Hindu, Hinduism and Hindutva : The Constitutional View
Who is a Hindu ? This is a question which has perplexed generations. Many writers both Indians and foreigners have written books titled “Why I Am a Hindu” explaining their concept of Hinduism. It was realised by Hindu religion from the very beginning that truth was many-sided and different views contained different aspects of truth which no one could fully express. This knowledge inevitably bred a spirit of tolerance and willingness to understand and appreciate the opponent’s point of view. Because of this broad sweep of Hindu philosophic concept under Hindu philosophy, there is no scope for excommunicating any notion or principle as heretical and rejecting it as such.
The founding fathers were fully conscious of broad and comprehensive character of Hindu religion; and so, while guaranteeing the fundamental right to freedom of religion, Explanation II to Art. 25 of Constitution of India defined the word Hindu inclusively. They made it clear that the Hindus shall be construed as to include any person who follows Hindu religion in any of its forms or developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj, or any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina, or Sikh by religion. Fearing that they may be missing something they added that any person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion will be included in the term Hindu.
Over the years, the Supreme Court has made several attempts to explain the meaning of ‘Hindu’, ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Hindutva’ in different contexts — from pure religious point of view to use of religion in elections. Half a century ago, a five-judge constitution bench of Chief Justice P B Gajendragadkar, K N Wanchoo, M Hidayatullah, V Ramaswami and P Satyanarayanaraju in ‘Sastri Yagnapurushadji’ case considered the position in detail. Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Gajendragadkar had held as under:-
“The historical and etymological genesis of the word “Hindu,’ has given rise to a controversy amongst indologists; but the view generally accepted by scholars appears to be that the word “Hindu” is derived from the river Sindhu otherwise known as Indus which flows from the Punjab. The Greeks, who probably gained their first ideas of India from the Persians, dropped the hard aspirate, and called the Hindus “Indoi”. As Dr. Radhakrishnan has observed; “The Hindu civilization is so called, since its original founders or earliest followers occupied the territory drained by the Sindhu (the Indus) river system corresponding to the North West Frontier Province and the Punjab. This is recorded in the Rig Veda, the oldest of the Vedas, the Hindu scriptures which give their name to this period Indian history. The people on the Indian side of the Sindhu were called Hindu by the Persian and the later western invaders”.
“Development of Hindu religion has always been inspired by an endless quest of the mind for truth based on the consciousness that truth has many facets. Truth is one, but wise men describe it differently. The Indian mind has, consistently through the ages, been exercised over the problem of the nature of godhead, the problem that faces the spirit at the end of life, and, the interrelation between the individual and the universal soul. The monistic idealism which can be said to be the general distinguishing feature of Hindu Philosophy has been expressed in four different forms : (1) Non-dualism or Advitism; (2) Pure monism: (3) Modified monism; and (4) Implicit monism. It is remarkable that these different forms of monistic idealism purport to derive support from the same vedic and Upanishadic texts. Shankar, Ramanuja, Vallabha and Madhva all based their philosophic concepts on what they regarded to be the synthesis between the Upanishads, the Brahmasutras and the Bhagavad Gita.
Beneath the diversity of philosophic thoughts, concepts and ideas expressed by Hindu philosophers, lie certain broad concepts which can be treated as basic. The first amongst these basic concepts is the acceptance of the Veda as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters. The other basic concept which is common all systems of Hindu philosophy is that “all of them accept the view of the great world rhythm. Vast periods of creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each other in endless succession. This interminable succession of world ages has no beginning. It may also be said that all the systems of Hindu philosophy believe in rebirth and pre-existence.
According to this religion, the ultimate goal of humanity is the release and freedom from the unceasing cycle of births and rebirths; Moksha or Nirvana, which is the ultimate aim of Hindu religion and philosophy, represents the state of absolute absorption and assimilation of the individual soul with the infinite. There is great divergence of views on the means to attain this end . Some emphasise the importance of Gyan or knowledge, while others extol the virtues of Bhakti or devotion; and yet others insist upon the paramount importance of the performance of duties with a heart full of devotion and mind inspired by true knowledge. In this sphere again, there is diversity of opinion, though all are agreed about the ultimate goal.
“When we think of the Hindu religion, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to define Hindu religion or even adequately describe it. Unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet, it does not worship any one god, it does not subscribe to any one dogma, it does not believe in any one philosophic concept, it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances, in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing
In the Supreme Court the position remains the same even today. In another landmark judgement in Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo case, the SC held “The words ‘Hinduism’ or ‘Hindutva’ are not necessarily to be understood and construed narrowly, confined only to the strict Hindu religious practices unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India, depicting the way of life of the Indian people.
To conclude the legal position is that whatever the critic may say Hindutva and Hinduism are not different but treated as synonymous by the Supreme Court and this is described as a way of life. The Term Hindu denotes anyone who lives in southern side of river Sindhu.
