Unlike the names of social reformer EV Ramasamy alias Thanta Periyar and Hindu ideology, VD Savanna is being taken mostly on political forums, former Chief Justice of Madras High Court (CJ) AP Shah discussed his ideologies at a legal meeting in Chennai on Thursday.
While providing a lecture organized on the Constitution, secularism and Supreme Court by the Tamil Nadu Senior Advocate Forum (TNSAF), Mr. Shah said, the subject of lecture was of paramount importance in a diverse and pluralist society and secularism in India was very different from its western equivalents.
“India’s secularism is complex and multi -dimensional. It is much more than tolerance and is definitely not just Hindu tolerance. It represents the same respect as everyone and the same treatment as everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, promotes active social justice, ”he said.
Secularism
Saying that his visit to the Madras High Court, after nearly 16 years since he served as his Chief Justice between 2005 and 2008, recalled him the ideas of Periyar on the subject, the former CJ said, Periyar said more and more contacted as a political ideal from secularism as a political ideal and a condition for social justice and equality.
“The nationalism of Periyar was vested in its criticism of Brahminical domination and religious superstition. He emphasized the intelligence arising out of the paramount importance and dissatisfaction of logic. For him, secularism was linked to this rational faculty, which questioned people with oppressive social norms and religious dogma, which ended inequality, justice (retired) Shah said.
He said: “For him (Periyar), true social reform included a secular, rationalist approach, which challenged the traditional power structure. Periyar’s secularism became very different from the constituent assembly, which focuses on the neutrality of the state towards the protection of religion and religious freedom. Periyar said that Periyar said that Periyar said that the right of a person to be free from obstacles by religion, while a person’s right to be freed. Is, reminds us that the true purpose of secularism is to create a society where everyone is treated with respect and respect regardless of religious beliefs. “
The former Chief Justice told the gathering that with the increase in religious extremism, communal tension and currently of faith, focusing renewed on the original value of secularism and constitutional structure becomes mandatory. He said, the Constitution of India was designed to navigate the complexities of impartiality and religious freedom and equality, regardless of faith, regardless of faith.
Constituent Assembly debates
Referring to the Constitution Assembly debate, he said: “Secularism was the only way to create a United Nations from a diverse population for the idea of India. Political leaders, especially with partition, recognized the need to cross religious and communal division. Secularism was thus not only a political campaign but a moral imperative. ,
Indian constitutional secularism was not only unique, but also demonstrated polarization. “A outline for religious harmony has ended the endless struggle. Different interpretations have given rise to disputes around religious conversions, uniform civil code and management of religious institutions. These are not only academic debates, but are flashpoints of deeply sitting social division. Political actor exploits the religious sentiments that blur the lines amidst faith and electoral strategy, ”he said.
Justice (retired) Shah said: ‘The promises of the same treatment of the same treatment for the religious minorities facing margins. Communal nationalism is emphasizing for a major agenda. Certainly, it is a crisis that demands immediate examination. And of course, there is no better time to face fundamental questions about the feasibility of secularism in India. ,
Role of Supreme Court
He said that the Supreme Court plays an important role in defining religious boundaries and shaping India’s secular landscape, but its intervention was not comfortable, and sometimes inconsistent, inviting an examination in his roles in maintaining secular principles, he said.
Recalling the 1994 landmark decision of the Supreme Court AA Nau-Chief Bench in SR Bomai’s case, he said that three BJP BJP after dismissing the state governments, accepted the state governments after the Babri Masjid demolition, that the decision had imposed secularism as a part of the original structure of the Constitution. He said that decisions were often being ignored in the contemporary discourse.
Highlighting that the decision made important observation about the separation of religion and state, the former CJ said: “Those words are true today. The rise of fundamentalism and communalism of politics is anti -secularism. ,
Justice (Rit.) Shah also discussed the decision given by the Supreme Court in the Shirur Mat case (1954), which gave the necessary religious practices (ERP) tests, Shri Venkataramana Dewar Case (1958) and three important decisions to the former Chief Judicial. The state of Rajasthan (1963) and Shastri Yaganapurushadji vs Molds (1966) are known as the famous Harijan entry case with the last case.
“They mark a remarkable change in defines and regulating religious practices. For the first time, a difference was made between superstitious beliefs and religious practices. This was a step towards judicial rationalization and desire from judges to challenge the traditional interpretation of judicial tips, ”he said.
The Supreme Court intervened in religious matters between the 1960s and 1990s. In the 1990s, a thing of cases related to temples like Tirupati, Vaishno Devi and Kasi Vishwanath was seen. The court was very consistent in maintaining the nationalization of temples. “In my view, this temple acquisition is a project that needs to be seen again because it has led the politicization of holy places,” he said.
