HATE SPEECH

SC's decision to review old 'Hindutva' judgements could change Indian politics for the better

A seven-judge bench must decide whether Justice Verma’s 1995 rulings on Hindutva have the potential to cause grave harm to secular, democratic politics.

The Supreme Court is likely to soon review a set of controversial rulings, called the Hindutva judgements, that exonerated the Shiv Sena's Bal Thackeray and Manohar Joshi from charges of indulging in hate speech.

The court said on January 30 that a constitution bench must expedite a long-pending case involving hate speech in which the Bharatiya Janata Party's Abhiram Singh has sought to use these Hindutva judgements  in his defence.

In 1996, when Singh's case first came up for hearing in the Supreme Court, a three-judge bench had said that Justice JS Verma’s rulings on Hindutva the previous year had the potential to cause grave harm to secular, democratic politics, and referred the case to a larger, five-judge constitution bench. This bench has now referred the matter to an even larger, seven-judge bench, urging it to expedite the case and review the Hindutva judgements.

This is a hugely welcome, if belated, move because the Hindutva judgements are deeply flawed and have encouraged the further use of hate speech as a vote-getting tactic. This violates Section 123 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, which prohibits "corrupt" election practices, including canvassing for votes in the name of religion.

Justice Verma's rulings came in response to cases filed against Bal Thackeray, the founder of the Maharashtra-based nativist Shiv Sena, and his party colleague Manohar Joshi, Maharashtra's chief minister at the time, for violating this section. The petitioner had filed a case against Thackeray for exhorting a Mumbai crowd in November 1987 to vote for a Hindu candidate and to teach Muslims a lesson. "Anybody who stands against the Hindus should be worshipped with shoes," Thackeray had said. "Under every mosque there is a Hindu temple. They should bear in mind that this is a country of Hindus."

Similarly, the petitioner filed a case against Joshi for railing against Muslims to a huge crowd in Shivaji Park in central Mumbai in February 1990 and promising to turn Maharashtra into a Hindu rashtra. "Hinduism is in danger because minorities have raced ahead by cornering all privileges and patronage of the government," Joshi said.

Given that the two politicians used the most direct language that left no room for interpretation, Justice Verma should have held both Thackeray and Joshi guilty for straightforward violations of Section 123 (3). Instead, Justice Verma exonerated them and justified this based on his views about religious texts and tenets. In his rulings, he observed, among other things, that Hindutva was a "state of mind, a way of life" synonymous with Indianisation and did not therefore constitute narrow, fundamentalist Hindu religious bigotry. In relation to Manohar Joshi, Justice Verma said that he had not appealed for votes in the name of religion but had only expressed his hopes for the state.

The rulings, delivered in December 1995, suffer from several flaws, but two are particularly glaring. First is the fact that the rulings ignored a Supreme Court judgement handed down five months earlier, in July, ruling that judges should not undertake theological explorations of Hinduism while interpreting Section 123 (3).

Second is the fact that the rulings glossed over the political and historical context in which the two Shiv Sena leaders made their speeches. The BJP's Ram Janmabhoomi movement to demand the construction of a temple in Ayodhya at the site of a 16th century mosque was in full swing, leading up to the party president LK Advani's rath yatra, an election tour on a chariot, in 1990. While setting off, Advani described the tour as a crusade for Hindutva and against "pseudo-secularism".

In 1996, the BJP's Abhiram Singh cited Justice Verma's Hindutva judgements, as they came to be known, to defend himself in the Supreme Court while appealing against a Bombay High Court verdict that had found him guilty of violating Section 123 (3). The High Court had set aside Singh's election to the Maharashtra assembly in 1990, saying that not only had he appealed for votes in the name of Hinduism, but that this appeal had also endangered communal harmony.

The Sangh parivar also gloated about the judgement. "The Supreme Court has fully and unambiguously endorsed the concept of Hindutva which the BJP has been propounding since its inception,” said an editorial in the Organiser, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Samiti’s official publication, in January 1996. The BJP’s 1999 election manifesto lauded the court for finally endorsing “the true meaning and context of Hindutva as being consistent with the definition of secularism.”

