The Supreme Court, in the ‘Shastri Yajnapurushadji’ judgement of 1966, attempted to narrate the meaning of historical and etymological genesis of the word ‘Hindu’ and to define HINDUISM, but concluded with these words- “Hinduism is impossible to define”. The Court adopted Radhakrishnan’s submission that Hinduism is complex, and the theist and atheist, the sceptic and agnostic, may all be Hindus if they accept the Hindu system of culture and life. The Court ruled that Hinduism historically had an inclusive nature, and it may broadly be classified as a ‘way of life, and nothing more.’
In their 1995 Judgement, the Apex Court clarified that “Ordinarily, HINDUTVA is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism. That it is a fallacy and an error of law to proceed on the assumption that the use of words Hindutva or Hinduism per se depicts an attitude hostile to all persons practising any religion other than the Hindu religion. It may well be that these words are used in a speech to promote secularism or to emphasise the way of life of the Indian people and the Indian culture or ethos, or to criticize the policy of any political party as discriminatory or intolerant”.
The Supreme Court rulings could not be clearer. In the absence of any religious meaning or political motive associated with the both these terms, Hinduism and Hindutva, how do the Hinduphobes differentiate between the two and get away with this shameless trickery? Neither Hinduism nor Hindutva are mentioned as such in any Dharmic literature. In fact, none of the Hinduphobes has ever suggested a proper Sanskrit or Hindi term/translation for Hinduism. Yet they profess to patronize(hardly respect though)one, and decry the other.
When Supreme Court definitions make no distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva, essentially calling them ‘way of life’, why are the modern Hinduphobes hell bent on assigning guilt to the majority community of this country? Have we not had enough of this sickness in the last thousand years?
Then again, if ‘way of life’ is the defining criteria, it obviously means the ‘organic’ and ‘civilized’ way of life. Tolerance is the very foundation of the Hindu way of life. But it does not connote the shameful tolerance of the ‘other-cheek variety’ as propounded in the New Testament and advocated by Gandhi, but the mutual tolerance of each other on proud, equal and sustainable terms. How can there be any, but grudging acceptance, of religious or political philosophies that aim to kill, convert or brand the local, eternally-existing people and crush their long-standing beliefs. If your Holy Book(s) preach hatred against me, and advocate violent means to alter my ‘ways of life’, you can only be an occupier and an enemy, meant to be expelled. Followers of such uncivilized cults should not be allowed to prey on our ‘tolerance’.
The ‘way of life’ as mentioned above must also be ‘organic’. Public nudity, or wearing tents, for example, is not the Sanatana Way of Life. One’s primary loyalty lies with the land or the country, religion comes next. Beef-eating cannot be considered a fundamental right, since cow is revered in this land. Forcible religious conversions cannot be tolerated either. Breaking of images or places of worship of other denominations is unwelcome. All this is derived from the Supreme Court’s definitions of Hinduism and Hinduism which refers to the ‘way of life’. It is in this light that Savarkar’s definition of Hindus makes complete sense- those who consider India their motherland, land of their ancestors(pitrabhumi) and their holy land (punyabhumi, that is where their holy sites are located).
Hinduphobes make it a point to ascribe Hindutva solely to Savarkar, conveniently glossing over its earlier use and development by Chandranath Basu and Tilak. They brand Hindutva as ‘political ideology’ as if nation-building is work of charity, politics being unholy business! Invading religions, Islam and Christianity have never been able to separate religion from politics, but the burden of remaining politically neutral should fall upon the Hindus? So much so that they dare to brand the votaries of Hindutva as ‘A-Hindus’! Has anyone ever dared to brand Khalsa as different from the Sikh faith? In any case, is not politics an essential part of any country’s ‘way of life’? And is not citizenship of a country an integral part of the political process? Why should then the political be seen as separate from spiritual in the case of Sanatana Dharma only? The accusations of the Hinduphobes do not make any coherent sense.
Sanatan Dharma is an ever evolving religion. It does not derive complete authority from one book or messenger. As such it is childish to point out that Sanatana texts do not provide concrete definition of Hindu, Hinduism or Hindutva.The Bharatiya people always assumed that this is their land and shall be. There was no cause for concern. Quoting Vishnu Purana to describe a Bharatiya predates the invasion of the Bharat-bhumi by other faiths. Any person who is not a Bharatiya first, and anything else later, cannot be termed as a natural citizen of this great country.
Sinicization of Islam and Christianity has been the Chinese solution to overcome the problems of assimilation and acceptance. The Chinese maintain that the architecture of your holy places, tone and tenor of your texts, lifestyle, customs and loyalties should be as per the Chinese ‘way of life’. Bharat, that is India, does not have the luxury of being considered a Sarai. To become a ‘melting pot’ is what our aspiration must be. ‘India first, Religion next’ is the only way forward. There cannot be any compromise in this regard.
#Hindu #Hindutva #wayoflife #SupremeCourt #Hinduphobia #Hinduphobes #Sinicization #Savarkar #sanatanadharma #sanatana
#punyabhumi #matribhumi #pitrabhumi