Judiciary as
the top arbiter of the disputes on all the issues is some times caught up in
delivering judgments on things for which an individual judge may not be well
equipped. The case in point is the famous ‘Hindutva as a way of life’ by Justice
Varma of Supreme Court. Here the theological and political paraphernalia to
opine on this concept were not clear. To begin with Hinduism is the only major
religion in the World which does not have a prophet or a single book. On the top
of it many a terms have been coined over a period of time which one does not
find in the earlier texts so one resorts to the overlap of terms. It pertains to
the terms, Hindu, Hinduism, and Hindutva. While passing a judgment on the word
Hindutva, the judge took it as synonym of Hinduism and pasted on it the
definition of Hinduism, where due to the lack of single cohesive one, it came to
be called as a way of life. It is another matter that the word Hidutva came to
be coined in the early twentieth century to express the composite politics of
Hindu Mahasabha and later RSS. It was to be based on race; Aryan, language;
Sanskrit and culture; Brahmanic. This elaboration may not be the part of the
training imparted for the judgeship.
The current
judgment by Justice Shrivastava, (signed on August 30th 2007) Bhagvat Gita
should be a national dharma shastra, Holy book, falls in another genre. Here the
judge was giving his verdict on the dispute on the sale of temple land between
two brothers. As an, add on to the basic verdict he was generous enough to share
his personal wisdom as a part of the judgment. It was an unwarranted and
unsolicited advice. His novel point was that as we have national animal, bird
and what have you, we should have national Dharma Shastra and that should be
Gita. He advised the nation that all citizens should follow the dharma
propounded in it. The VHP immediately stood to lap this up and its vocal face,
B.P.Singhal was quick to endorse the same by adding that the judgment has
nothing to do with judges’ being Hindu, “He has justice in his mind, not as a
Hindu, but as a judge.” Meaning there by that pronouncements of Gita are above
the judge’s own religion, i.e. Hinduism and they should be part of our judicial
system. Leaders from other religious communities vehemently opposed this. Also
the legal authorities and legal experts pointed out that a book from any single
religion cannot qualify for being a national Holy book.
One recalls
that in the aftermath of Babri demolition many an ideologues from Hindutva camp
asserted that Ram is the national figure, far surpassing the Father of the
nation Mahatma Gandhi. The assertion was that Lord Ram should be the basis of
Indian identity.
Many a
confusions are crossing our path and the nature of Hinduism, being a complex
ensemble of different traditions does not help the matters in the least. As far
as Gita is concerned it has been a source of inspiration for many Hindus who
also participated in freedom movement. Its impact on the section of Hindus is
humongous, and it does have a special place in the culture of the land. But
neither is it the holy book of all the Hindus nor it can have a place in the
scheme of things of followers of other religions. We have Vedas,Upanishads,
Purans, Dharmshatras, and a whole plethora of holy books.While for Dayanand
Sarswati Vedas were supreme, for Vivekanand Vedanta,for Lokmanya Tilak and
Vinoba Bhave Gita had a central place. For the followers of Hindu Mahasabha/ RSS,
Manusmriti had a central place. Gandhi, the tallest Hindu in the freedom
movement did not comment about the individual books as he gave preference to
values.
Gita is
essentially a sermon given by Lord Krishna to Khstriya warrior Arjun. Seeing all
his relatives on the other side of the divide in war, Arjun gets pensive and
wants to withdraw from the battle. Here the Lord building up on the Dharma as
given in the Vedas, the system based on the Varna (hierarchical location in
social order) of the individual, advices that if we do our duty as per our Varna
it is not a sin, on the contrary running away from this Dharma, Varna based
duties is a sin. So go ahead and engage in a battle even with those who are your
kith and kin. Also one should not look at the results of one’s action as it is
dharma itself. The Lord also says that whenever this dhrama, Varna based social
system, is in danger, he takes birth to reinstate it.
Now how many
Hindu streams will hold on to this? Surely Nath, Siddha, Tantra and Bhakti
tradition of Hinduism reject the varna based preaching. Buddhism and Jainism
will look the other way around as far as Varna dharma is concerned and they will
have nothing to do with the violence and war. Gita, while highly revered, its
base is Varnashram Dharma, unacceptable to the teachings of other religions as
well. Similarly Lord Ram, despite all his virtues may not be acceptable to the
tribe of Shambuk, or Bali or women, even with the mildest aspiration of
equality, today.
This debate
about certain holy books/ laws has been affecting many a nation states. Many
Islamic states, in the grip of Mullahs call for the implementation of Sharia. In
Pakistan due to the erosion of democracy army kept dominating the social scene
and to get the legitimization of their dictatorial powers have been allying with
the section of clergy and implementing parts of Sharia to the detriment of
democratic norms. Here in India also many a Hindutva ideologues have been
calling far the institution of laws based on our Hindu books, i.e. Manusmriti,
Gita etc. and to do away with the Indian constitution.
Earlier during
the process of the formation of Indian constitution they felt this whole
exercise is futile as ‘we’ already have the best of the laws in the form of
Manu’s laws. It is another matter that the chairman of the drafting committee of
Indian constitution, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had burnt the Manusmriti. Tragically some
authorities even today pledge more to those laws than the ones of Indian
Constitution. Not long ago after the pronouncement of K.Sudarshan of RSS, BJP
led NDA wanted to review the Indian constitution.
India’s freedom
movement sorted out many of these issues. This movement was based on values of
pluralism and drew people from all the streams of society cutting across
religion, caste and gender. It also could be built up due to the solid secular
foundations where religion was the private matter of the individuals and
politics was to be based on the principles of this World, the matters profane.
And that’s what came to be enshrined in the values of Indian Constitution. If
one is to use the language of religiosity one can affirm today that our National
holy book is Indian Constitution, while people can revere and draw their
personal inspiration from the plethora of Holy books. As individual Judge
Shrivastva has the liberty to follow this or that holy book but to give it as a
judgment making it the national holy book, is an abuse of his position as a
judge. It is heartening that barring few, those deliberately mixing religion in
political life, all Indians steeped in the values of freedom movement will
ignore this pronouncement which is derogatory to Indian values.
ram.puniy@gmail.com,
http://www.pluralindia.com/
|