LAW-HINDUTVA JUDGEMENT

Kuldip Nayar on Hindutva Judgement

The fact is that Hinduism is a religion. It is the faith which 82 per cent of Indians follow. They have their own beliefs like the transmigration of soul. They have their ways of worship and their own images and symbols. Religion is very much the path of Hindus' daily life.

During the census, Hindus are counted as such, a separate religious entity. The column for religion is in every form of application to which the government seeks answer. The word, Indian, will not be accepted in place of Hindu. It is like writing Islam in place of nationality.

The Constitution itself accepts Hinduism as a, religious entity when it explains in Article 25: ".The reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious (Italics are mine) institutions shall be construed accordingly.", Again, when reservations for the Scheduled Castes were accepted, the Constitution makers were particular to give concessions only to the lowest caste, Harijans among the Hindus, not if and when they embraced another religion.

Indeed, the entire thrust of BJP's propaganda is that Hindutva is a cultural appellation because Hinduism stands for Indianism. If it is so, then why not replace Hindutva with Bhartiyata? This will be more in consonance with the secular polity that India is. The BJP is the Bharatiya Janata Party (Italics are mine), not Hindutva Janata Party.

The reasoning that Hinduism is equivalent to Indianism would have force if the minorities, constituting 18 per cent of the population, were to feel the same way. Do Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Parsees believe that Hindutva is no more than a cultural entity? That is the test. In a pluralistic society, the minority is as much an integral part as the majority, the numbers do not matter.

All religions claim to be generous and accommodating Hinduism is not superior to any other faith.

Perhaps Hindutva would have conveyed a different meaning if the country had not seen it in its true colors. In the name of Hindutva Babari Masjid, the symbol of our composite culture, was demolished. The votaries of Hindutva are still after the mosques in Varanasi and Mathura, where the two share the same premises with. temples. They do not realise that Hinduism is accommodating, not destructive. The intensity of communal violence has increased manifold from 1989 when the concept of Hindutva had begun to be re-emphasized.

Many things have happed (to smudge) the image of secularism. More recently, the telecast of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata was questionable because the effort was to obliterate the distance between religion and culture. The state could not be a party to it.

 Still more objectionable is the visit of President Shankar Dayal Sharma to Somnath temple to preside over the celebrations on its completion .Sardar Patel, then home minister who laid the foundation stone, was admonished by Mahatma Gandhi on his return. He told Patel that as home minister of a secular party, he should not have associated with the reconstruction of the temple.

 The Supreme Court's definition of Hindutva has come at a time when secular forces in the country feel besieged. The BJP has already chalked out its strategy on how to use the judgement in support of its stance on Hindutva... There should be some way whereby the constitutional bench has a look at the verdict, which relates to secularism, a basic feature of the constitution. (Source: The Nation and the World)

Savarkar's Definition of 'Hindu'

 Apart from the religious aspect involved in the conception of the words 'Hindu'and' Hinduism', Veer Savarkar had to coin some new words such as 'Hindutva, Hinduness', 'Hindudom' in order to express totality of the cultural, historical, and above all the national aspects along with the religious one, which mark out the Hindu People as a whole. The definition is not consequently meant to be a definition of Hindu Dharma, or Hindu religion. It is a definition of Hinduness'. It is essentially national in its outlook and comprehends the Hindu People as a Hindu- Rashtra-a Hindu State".

 (-Preface to V. D. Savarkars' Hindutva: Who is a Hindu, 1922)

 Misinterpretation by Lohia and Chagla

 New Delhi, 4 March, 1966

 "that all those who live in India are Hindus. I would like to qualify this definition. I would say that those who lie in India, and are loyal and faithful to the motherland, are all Hindus, whatever their religion."

 " -R.M. Lohia

 ...I agree with Savarkar that all those who live in India re Hindus, whatever their religion. The word 'Hindu' has a connotation similar to that of 'Hindi' and "Hindustan'. The connotation of Hindu should not be confused with that of Hindu dharma.

 -M.C. Chagla