Hindutva Hounddogs Howling: Sid Harth
Sid Harth
By Justice (Retd.) Dr M Rama Jois
The Hindu civilisation, which is the basis of Hindu nationalism, is
different from any other living civilisation, again with the partial
exception of the Chinese. Even when the uniqueness of our civilisation
is accepted, it is sought to be annulled for all practical purposes,
by giving it the label ‘Hinduism’ and equating it with other
religions. The tragedy is that most educated Hindus have themselves
fallen prey to this semantic confusion. Thus they describe themselves
as one community among others.
Hindus accept no divisions between the believer and the unbeliever.
Every path leads to Him (God or Reality); there can be as many paths
to Him as the number of human, in fact, sentient beings.
All that BJP should do is to make explicit what is implicit in the
expression Hindutva.
The word ‘Dharma’ or ‘Hindu Dharma’ denotes upholding, supporting,
nourishing that which upholds, nourishes or supports the stability of
the society, maintaining social order and general well-being and
progress of mankind; whatever conduces to the fulfilment of these
objects is dharma. It is Hindu dharma.
Victory gets more admirers and tail catchers and the defeat encourages
adversaries and leg-pullers. This is human nature. That is what has
happened to BJP after setback to it in the Lok Sabha election.
Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with the BJP or its ideals. As BJP
suffered a setback in the recently held Lok Sabha elections, many
people think that BJP has to change.
After we secured Independence and Jawahar Lal Nehru became the Prime
Minister, Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee was a Minister in his Cabinet.
Since he was upset by the ineffective and weak policy of Nehru in
dealing with the problem of lakhs of refugees who were driven out of
Pakistan and entering India, he resigned. Thereafter, having felt the
need of strong political party to protect national interest, Dr Sayama
Prasad founded the Bharatiya Jana Sangh with the support of the
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in the year 1952 with the object of
protecting, preserving and strengthening the Bharatiya culture as he
considered that it constituted the soul of Bharat and that our
politics must be formed by it.
Having been with Bharatiya Jana Sangh the predecessor of Bharatiya
Janata Party right from its inception in 1952, I find that
ideologically there has been complete consistency throughout, namely
during the period from 1952 to 1977 when Jana Sangh merged in the
historic Janata Party. Again after coming out from Janata Party with
the new name Bharatiya Janata Party except the change of name, the
Party adopted the same ideology.
Ideal of Bharatiya Jana Sangh and BJP
The ideal of Jana Sangh has been that we are one people as declared in
the opening words of the Preamble to the Constitution. Notwithstanding
the existence of innumerable kingdoms and several religions and
castes, we constituted with one nation from times immemorial. What is
that force which held all of us in this vast country together? A
constitution bench of the Supreme Court has brought out this truth in
the most forceful terms in the case of Pradeep Jain. [AIR 1984 SC
1420] thus:-
“It is an interesting fact of history that India was forged into a
nation neither on account of common language nor on account of the
continued existence of a single political regime over its territories
but on account of a common culture evolved over the centuries. It is
cultural unity—something more fundamental and enduring than any other
bond which may unite the people of a country together—which has welded
this country into a nation”. [Pradeep Jain’s case - AIR 1984 SC 1420 -
para-2].
Thus, Bharatiya culture is the hallmark of our nationhood. It has been
the firm stand of Jana Sangh that no attempt should be made to divide
the people on the basis of religion which was the cause for the tragic
Partition of our motherland. Jana Sangh and its latest incarnation,
BJP therefore, opposed from its inception the policy of the Congress
to divide the people as minority and majority and favouring minority
for gaining electoral advantage. A mark of distinction of Hindutva has
been that it constituted a way of life and it respects, honours and
protects all religions. Thus, it is secularism-par-excellence. But it
is unfortunate, from the very beginning the Congress adopted the
policy of “divide and win election by dividing one people as Hindu
majority and Muslim minority” and for that purpose started dubbing
Jana Sangh as a communal party and terrorise the minority religions
particularly the Muslims telling them that they are the only saviours
of Muslims and Jana Sangh was anti-Muslim which was an utter
falsehood. As early as in 1953, I had the unique opportunity of seeing
and hearing great Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, founder of Jana Sangh who
had come to Bangalore (Bengaluru) for a day, at a huge public meeting
held in Banappa Park. In his speech he said that the Hindus and the
Muslims should live happily in this land with mutual goodwill among
them and no individual or party can claim that they alone are
protectors of Muslims. As regards the allegation that Jana Sangh was
pro-Hindu and communal and anti-Muslims, he declared that no Hindu
worth the name can hate another on the ground of religion and
cautioned against the Congress posing itself as the sole protector of
Muslims for securing electoral advantage. He also said that those who
were accusing Jana Sangh as communal were suffering from a disease
called ‘communalism phobia’. But the Congress party, the biggest party
which ruled both at the Centre and almost all the states with all its
resources and strength had been carrying on anti-propaganda against
Jana Sangh. The power of the Congress Party and its towering
leadership was such that any other political party would have been
crumbled and cease to exist. But the fact remains that with all ups
and downs, the Jana Sangh, because of its innate strength of its
cultural nationalism, became a major all India Party next only to the
Congress party and merged in Janata Party formed under the leadership
of Jaya Prakash Narayan and became part of ruling party during 1977.
