Those who pit Hindutva against secularism appear to have forgotten what the Supreme Court has observed, writes RAVI SHARMA
Yet again the BJP's manifesto has come under attack for its ‘Hindutva’ agenda. The so-called ‘secular’ parties have described it as an attempt to polarise voters on communal lines. The philosophy of ‘Vasudhaiv kutumbukum’ forms the very essence of our secular Constitution. The term ‘Hindutva' is neither a slogan of the Hindus nor a religious concept; there cannot be a more ‘secular' concept than Hindutva. But let’s not qualify it through mere words which might sound rhetorical. let’s do it from a legal perspective. The Supreme Court in Ramesh Y Prabhoo versus Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte reported in AIR 1996 SC 1113, after analysing the concept of Hindutva, concluded: “Hindutva is an ideological concept, a way of life which comprises of a code of conduct to be observed by every individual in every sphere of personal and national activity, and includes respect and equal treatment to all religion.”
let us now examine what is ‘communal’ in the BJP's manifestoIJ Union Minister for Defence AK Antony describes the BJP's stance on Article 370 as communal; his secular counterpart from CPI(M), Mr Sitaram Yechury perceives the Uniform Civil Code as an attempt to tarnish the secular fabric of pluralistic India. What is distressing about the aforementioned stance of these secular messiahs is the fact that none of them has bothered to examine the constitutionality of the BJP's position on the Uniform Civil Code and Article 370. Had they bothered, they would have realised that by their yardstick, even the Constitution is communal, as Article 44, while casting a positive obligation on the state, mandates: “The state shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code, throughout the territory of India”. The very title of Article 370 also makes it apparent that the special status conferred on the State of Jammu & Kashmir was an interim arrangement and intended to be for a ‘temporary’ period.
It is relevant here to note the fact that though the Constitution recognises religious minorities, it only does so to confer upon them the right to establish and administer educational institutions, and grants no further privilege. That being the constitutional position, one wonders as to the form of ‘secularism’ Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was professing when on December 8, 2006, he, while addressing the meeting of National Development Council, exhorted, “Muslims must have first claim on resources”.
Mr Singh, while making the statement, discounted the forewarning of the Supreme Court rendered to the Government in Bal Patil versus Union Of India, reported in 2005 (6) SCC 696, when it concluded: “If the differential treatment for minorities on the basis of religion is encouraged, the whole country which is under class and social conflict due to various divisive forces, will further face division on the basis of religious diversities. Such claims to minority status based on religion would increase the fond hope of various sections of people getting special protection, privileges and treatment as part of constitutional guarantee.”
The apex court has earlier defined Hindutva as Indianness, and while doing so quoted Maulana Wahiuddin Khan: “The strategy worked out to solve the minority problem was, although differently worded; that of Hindutva or indianisation. This strategy, briefly stated aims at developing a uniform culture by obliterating the differences. This was felt to be, to bring about communal harmony and national unity and put an end, once and for all to all minorities problem.” It is this Hindutva that forms the basis for the ideology of ‘India First’, which is aimed to maintain the integrity and unity of India, by gradually eliminating the minority and the majority classes terminology.
(The author is an advocate practising in the Supreme Court of India)
