NEW DELHI: The National Front Left Front and a section of jurists have reacted sharply to the Supreme Court’s judgment that invoking Hindutva per ‘she does not constitute a corrupt electoral practice and demanded amendments to the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act to clear the confusion. While the ruling Congress officially was not willing to offer any comment, its leaders appeared to be perturbed over the likely consequences of the ‘apex court’s pronouncement. The dominant view among legal experts appeared to be that the judgment needed reconsideration even though some of them like former Law Minister Shanti Bhushan did not see anything wrong in it. Dr, Rajeev Dhawan felt the “judgment may well have legitimized a kind of electioneering which India can well do without just before the “crucial elections.” According to him, the concept of Hindutva, whatever is its intellectual meaning, had acquired a very insidious electoral meaning. “No court can pretend that this electoral meaning is not a reality. The tragedy of secular today is the continual harping on Hindu tolerance in the face of politically intolerant use of Hinduism,” he said.
Eyre since the Swami Naraynana case of 1966 and the Ramakrishna Mission case of 1995, the Supreme Court “has been increasingly assimilative about its interpretation of Hinduism,” he said. “We must recognize that Hinduism comes in many varieties some of which are insidious,” he added. Another senior Supreme Court advocate, Mr, P.P. Rao, said that he found it difficult to appreciate the court’s view that Maharashtra Chief Minister Manohar Joshi’s statement that he would establish the first Hindu State in the country did not amount to appealing to the electorate in the name of religion.
‘Unfortunately, this goes against the concept of secularism enunciated by an in judge bench earlier. If Mr. Joshi can make that kind of statement then tomorrow someone else can say he would establish a Muslim state,” he said.
The Janata Dal spokesman, Mr. S Jaipal Reddy, remarked: “It is beyond our comprehension how the word Hindutva can be invoked in election speeches without appealing to the religious instincts of the people.”
“If the Supreme Court bench is confused about the meaning of secular. Ism, then we seeks amendments to the laws of the land.” he said.
‘The Janata Dal’s parliamentary party, leader, Mr. Sharad Yadav described the verdict as “unfortunate.” He said “it is a blow to the centuries old concept of secularism.
Reactions from the Left parties were equally sharp, The CPI leader; Mr. Gurudas Dasgupta found the judgment confusing. “There is the danger that fundamentalists may use this explanation of Hindutva to pollute Indian politics with religion,” he said, pointing out that the ruling would, have far-reaching consequences.
Mr. Arif Mohammed Khan, former, Union Minister, who resigned from the Rajiv Gandhi Government on the, Shah Bano issue, said the judgment On the face of it “does not appear to have condoned communalism.”
Article extracted from this publication >> January 3, 1996
