LOS ANGELES: In holding that the terms “Hinduism and “Hindutva” are not necessarily to be understood and construed narrowly, confined only to the strict Hindu religious practices unrelated to the culture ad ethos of the people of India, depicting the way of life of the Indian people,” the Supreme Court seems to have, even if un intentionally, given is seal of approval to what the fundamentalists have been claiming. if these terms are not to be understood and construed narrowly, do they embrace the culture and ethos of even those people of India who happen to belong to faiths other than that of Hindus? If “Hinduism” and “Iindutva are liberally defined so as not to be confined only to those professing faith in Hinduism, would it be misuse of the terms if, for instance, a political party puts forth the view that all Indians are Hindus irrespective of their particular faiths and the Hindutva simply means the Indianness ‘Of the people of India. {Note, this is one of the letters referred to in the commentary).
Article extracted from this publication >> January 24, 1996
