Hindu society is prone to conversions is straightforward - the structural violence in the caste system ... Surrounded by proselytizing systems, the Hindu tribe can be denuded, not augmented. A Hindu can only be born into a particular caste. If I decide to adopt the Hindu faith, which caste will I be accommodated in?

This is the basic problem Hindu society faces when confronted with the inducements which conversions offer to its vulnerable sections. But have conversions in general provided upward mobility to the socially disadvantaged ... (Source: The News from India).

M. Mitra On Conversion to Hinduism

.. One is either a born Hindu, or not a Hindu. One cannot "become" a Hindu. The present practice, dreamt up by politically motivated elements, of converting a non-Hindu by performing a Yajna and giving him/her a Hindu name, has nothing to do with the essence of Hinduism.

The fundamentally liberal character of Hinduism makes it casy for anyone to live the Hindu way. There are no compulsions; nothing is mandatory ... Nehru never publicly ident ified himself with any religion ... His successors thought otherwise. They enjoyed being photographed with Gurujis and Babajis to demonstrate to the Hindu majority that he/she was one of them. It was counter-productive. It sent the wrong signal to both the majority and the minorities and opened up old wounds. (Source: The Statesman, 21 Augu.1, 1999)