On Monday (21st October), the Supreme Court of India junked a petition that urged the apex court to replace the word ‘Hindutva’ with ‘Indian Constitutionalism’ (Bharatiya Samidhaanitva) in its rulings. While dismissing the plea, the apex court slammed the Public Interest Litigation, stating that it was a ‘complete abuse of the process’.
Notably, the PIL was filed by a Delhi resident named SN Kundra. The three-judge bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra declined to even entertain the plea.
The bench headed by CJI remarked, “We will not hear this petition. This is a complete abuse of the process.”
It is important to note that over the years, the term ‘Hindutva’ has been facing the brunt of ‘politically motivated’ smear campaigns that try to paint it in communal and bigoted colours. In a bid to target their ideological opponent BJP and RSS, I.N.D.I. alliance parties and their ecosystems have been peddling falsehoods to malign Hindutva as an ‘ideology of hatred’. According to them, it is directed against other religious minorities, particularly, Muslims.
One of the prominent politicians launching defaming campaigns against the term ‘Hindutva’ includes senior Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The Gandhi scion claims that there is a difference between Hindutva, Hinduism, and Sanatan Dharma with the former being ‘militant’ radicalism against Muslims, while the latter two are terms for virtuous Hindus who are averse to violence even as a mode for their defense.
The Congress leader has often received flak for trying to pass off ‘Hindutva’ as an ideology of hatred and trying to create false equivalence of ‘Hindutva’ forces with radical Islamic groups or even worse. His opponents and proponents of Hindutva have often schooled him about the suffix ‘tva’. They have debunked the difference between Hindutva and Sanatan Dharma noting that Hindutva means Hinduness while calling out negative and pacifist campaigns against the Hindu community.
More importantly, the Supreme Court has addressed and interpreted the concept of Hindutva in some of its rulings. In its prominent ruling in 1995, the apex court had defined Hindutva as “a way of life” as it delivered a verdict in a case on speeches made by Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray.
In its verdict, the apex court had said, “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.”
The issue was again brought to the notice of the Supreme Court in 2016 when a petition was filed before the court urging it to review its 1995 verdict. However, the court declined to reconsider the judgment stating that it would not engage in the broader debate regarding the meaning of Hindutva.