Subsequently, after the breaking of Janata Party, Jana Sangh emerged
as Bharatiya Janata Party with the same ideals and is marching ahead.
For the purpose of this article it is sufficient to state that BJP
with its allies became the ruling party at the Centre between 1999 and
2004 and at present it is the main Opposition party at the Centre and
the ruling party in six states independently and in two states in
association with other party.
Right to happiness to all—Essence of Bharatiya culture
BJP is determined to resurrect and protect Bharatiya cultural values,
the mandate of which has been Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinaha (all should be
happy) and no person belonging to any religion should be discriminated
against or subjected to unjust favourable treatment. “Hindutva” means
that and not any religion. This view has been upheld by the Supreme
Court in the case of Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo [1996 (1) SCC 130]
accepting my argument and reversing the judgment of Bombay High Court,
thus at page 159: “no precise meaning can be ascribed to the terms
‘Hindu’, a ‘Hindutva’ and ‘Hinduism’; and no meaning in the abstract
can confine it to the narrow limits of religion alone, excluding the
content of Indian culture and heritage. It is also indicated 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 construed to fall within the prohibition in
sub-sections (3) and/or (3-A) of Section 123 of the R.P. Act.”
On this basis, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Bombay
High Court which had held that appeal to voters on the basis of
Hindutva was an appeal on the ground of religion and therefore a
corrupt practice. Inspite of the aforesaid judgment of the Highest
Court, the use of the word Hindutva by the BJP was being taken as the
basis by the Congress to dub BJP as communal saying that it is pro-
Hindus and anti-Muslims and thereby not only to secure votes of
Muslims but also of Hindus who were made to believe that BJP was
communal.
In this regard, what Girilal Jain has said in his book Hindu
Phenomenon is worth quoting:
“The Hindu civilisation, which is the basis of Hindu nationalism, is
different from any other living civilisation, again with the partial
exception of the Chinese. Even when the uniqueness of our civilisation
is accepted, it is sought to be annulled for all practical purposes,
by giving it the label ‘Hinduism’ and equating it with other
religions. The tragedy is that most educated Hindus have themselves
fallen prey to this semantic confusion. Thus they describe themselves
as one community among others.
What we can, however, do is to emphasise again and again that Hinduism
is not a religion.
Hindus accept no divisions between the believer and the unbeliever.
Every path leads to Him (God or Reality); there can be as many paths
to Him as the number of human, in fact, sentient beings. For, every
being is differently constituted, with different capacities and needs,
and can follow only a path appropriate to him or her. As such, Hindus
can have no difficulty in accepting the legitimacy of Christianity and
Islam for their adherents, though for themselves they cannot possibly
accept either Christ as the only son of God, or Mohammed as the seal
of prophecy and the Koran as the immutable word of God to be taken
literally. Indeed, the prophetic tradition is alien to Hinduism.
Hinduism provides for self-renewal, even if Hindus as such have not
been able to make effective use of the built-in mechanism for change
for centuries. The concept of Kalabrahma or Kaladharma is central to
the Hindu way of thinking. It accepts explicitly the inevitability of
change with the passage of time.” [pages 14, 15 and 16]
Hindutva and religious fundamentalism are sworn enemies
Rajadharma or constitutional law of ancient Bharat has two important
directives namely (1) King (State) should give equal protection and
support to all just as mother earth gives equal support to all living
beings (Manu Smriti IX-31) and (2) King (State) should give equal
protection to the believers in Vedas as also to disbelievers (Narada
Smriti vide Dharma Kosha P-870). These directives are also essence of
Hindutva or Bharatiya culture. That is why persecution of any one on
the ground of religion is unknown to Rajadharma or Hindutva.
