Question

When will India becomea Hindu Rashtra
Refer to supreme court decision on 11 December 1995​

Answer 1

Explanation:

In the past, a section of politicians compulsively approached imams on the eve of elections. It was considered an acceptable practice given the hold of religious heads over god-fearing masses. In the recent past, political leaders have made visits to temples an inseparable part of their election campaign itinerary and strategy.

Framers of the Constitution kept religion and politics separate. The Constitution mandates secularism as the cardinal principle of governance. But ground level politics has always tried to mix the two to form a potent vote catching chemistry.

With the chasm between communities widening, thanks to competing sectarian politics, there is a section of the intelligentsia which advises politicians to adopt a soft Hinduism line rather than advocate Hindutva, mistaking it for fanatic Hinduism, especially after the advent of cow vigilante groups. It is another matter that most states enacted laws banning cow slaughter in the 1960s when ‘cow and calf ’ was the election symbol of a political party.

Over the years, the SC has made several attempts to explain the meaning of ‘Hindu’, ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Hindutva’ in different contexts — from pure religious point of view to use of religion in elections. In no judgment has the SC even remotely identified Hindutva as the militant or fanatic version of Hinduism.

Half a century ago, a five-judge constitution bench of Chief Justice P B Gajendragadkar, K N Wanchoo, M Hidayatullah, V Ramaswami and P Satyanarayanaraju in ‘Sastri Yagnapurushadji’ case [1966 SCR (3) 242] had attempted to narrate historical and etymological genesis of the word ‘Hindu’.