Who is a Hindu?

“Who is a Hindu?” Gandhi called himself a Hindu and gave the following rationale. “I call myself a Sanatani Hindu, because: (1) I believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puran and all that which goes by the name of Hindu scriptures, and therefore in avatars and rebirth; (2) I believe in the Varnasharma Dharma in a sense, in my opinion strictly Vedic, but not in its present popular and crude sense; (3) I believe in the protection of cow in its much larger sense than the popular, and (4) I do not disbelieve in idol worship.[xxviii] He further explained his belief in cow worship. “The central fact of Hinduism , however, is cow-protection. Cow-protection to me is one of the most wonderful phenomena in human evolution. It takes the human being beyond his species. The cow to me means the entire sub-human world. Man, through the cow, is enjoined to realize his identity with all that which lives. Why the cow was selected for apotheosis is obvious to me. The cow was in India the best companion. She was the giver of plenty. Not only did she give milk, but she also made agriculture possible. The cow is a poem on pity. One reads pity in the gentle animal. She is the mother of millions of Indians. Protection of the cow means protection of the whole dumb-creation of God. The ancient seer, whoever he was, began with the cow. The appeal of the lower order of creation is the gift of Hinduism to the world. And Hinduism will live so long as there are Hindus to protect the cow.[xxix]
According to B. G. Tilak, a Hindu is defined by the “acceptance of the Vedas with reverence; recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are diverse, and the realization of the truth that the numbers of the gods to be worshiped is large, that indeed is the distinguishing feature of the Hindu religion.”
Since the RNI are anti-Hindu, their members have gone to the Supreme Court, thrice, to get Hindutva banned. It is educative to learn how the Supreme Court defined it. In fact, the Supreme Court has defined Hindutava in three separate judgments: 1966, 1977 and.1995.[xxx] In all these cases, it accepted Tilak's definition.
The first judgment of the Supreme Court in 1966: [xxxi]It says, “Unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one god; it does not subscribe to any one dogma, it does not believe in one philosophical concept, it does not satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion.” It maintained that constitution makers were fully conscious of the broad and comprehensive character of the Hindu religion, which included Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists within the term “Hinduism .” It quoted the opinions of (i) S. Radhakrishnan that Hindu implies residence in a well-defined geographical area, that is India; (ii) Monier Williams that Hindu religion is based on the idea of universal receptivity; and (iii) Arnold Toynbee that Hinduism takes for granted that there is more than one approach to truth.
The second judgment was delivered in 1977 by five judges including Justices M. H. Beg and R. S. Sarkaria -- both non-Hindus . It describes Hindutava as follows: “In principle, Hinduism incorporates all forms of belief and worship without necessitating the selection or elimination of any.” “The Hindu is inclined to revere the divine in every manifestation and is doctrinally tolerant, leaving others, both Hindus and non Hindus -- whatever creed and worship practices suits them the most.” “A Hindu may embrace a non-Hindu religion without ceasing to be a Hindu.” “Hinduism is then both a civilization and conglomerate of religions with neither a beginning, a founder, nor a central authority hierarchy or organization.” This judgment also quoted Encyclopedia Britannica.[xxxii]
The third judgment by the Supreme Court was delivered in 1995 and is recorded in 1996.[xxxiii] It was given in a case under the election law asking the court to disqualify use of Hindutva for elections because asking votes in the name of Hindutva was religious appeal. It describes Hindutva as follows. “Hindutva is indicative more of the way of life of the Indian people.” “It is not Hindu fundamentalism;” “nor is it to be confined only to the strict Hindu religious practices;” “[nor is it] unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India, depicting the way of life of the Indian people.” Considering Hindutva as hostile, inimical, or intolerant of other faiths, or as communal “proceeds from an improper appreciation of its true meaning.” It quotes Maulana Wahiuddin Khan [xxxiv]who considers Hindutva synonymous with Indian; to the Maulana, Indian and Hindu are one and the same. Recently, even Vasant Sathe, a Congressman and an RNI, has supported Vir Savarkar's formulation of Hindutva.[xxxv]


Read the full post by Romesh Diwan on
http://romesh-diwan.sulekha.com/blog/post/2003/02/india-ascendant.htm