Thus, as the famous statement in jurisprudence to the effect that
“Rule of Law and arbitrariness are sworn enemies”. Hindutva and
religious fundamentalism or theocracy are sworn enemies. They cannot
co-exist just like darkness cannot exist in the presence of light.
Duty based society
One other important value which is a mark of distinction of Bharat is
incorporated in Vishnupurana thus:-
Among the several countries Bharat is great, for, this is land of duty
whereas others are lands of enjoyment.
Mahatma Gandhi quoted this as the basis of his love for the country.
He said at page 1 of his, book My Picture of Free India.
“INDIA is to me the dearest country in the world, not because it is my
country but because, I have discovered the greatest goodness in it.
Everything in India attracts me. It has everything that a human being
with the highest possible aspirations can want. India is essentially
Karmabhoomi (land of duty) in contradiction to Bhogabhoomi (land of
enjoyment).”
Constitution—The supreme dharma
It should however be said to the credit of the Constituent Assembly of
free India which codified all the noble values of Bharatiya culture in
the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights chapter and the Directive
Principles of State Policy. One fundamental aspect according to
Bharatiya culture that it made ours a duty based society was left out.
However, it has been incorporated into the Constitution as Chapter IV-
A by Constitution 42nd amendment. Thus, the Constitution of India is
the supreme dharma and Kaladharma. BJP accepts this whole heartedly
and accordingly committed to give equal protection and equal treatment
to all which includes the so called minorities.
Integral Humanism (Ekatma Manaveeyate):
Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya the great thinker who was the President of
Jana Sangh who propounded the theory of Integral Humanism (Ekatma
Manaveeyate) based it on the values of Bharatiya culture, had said:
“From the national standpoint we shall have to consider our culture
because that is our very nature. Independence is intimately related to
one’s own culture. If culture does not form the basis of independence
then the political movement for independence would be reduced simply
to a scramble by selfish and power seeking persons. Independence can
be meaningful only if it becomes an instrument for the expression of
our culture. Such expression will not only contribute to our progress,
but the effort required will also give us the experience of joy.
Therefore, both from the national as well as human standpoint, it has
become essential that we think on the principles of the Bharatiya
culture. If with its help we can reconcile the various ideals of the
western political thought then it will be an added advantage for us.”
Bharatiya culture is integrated
The first characteristic of Bharatiya culture is that it looks upon
life as an integrated whole. It has an integrated viewpoint.
Unity in diversity and the expression of unity in various forms have
remained the central thought of Bharatiya culture. If this truth is
whole-heartedly accepted then there will not exist any cause for
conflict”. [pages 24 and 25]
Concept of Bharat Mata:
Another most important value of Bharatiya culture from times
immemorial has been the filial attachment the people have with their
country. This gave rise to the concept of Bharat Mata. It is
indisputable and well known that during struggle for freedom, one
slogan “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” electrified and united the entire people
notwithstanding the existence of several religions, castes and
languages and continues to do so and inspired many to sacrifice their
all in the course of struggle to secure Independence.
Hindutva a way of life:
The expressions “Hindutva, Hinduism, Dharma are synonyms and convey
the same meaning as Bharatiya cultural values. Kerry Brown an English
author in her celebrated book Essential Teachings of Hinduism has
stated in the preface of her book:
“The term “Hindu” was first used by the medieval Muslim invaders to
describe the dwellers of the Indus Valley. But the culture we now know
as Hinduism and which the Indians call Sanatana Dharma—eternal law
predates that label by thousands of years. It is more than a religion
in the doctrinal sense that the west understands religion. One can
believe in any God or no God and still be a Hindu. It is a way of
life, a state of mind.”
This view is reiterated by the Supreme Court at para 39 of its
judgment in Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo’s case (1996 (1) SCC 130 at page
159) thus:
“Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of
mind and it is not to be equated with, or understood as religious
Hindu fundamentalism.”
Thus, the purport of “Dharma” or “Hindutva” is of very wide import and
not religion as misunderstood by many, but means culture which in the
meandering course of history came to be called as Hindu dharma. All
its rules are meant for the sustenance of all human beings. On this
aspect Justice Ramaswamy of the Supreme Court of India in the case of
Narayana Deekshitalu, after elaborate consideration of the subject
concluded thus:-
“The word ‘Dharma’ or ‘Hindu Dharma’ denotes upholding, supporting,
nourishing that which upholds, nourishes or supports the stability of
the society, maintaining social order and general well-being and
progress of mankind; whatever conduces to the fulfilment of these
objects is dharma. It is Hindu dharma.” [1996 (9) scc 548 at para
79].
