STATE TIMES NEWS
Srinagar: A year after he observed that any person claiming to be a Hindu or Muslim nationalist was working against “Indianism” triggering a row, a High Court Judge here has said that the term used by him was taken out of context by some persons.
Justice Muzaffar Hussain Attar said while disposing off a petition last week that “Fascist bent of mind, otherwise, called fascism, is abhorrent to and antithesis of ‘idea of India’, otherwise called ‘Indianism’ (Hindustaniat).”
His remarks came as further elucidation to an order passed by the Judge in October 2013.
“In our constitutional philosophy, there is only one ‘ism’ that is Indianism. All other isms are sworn enemies of Indianism. Any person claiming to be Hindu nationalist, Muslim nationalist, Sikh nationalist, Buddhist nationalist or Christian nationalist is not only working against Indianism but against the very thought of India,” Justice Attar had said in the landmark judgement two years ago.
The judgement had drawn sharp criticism from religious and political groups with Kashmir High Court Bar Association deciding to challenge it in a higher Court.
It becomes necessary to place on record that a few individuals misunderstood the purport and import of the judgement passed in case titled Sanjay Tickoo and others versus state and others, the Court said in the fresh order passed on 12th May.
“Despite provocations of few persons the people exhibited highest degree of maturity. It is established fact that like people belonging to other faiths, a Muslim stands guarantee to truth, righteousness and peace,” the Court said adding “Indianism is Hindustaniat, which is akin to Kashmiriat”.
The Judge observed that the press reports of the time, when judgement was pronounced, would show that the expression “Indianism” was torn out of the context of the theme of the judgement by a small group of persons.
“The maturity shown by all sections of the society is appreciated by the Institution of Judiciary as also by one and all. The judiciary has, even in extreme adverse circumstances, enforced the laws of the land and protected the rights of the people,” he added.
Quoting from the Constitutional provisions, the Court said, “the expression ‘Indianism’ also provides that the state shall not deny any person, which means a Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Budhist, Christian etc, equality before law or equal protection of laws within the territory of India (Article 14).
The Court said it is aforementioned peculiar characteristic of the Indian Constitution, which constitute “Indianism”.
“The ‘Indianism’ does not and would not mean that citizens/persons do not have right to practice and propagate their religion.
“The ‘Indianism’, in the context of the Constitution, not only protects but guarantees right to every citizen, which includes Muslims to practice and propagate their religion.
“No law can be made to prevent the Muslims or any other community to practice and propagate their religion. All the people, belonging to different religious denominations including Muslims, have the freedom to effectively follow their religion,” the Court said in its nine-page order.
It said, “Indianism” in the context of Indian Constitution protects all religions and all religious activities and does not create any new cult.
The concept, “Indianism”, is evolved in the backdrop of the Constitution of India to ensure that there is no inter-religious conflict and people, though have right to practice, preach and propogate their religion, do not cause harm to other citizens belonging to other religions and live in harmony.
“The concept of ‘Indianism’ is evolved to highlight rights of all the citizens, be it a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, a Sikh etc, with express right to practice, preach and propagate the respective religions by all of them.
“‘Indianism’ protects such rights which are, otherwise, guaranteed by the Constitution,” the Court said.
Though all this has been, in clear and lucid terms, mentioned in Sanjay Tickoo’s case, but in order to ensure that the “small group of persons” should not succeed in its design to create confusion in the minds of people, the necessity to further clarify concept of “Indianism” arose, the Judge said.
“By whipping up the religious sentiments, efforts, though already stand frustrated by the wisdom of the people, were being made to create disorder in the society. The Courts have been protecting the religious practices, places as also propagation thereof as the same is guaranteed under the Constitution of India,” he added.
In the 2013 order, the Judge had also said it appears that “in terms of Constitution of India, which guarantees all the rights, which include right to practice and profess one’s religion and faith, there was no requirement of bringing in expression ‘secularism’ in the Preamble of the Constitution.
“India is not a Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist or Christian India. It is India which is born from the bosom of unrelenting struggle of millions of people,” he said.
The Court had directed all constitutional authorities and the Union Government to ensure that anyone attempting to subvert Constitution of India is stopped by taking recourse to the provisions of the law. (PTI)
