Search This Blog

Thursday, 5 September 2013


As stated above at the cost of repetition that Muslims in India were always in microscopic minority even during Muslim Rule for more than a century and British Rule, but they never claimed any minority right at any point of time. As in the present case, controversy relates to only religious minority, as petitioners and Opp. Party nos. 4 to 6 claimed themselves as Muslim minority and protection under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India, this Court is expressing opinion about religious minority and not about linguistic minority. It is also made clear that question of backwardness of any community has no nexus and if any group claims backwardness, it has nothing to do with the minority rights under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India and all the citizens of India may be considered for the purposes of backwardness in accordance with the Constitution of India. It is also made clear that as Muslim Religious community has throughout been remained as a privileged class for centuries, how they became backward and if Muslim religious community claims any special/minority right being backward, who is to be blamed is not a controversy involved in the present case and as such this Court is not expressing any opinion. 

Sri Pocker Mohammed, a member of Constituent Assembly participating in the proceeding of Constituent Assembly rightly said that the Muslims are a strongly knitted community, therefore, if special rights are not given to them they will become desperate. Data given above makes it clear that Muslim religious group is now a dominant political force in democratic India on the basis of their population, voting rights in election and strength in getting elected their representative and in electing their own Government of their dominating choice on the basis of their population. 

This Court is of the view that on the basis of population Muslim religious community is only single Religious Majority in democratic India and could not be recognised as a religious minority community. In India after enforcement of the Constitution, the people of India including muslim are also free to perform their religious and cultural rites. Constitution of India makes it very clear, as held by the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra) that minority status was given for protection to non-dominant group. 

The Constituent Assembly first met on 9th December, 1946 and adopted Constitution of India on 26th November, 1949, but continued upto 24th of January, 1950. 

People of India adopted Constitution of India for them. In constitutional democracy sovereign power vests in the citizens of India and by exercising right to franchise citizens elect Legislators and the Government in which only population of any community plays a major role. If 12.58% of muslim population dominated and got partitioned India, 18.50 per cent of muslim population in State of U.P. which is equivalent to national population of Muslims in India after partition of India at present are more dominant force in Indian society and democratic political system. 
Considering the facts available on record, I am also taking judicial notice of following facts:- 
At present, from State of Uttar Pradesh, 18 Members of Muslim Religion community are in Parliament, nine Members in Legislative Council and 45 Members Members in Legislative Assembly (From Information Diary, 2007 of Government of State of Uttar Pradesh, Published by Information and Public Relation Department). India has also elected three Presidents of India belonging to Muslim Religion community. In India in the communities other than Muslims there are about 6400 casts and sub-castes, more than 100 religious groups of different thoughts and belief and several ethnic groups and all other religious groups/communities are reduced to minority and no other religious group/community, except Muslim community is dominant in India. It is also clear from the Census report of 2001 that Muslims who were 18.50% in 2001, by now after six years in 2007, must have gone above 18.50%, are at present single dominating religious group in comparison to other religious communities in India. In most of the Districts of Uttar Pradesh, Muslims are a dominant religious group constituting population from 20% to 50% according to Census Report of 2001 and in some Districts Muslim population is more than the population of all other religious group. Taking together Muslims at present are a dominant religious majority community affecting all walks of life of Indian society including political scene in the State of U.P. as well and are only dominant religious force/community in comparison to other religious group in India. Neither any sense of insecurity at present is in Muslim Religion Community nor Muslims lack confidence in any field in India. To the contrary as is clear from the Constituent Assembly debates and other materials, members of other remaining religious community were described as deaf and dumb and peace-loving as stated by some of members of Constituent Assembly and have no dominance. It is also clear from the Census Report, 2001 that in Bihar population of Muslims is 1,37,22,048 and Hindu population is 6,90,076,919, in West Bengal Muslim's population was 2,02,40,543 and Hindu population was 5,81,04,835 and in Kerala Hindu population was 1,78,,83,449, Muslim population was 78,63,842 and Christian population was 60,057,427. Similar is the position in other States also. In all India basis also, population of Muslim Religion community constitute 13.60% and they are dominant group in all respects, i.e., strength and population in comparison to other religious groups in India, but in the State of Uttar Pradesh Muslims are no more religious minority group requiring any minority status. 