Such being the widest import and purport of dharma and Bharatiya
culture, they constitute the basis for making secularism as one of the
elements of the basic structure of the Constitution of India
notwithstanding the Partition based on communal hatredness. It is the
Congress which claims to be secular, is really communal in its outlook
and policies as evidenced by its failure to implement the directive of
the Constitution contained in Article 44 to enact a Uniform Civil Code
and Article 48 to ban slaughter of cows which is held sacred by the
majority, to please Muslims.
As Girilal Jain has said, Kaladharma is of utmost importance.
Accordingly, as pointed out above, the Constitution of India now takes
that place and therefore the Supreme Dharma which ensures equality and
equal protection for all. Therefore, just as secularism which was
implicit in the Constitution was made explicit by including it in the
Preamble by 42nd amendment, all that BJP should do is to make explicit
what is implicit in the word “Hindutva” in clear terms and declare
that it is a comprehensive word and inclusive of expressions which
takes in
Bharatiya cultural values with particular reference to its core ideal
Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinaha ensuring equal treatment of all citizens and
equal protection of all citizens and discrimination of none as per the
mandate of the Constitution. Thus, it is Secularism-par-excellence.
Ekatma Manaveeyate or integral humanism as propounded by Pandit
Deendayal Upadhyaya, extracted above which form the very essence of
Bharatiya culture.
Basic principles of Bharatiya cultural values enshrined in the
Preamble to the Constitution and incorporated in:
Fundamental rights in Chapter-III
Directive Principles in Part-IV
Fundamental Duties in Part–IVA, which together is the Constitutional
manifesto.
Patriotism [Desha bhakti] inherent in the slogan ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’.
Hindutva is an inclusive expression for all the above noble values and
constitutes the soul of BJP philosophy. Certainly that it is not the
reason for the setback in the Lok Sabha election. On the other hand,
it is the failure on the part of BJP in
canvassing to convince voter about the real meaning of the expression
Hindutva as explained above: and
not exposing the blatantly communal appeal at page 20 of the Congress
manifesto in which the Congress assured to provide enormous public
funds to the Muslims at the cost of secularism, to a large extent
responsible for the setback. These lapses on the part of the BJP went
to the benefit and advantage to UPA as people wanted a stable
Government and rejected smaller, regional parties including the Left
and paved way for a two party system.
With all this, it is indisputable that the BJP is the only Nationalist
Party/Force which considers the entire people as one unit. Therefore,
there should have been greater unity when there is setback and desire
to work with greater determination for achieving its ideals.
In this situation, it is necessary to remind ourselves that we have
been trained not to become slaves of adverse circumstances but to
become their masters. We should proceed with conviction, courage and
determination to achieve the ideal of establishing a glorious future
for the nation. It is however necessary to have introspection
individually to realise the mistakes committed out of selfishness or
otherwise, and to correct oneself and to ensure that his conduct will
be such which would not bring a bad name to the party or cause injury
to public interest. People will certainly be with us as is evidenced
by the result in Karnataka and Bihar as also in Jharkhand, Chattisgarh
and Himachal Pradesh and the ultimate victory will be for our cause as
it is a genuine and divine one.
(The writer is Member of Parliament, (Rajya Sabha), former Chief
Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court and former Governor of
Jharkhand and Bihar.)
bademiyansubhanallah
New Delhi (PTI) Former BJP leader N. Govindacharya on Tuesday said
though he was not aware of the contents of the Liberhan Commission
report, the core of Hindutva ideology was not based on the Ram
Janambhoomi issue alone.
"Core of Hindutva ideology does not depend only on the single issue of
Ram janmabhoomi alone. It covers such a wide aspect of society
itself," Mr. Govindacharya told reporters.
Mr. Govindacharya is a close associate of former BJP leader Uma
Bharti, who is an accused in the Babri mosque demolition.
"I am feeling relaxed that after all the report has come out and as
far as the contents of the recommendation are concerned, nobody knows
now. I will be able to comment on the recommendations when it will be
available for us," he said.
Questioning the delay in submission of the report, Mr. Govindacharya
said it should have been completed "some two years back".
"I cannot understand the reason of such delays. If the report is
worthy of that much delay, it will be proved only after going through
the report," he added.
Along with Ms. Bharti, senior BJP leaders L.K. Advani and M. M. Joshi
are among the accused in the case.
...and I am Sid Harth