Savarkar differentiated between Hindutva and Hinduism
Referring to a set of seven decisions referred to by the Supreme Court, given by the Supreme Court between 1995 and 1996, Justice (retired) Shah said, “Then, Justice JS Verma equaled Hindutva with Hindutva and not described it with Indianness and not a way of life.” He had trusted an inclusive understanding of Hinduism that emphasized tolerance and universality.
“Justice Verma’s interpretation ignored the Hindutva stance expressed by VD Savarkar and Ms. Golwalkar as a problem. As a young adult, I have read all the tasks of Savarkar at original. My maternal grandfather was the president of the All India Hindu Mahasabha. Therefore, Savarkar’s concept of Hindutva was fundamentally regional, ”said Mr. Shah and quoted from an essay written by Savarkar on Hindutva.
“He defined the Hindu as a person whose ancestor (ie, pithrabhumi) and religion (ie, virtuous) were located within the geographical boundaries of India. In contrast, Muslims and Christians are foreigners because they are not indigenous and their religion has originated in a separate land. While doing, Justice Verma faced the conditions. His decision failed to recognize Hindutva as a political ideology, a fact that is also recognized by its proponent Savarkar, “Justice (retired) Shah said.
This difference was important because equaling Hindutva with Hinduism provoked the line between religious identity and political agenda. ‘The Way of Life’ metaphor helps to legalize Hindu nationalist story with Hindutva with Hindutva. This decision by Justice JS Verma allowed Hindu groups to claim that their ideology was only of Indian culture and not a separate political agenda.
“Now, see the effect. It is marginalized minority identity and approach because the method of Indian life becomes synonymous with Hindu cultural norms. So, you will see that a uniform civil code is practically implications of Hindu law. Eventually, Justice Verma’s decision reflects the difficulty in explaining complex social political words within a legal framework. Although his intentions may be to prevent misuse of religious rhetoric, in fact, it created more ambiguity and potentially valid communal appeal, “said justice (retired) Shah.
Ayodhya, Gyanvapi Case
Expressing its information on the Supreme Court’s decision of Ayodhya, the former Chief Justice said: “When the five-judge’s bench gave the decision, it appeared as a certain end for the 135-year legal saga. The latter construction of the Ram temple along with its pranks, a grand spectacle also participated by some judges who gave the author to the author, appeared to be closed. But the Ayodhya chapter is far from the shutdown. This especially demands significant examination in a legal gathering in this way … Despite the construction of the temple, the issues fueling the dispute continued to remind us that we still cannot achieve complete social harmony. ,
“The Supreme Court eventually stated that the Babri Masjid (mosque) was built in 1558, but rejected the claim that it was constructed after demolishing a temple which was allegedly existing there. Therefore, a mosque was rejected by a mosque by the Supreme Court after a mosque demolished a Ram temple. It was also strongly acknowledged that overnight, in December 1949, Hindu idols were installed in the mosque and the demolition of the mosque in 1992 was illegal, “Justice (retired) Shah said.
He shocked an 116-page Ednda, who had joined Ayodhya’s decision, without disclosing who wrote it out of the five-judges in the bench. “We don’t know who the judge was in five. According to me, such an appendix is very unusual and impenetrable and unknown to decide the consuming in India, ”the former CJ said.
Given that Ayodhya’s decision had reduced greatly to reduce the underlying social political stresses, he said, it can be seen in hosting other matters such as what was now born in the case of Gyanvapi mosque.
Constitutional patriotism is true nationalism
In addition, referring to Triple Talak and Karnataka hijab ban cases, he said: “Such cases are not just a legal battle. They define a lot of soul of our nation. The delay on issues such as the constitutional validity of the worship act or unresolved constitutional validity of love jihad laws has been dull for all years. They destroy public belief and create a climate of fear. ,
In these situations, the role of the Supreme Court as the patron of fundamental rights becomes absolutely important. “Protecting secularism, the basis of our Constitution is the biggest challenge and the biggest responsibility of the Supreme Court. But laws alone cannot really make secular society … We should challenge the forces of religious conservative and communalism. True nationalism is not about writing stories again to eradicate history or fit a particular agenda. True nationalism is about embracing our diverse heritage, for sympathy and respecting the right to dissatisfaction. It is also about constitutional patriotism. A deep sitting for constitutional principles, not indiscriminately towards the state or its current leaders, he said.
Justice (retired) Shah concluded his lecture by urging: “We cannot allow ourselves to consume ourselves with endless debate about our historical complaints and religious disputes, when there is a demand for immediate attention to more pressure issues such as poverty, unemployment and social inequality. We give it to the future generation to build a nation where the principles of secularism, democracy, and freedom are not just abstract concepts or words on paper, but really lived by every citizen regardless of their background or belief. ,
Published – March 14, 2025 04:17 pm IST