But what Justice Verma’s pronouncements did was to destroy the heart of Section 123 (3) and to embolden demagogues to use hate speech to win votes. The most flagrant example was a speech delivered by the BJP's before the 2009 general election in Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh, in which he was accused of claiming to be the only saviour of Hindus in the country and  swearing on the Gita that he would “cut off the hands that are raised against Hindus". Gandhi was arrested and spent almost three weeks in jail, but he claimed the tapes of his speech were doctored and the court controversially exonerated him four years later.

As the BJP gears up for a bruising 2014 election campaign to have Hindutva icon Narendra Modi elected prime minister, the court's decision could help limit intemperate appeals to voters on the basis of religion.

 

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BULLETIN BY 

New survey reveals what is essential for a fulfilled life in India and the world

Results from one of the largest surveys on fulfillment reveal how India stacks up at home and abroad.

Most people will readily admit to wanting a fulfilled life, but what does that actually mean? It’s a question that has vexed philosophers from the Buddha to Aristotle and one that continues to challenge us today.

Part of the reason for the ambiguity is that “living fully” means different things to different people. At an abstract level, a fulfilled life is about engaging in acts that promote meaning or happiness in daily life. At a practical level, this could include spending time with family and friends, volunteering in one’s community or learning new skills. For others, it could involve travel, music or the outdoors.

To further complicate things, research shows that acts that are meaningful might not necessarily bring happiness and vice versa. Wealth is an interesting example of this. Contrary to popular belief, money can indeed “buy” or boost happiness. However, it seems to have much less impact on meaning. One measure of this disconnect is that citizens of poorer countries often report seeing their lives as more meaningful than those in high-income countries. This paradox further demonstrates that defining a fulfilled life is a highly personal process.

A recent, large study by Abbott sought to understand what makes people feel fulfilled. The survey asked nearly two million individuals across countries, including India, to comment on what contributes to living a fulfilled life. Respondents were also encouraged to self-report their current levels of personal fulfillment to compare with the fulfillment standards they had set for themselves.

The results show that, worldwide, family (32%), success (12%) and giving (8%) are most often selected as top contributors of a fulfilled life. This held true for countries like India and Mexico. In contrast, factors like the outdoors (3%), food (2%) and the arts (2%) ranked lowest on average worldwide. India followed the same pattern. Self-reported fulfillment scores reached 68 out of 100 globally, with many national averages clustered close by.

In the case of India, comparing what we think makes us feel fulfilled to how fulfilled we actually are reveals some surprising paths to greater fulfillment:

  • Success doesn’t guarantee a fulfilled life, and we may be over-focused on it. Societal pressure to succeed, especially in financial terms, may be taking a toll on how fulfilled we feel. Indians disproportionately chose “success” as the top driver of fulfillment (18% vs 12% globally), yet those same people reported lower personal fulfillment scores. Focusing less on financial success could free up the energy needed to focus on acts that bring fulfillment to the individual as well as to society.
  • Family is center stage when it comes to living fully. Respondents who listed family (27%) as most important for living a fulfilled life indeed had higher fulfillment scores. This suggests that, despite the changing role of family and the ever-pressing time constraints that keep us away from loved ones, family still provides the kind of meaning and happiness that are important to living life fully.
  • Health is foundational for living fully but is somewhat overlooked. While the connection between health and living a fulfilled life is self-evident, only 5% of respondents listed health as the most important determinant of a fulfilled life. When we compare this to China (20%) and Brazil (11%), it appears that we are paying insufficient attention to the issue or taking for granted a healthy life. Prioritizing health—especially in light of the ever-mounting public health challenges—could bring the kind of attention needed to improve wellness at the individual and national levels.

People worldwide are united in their quest for a fulfilled life, but it’s clear that not everyone’s path to it will look the same. Perhaps the most important takeaway from the study, then, is to think inside-out rather than outside-in when defining one’s path to fulfillment. Societal pressures and norms can steer us towards certain definitions of meaning that conflict with our natural tendencies and prevent us from living a fulfilled life. As inherited wisdom indicates—the journey begins with the traveler and not the road.

There are numerous resources available that can help people around the world define and lead a more fulfilled life. Abbott, a leading health care company, is committed to helping people live the best life possible. Their website, newsletter and Living Fully survey feature lifehacks for work or personal time like those listed below. These are great tools for those ready to lead a more fulfilled and meaningful life, starting today.

This article was produced on behalf of Abbott by the Scroll.in marketing team and not by the Scroll.in editorial staff.

×

PrevNext