LAW-HINDUTVA JUDGEMENT

Kewal Verma on Hindutva Judgement 

The observations made by a Delhi magistrate... while acquitting Sadhvi Rithambara who had been charged with making inflammatory speeches, is a significant event in the country's judicial history. The magistrate dismissed the prosecution charge that she was inciting the Hindus to shed their blood for a Ram temple in Ayodhya on the ground that Sadhvi Rithambara didn't say anything against the Muslims.

 The Delhi magistrate obviously took a cue from the recent observations made by the Supreme Court in Manohar Joshi's case. The learned judges put their seal of approval on the concept of Hindutva. But they erred in one vital aspect. They believed Hindutva to be synonymous with Hinduism and Indianization. Who would deny that Hinduism is a great religion, a tolerant religion? The learned judges have shown their scholarship by quoting various authorities on Hinduism. But the issue before them was not the nature of Hinduism, but Hindutva.

(What) the learned judges quoted (do not) include the word "Hindutva", the word used is either Hindu or Perhaps the Chief Justice (who was not on the bench Hindus religion. The word "Hindutva" is a 20th century which gave this judgment) had this danger in mind innovation. It is the politicization of Hindu religion. The when in a public speech, he said: "Secularism is the father of the concept of Hindutva was Veer Savarkar. basic feature of our Constitution which cannot be According to his thesis for the Hindus, India (Bharat) is permitted to be destroyed". both a fatherland and a holy land. For Muslims, at best it could only be a fatherland, it is not their holy land. According to him, therefore, Muslims are less committed to India than Hindus who are more patriotic than the Muslims. A great interpreter of the concept of Hindutva was M.S. Golwalkar. He elaborated what Hindutva means in the following words:

 "Non-Hindus may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment - not even citizen's rights" Thus, when the members of the Sangh Parivar or Shiv Sena use the term Hindutva, they mean what was spelt out by Savarkar and Golwalkar. This is also what ordinary politically-alive Indians understand from the word Hindutva.

What is more surprising is that the Supreme Court accepts that Hindutva and Indianization are synonymous and to support their point of view the learned judges quoted one Maulana Wahiduddin Khan. "The word Hindutva is used and understood as a synonym of 'Indianization', i.e. development of uniform culture by obliterating the differences between all the cultures coexisting in the country".

 But the idea of attaining a uniform culture by obliterating the differences between cultures violates the spirit of the Constitution. Article 29 states: "Any section of the citizen residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script, or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve it". Obliterating cultural differences is a fascist concept. India's basic philosophy was best summed up by Jawaharlal Nehru:     

'Unity in diversity'. Perhaps this is the most slippery part- of the observations made by their lordships.

 Furthermore what the Supreme Court overlooked is who is using it and in what context. When Gandhiji said that he would like to establish Ram Raj, even his Hindu audience took it not as a Hindu Raj but as a just raj, an ethical raj. But when Rajiv Gandhi used the word Ram. Raj while inaugurating his 1989 election campaign in Ayodhya, the audience responded with shouts of "Har, Har Mahadev, Bolo Bajrang Bali Ki Jai', as they understood it to be Hindu raj.

 Similarly, when those who condoned or participated in the demolition of the Babari Masjid talk of Hindutva, it produces an effect which incites anti-Muslim sentiments in a Hindu audience. It is not certain whether the judgement is a sign of the times and reflects the changed political values of the civil society or whether it is just an aberration. The Supreme Court's judgement is a signal to the lower courts to take a lenient view of communalization of political campaigning.

To retain faith in the Supreme Court as the last guardian of our secular Constitution, the whole question of use of religion in politics must be reconsidered by a Constitution bench which would apply its mind more vigorously and thoroughly to the question.

(Source: The Business Standard, 17 February, 1996)

Subhash Chandra Bose on Social Revolution

The Indian movement can be analyzed under two aspects: 1) the (struggle) of national liberation... 2) the endeavor to create a new social order on the basis of social justice.

We who are fighting for national freedom are not out to hand over our country to a small group of landowners. We are not fighting to substitute a brown. bureaucracy for a white bureaucracy. We want to inaugurate a new social order where men will be free: caste, sex and wealth distinction must be abolished.

 It is difficult to create a new social order.The feeling is growing that the Nationalist Party should make its position clear with regard to the social question. The feeling is growing that the Indian National Congress should declare itself more explicitly on the side of the masses. The net result so far, of this criticism, has been that within the Nationalist Party people are beginning to think more on the social question - we are moving in the direction of socialism.

(Address in Paris, 17 March, 1936)