Hindutva as ‘way of life’ challenged

Teesta Setalvad

Noting that India has reached the crossroads where “narrow and supremacist” interpretations of history, culture, social studies and law threaten the fundamentals of nationhood, three citizens on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to undo the “devastating consequences” of its 1996 judgment defining Hindutva as a way of life.

Anti-Godhra activist Teesta Setalvad, theatre activist and author Shamsul Islam and senior journalist Dilip Mandal appealed to a seven-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur that the interpretation given in the 1996 judgment by Justice J.S. Verma has led to “Hindutva becoming a mark of nationalism and citizenship.”

The Constitution Bench is considering how parties and their candidates misuse religion to swing votes and what constitutes corrupt electoral practice under Section 123 (3) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Focal points

One of the focal points before the Bench is the interpretation the Supreme Court gave to the term ‘Hindutva/Hinduism’ in the

Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo versus Prabhakar K. Kunte judgment in 1996 and the consequences that followed.

In an application seeking permission to address the Constitution Bench, Ms. Setalvad and her two co-applicants said the apex court’s interpretation of Hindutva/Hinduism as a “way of life” in 1996 has today led to “demands of homogenisation and assimilation of minority communities and SC/ST in the Hindutva way of life.”

“Hindutva has become a mark of nationalism and citizenship. The interpretation has curtailed faith in secularism, which is the basic feature of the Constitution,” the application, filed through advocate Aparna Bhat, contended. In an oblique reference to the ruling party, the applicants said how a “political dispensation” wants to stifle India’s academic pursuit and scientific temper through narrow interpretations of faith and mythology.

As triple talaq engage public debate and cow vigilantism runs amock, Ms. Setalvad and her co-petitioners said justification of certain customs and practices on the ground of their being from the “Shastras or Sharia are equally worrisome and condemnable.”