Court Verdict

Court verdict on the electoral malpractices i.e. asking voters in the name of religion, as was done by the Hindutva parivar 2007-07-01

SUPREME COURT

3.1.1996: The Supreme Court verdict on Hindutva advocated by BJP, Shiv Sena, VHP and others, at the most too pedantic when considering the real political practice by the Hindu communalists. The meaning attributed by the court to the word Hindutva as a concept or way of life is too wide off the mark. What is the Indian or Hindu way of life? The academics and scholars are not one with their discourse. When Dr. Radhakrishnan says Hindu way of life it is one thing and when for that matter Dr. B.R. Ambedkar speaks of Hindu way of life it is some thing quiet different. Do the learned and Hon’ble Judges mean that the explanation of Hindu way of life that they characterised in their judgement is the same as that of Dr. Radhakrishnan or Dr. B.R. Ambedkar? They cannot be meaning both. There are innumerable shades and practices in Hinduism, attributed by scholars of different persuasions and locations. For most of them Hinduism means secularism like Mahatma, Nehru and all the known leaders of the struggle for independence under the Indian National Congress. All of them were staunch Hindus. Even in today’s context they cannot be equated between hindutva of Shankar Dayal Sharma the former President of India and Mr. L.K. Advani of BJP and or any others like M.M.Joshi, Ashok Singhal, Vinaya Katiyar or Bal Takre. While Shankar Dayal Sharma is a staunch and scholarly Hindu but the later named are Hindu fascists. Their Hinduism is a repugnant, scheme of totalitarian theocracy. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in his critique of Hinduism showed the demonic face of Hinduism viz a viz democracy, social justice, equality of gender and castes. He was of the view that Hinduism is tyrannical, anti-human right in its actual practices. While Hindus mouth the philosophy of universal values, the practices does not confirm with those philosophical norms or values. When the SC discussed the Indian Way of Life as the meaning of Hinduitva they failed to define it explicitly. The Way of life lived by the Vedic and Upanishad communities or the earlier or later smriti and puranic communities or in the late middle ages or any other periods have varied with little resemblance and continuity of today’s’ Hinduism. Does the Indian way of life mean anti-Muslim, anti-dalits or anti-Christian or respect to all of them? Did they find that the north and south Indian Hinduism are same way of life lived? To quote just one example : In the north the marriage between uncles and nieces; or cousins in the line of mothers’ brother or fathers’ sister are denounced as un-Hindu but these are looked as the most rightful among south Indians. Similarly, the Kerala matrilineal system practiced is anti-thetical to the patriarchy practiced by the rest of Hindus. Did the court believe that Indian way of life includes Sati, child marriage, taking and giving dowry, polygamy practiced by the higher rich as well as the lowest castes, or the polyandry practiced in matriarchal Kerala up to middle of the century? Does this also mean that women should be confined to home, exactly to the kitchen and to the bedroom with no or only formal education, not to qualify to anything other than to cook and bed mate or child suckling machines? What is the position and role of the Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Parsees and tribals and other denominations? Did the SC hold that Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Parsees are also followers of the so called Indian way of life? If so was it not necessary for the court to demarcate themselves as against the Indian way of life advocated by hindutva forces represented by the RSS, BJP, VHP, SS and BD and all communal hues and colours? The SC surely is well qualified to interpret laws of the land but to shackle the Indian way of life to confine to the wording of the law is little problematic. The Judges are qualified in law but do they have enough knowledge and qualifications to interpret the meaning and concept of Hinduism as understood between Dr. Radhakrishnan, Vivekananda or even Dr. Ambedkar and people like L.K. Advani and others of his ilk that include the killers of Mahatma?. Who in these were qualified to be termed as followers of the Indian way of life? These are the crucial points that should have been addressed by the court. On their own admission the SC Judges concede that the meaning of Hindutva allows itself to be misused or abused by communalists. The RSS, BJP, SS concept of Hinduism is the misuse of all its finer points. The SC verdict needs to be reviewed.