The next question arises to be considered would be once a group recognised as religious minority in the Constitution as minority group ceased to be recognised as a religious minority group in the changed circumstances, i.e., on the basis of strength, population and domination. 
Chaudhary N.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that a religious group may continue to be a religious minority of the total population up to population 49.99% of the total population. In this regard he urged that in India majority consists of Hindu Religious group population and 50% of the total population may be calculated to Hindu population. 
Learned counsel for parties were heard on this question also at great length. 
The percentage of different religion groups considered by the Constituent Assembly for minorities were in three Groups, i.e., Group A- less than 1/2%, Group B- less than 1-1/2% and Group C- above 1-1/2%. Muslims at that time were above 1-1/2%. The Constituent Assembly fixed criteria for above 1-1/2% which may be interpreted as not more than 2% otherwise Constituent Assembly may have mentioned it less than 5%, but Constituent Assembly considered only above 1-1/2% in the Schedule which was adopted by the Constituent Assembly for recognising a religious community as minority. It is worthy to notice here that Constituent Assembly was constituted before partition of the country. It was expected at the time of partition of India on the basis of two nations theory that most of Muslim population, which led agitation for dividing the country in united India (as is clear from Constituent Assembly Debates) would go to Pakistan and only a small group of such nationalist Muslims who supported Congress and opposed partition would remain in India and appropriate protection was required to be given to such Muslims only. Protection to minority in the Constitution was given to different religious groups, i.e., Anglo Indians and Christians who were attached with the Britishers as dominant religious groups and after leaving Britishers from India being an insignificant group in the matter of population and were not in a position to affect democratic process were protected in the matter of religion, culture and educational institutions, though Christians in some States are now a major dominant religious force and also affects the democratic process such as North Eastern States, Kerala and some other States. Similarly, Parsees who were small in number were also provided protection in regard to religion and culture etc. in view of the fact that they were not in a position to affect/dominate politics in India. Sikhs were also given protection of minority as India was partitioned and lakhs of Sikhs lost their lives and some migrated from Pakistan to India and they constituted population at that time less than 1-1/2 per cent. But so far as Muslims are concerned, the assessment was that the total population of Muslims who would not leave India would be slightly above 1-1/2 percent as is clear from the Schedule prepared by the Advisory Committee on Minority headed by Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel adopted by Constituent Assembly. Had the Constituent Assembly visualised this fact that after partition of India and after exchange of Hindu and Muslim population, substantial population of such Muslims who led agitation in different parts of India for partition of the country and divided the country would remain in India even after partition of the country and major part of Muslims population would not migrate to Pakistan, the Constituent Assembly would not have fixed the criteria mentioned above. That is why Constituent Assembly had fixed 1-1/2% criteria otherwise it would have fixed 5% or 10%.As held by the Apex Court in T.M.A. Foundation(supra) case that the provision of special rights to minorities was introduced to remove their sense of insecurity and lack of confidence, the provision of minority was not intended to create any privilege to any section of the society in the name of minority institutions over and above rights of majority group (other than Muslims). It was to remove inequality vis-a-vis other communities and that is why 1-1/2% was fixed so far as Indian Muslims who adopted Indian citizenship after partition as Indians are concerned. As stated above, Schedule prepared by the Advisory Committee on Minority was accepted by the Constituent Assembly which mentioned population of Muslims above 1-1/2% after partition and thus it was made the basis for determining religious minority of Muslims under Constitution. 

As the entire material on record relating to population immediately after enforcement of of Constitution in 1951 is available on record, it is necessary to look into the matter on this aspect with the details of the Census as contained in Annexure-1 to the Affidavit filed on 27.2.2007, i.e., Census Report of 1951 makes it clear that total population of India at that time was 35 crores 68 lacs out of which Hindus consisted about 30 crores 67 lacs, Sikhs were 68 lacs, Jains were 16 lacks, Budhists 2 lacs, Zoroastrian 1 lac Christians 82 lacs, Muslims 3 crores 54 lacs, Other Religion Returns (Tribal)-17 lacs and Other Religion Return (Non-Tribal) - 1 lac. The population of Hindu at that time was about 85%, Sikhs 1.74%, Jains .45%, Buddhist-.6%, Zoroastrian- 1%, Christians 2.3%, Muslims 9%, Other Religion Returns (Tribal)-.47 and Other Religion Return (Non-Tribal) - .3%. The total population of undivided India in 1941 was 31 crores 41 lacs out of which Muslim at that time constituted 3 crores 96 lacks, i.e., 12.5.% excluding Jammu & Kashmir. In 1951, the total population of India at that time was 35,68,79,394 out of which population of Uttar Pradesh was 6,32,15, 942. 
Controversy relates to Uttar Pradesh in 1951 & 2001 total population of Hindus and Muslims in the State of Uttar Pradesh was as under:- 
1951 2001 
Total 63215742 Total 166197921 
Religion Male Female Hindu-133979283 
Sikhs 1,10,947 86,665 Muslim- 3,7440158 
Jains 51,651 46,063 
Buddhists 1,968 1,253 
Zoroastrian 678 580 
Muslims 9058982
Christians 64,799 59,083 
Jews 33 1 
Hindu 53760925 
The Supplementary Affidavit of R.S. Meena, Assistant Director of Census Operation, Uttar Pradesh, dated 19th March, 2007 makes out demographic changes on the basis of 2001 Census. Out of total population of India of 1,028,610,328 at present Muslims population was 13,81,88,240, Sikhs are 1,92,15,730, Christians are 2,40,80,016, Buddhists are 79,55,207 and Jains are 42,25,053. List of such States where Hindus were reduced to minority after independence of India is as under:- 
State Total Population Hindus
Jammu and Kashmir 1,014,3700 30,05,349
Arunachal Pradesh 1,097,968 3,79,936
Nagaland 19,90,036 1,53,162
Manipur 21,66,788 9,96,894
Mizoram 8,88,573 31,562 
Meghalaya 23,18,822 3,07,822 
Lakshadweep 60,650 2,281
Punjab 2,43,58,999 8997942 

As matter relates to religious minority, argument of 50% of the total population presupposes two groups, i.e., above 50% and less than 50%. In a multi religious society how this 50% would be calculated and which religious group could be recognised as religious minority group in comparison to which religious group will be considered in succeeding part of the judgment. 

Chaudhary N.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, has firstly relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra) in support of his contention and urged that even if population of Muslim religious minority group reaches 49.9%, i.e., less than 50%, it shall continue as a religious minority group. This calculation may be made on the basis of all India basis or and State of Uttar Pradesh basis. He further urged that Hindus are in majority and the calculation should be made in comparison to Hindus as a religious entity 

On the arguments of Chaudhary N.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, question further arises to be considered is whether Hinduism is a religion for the purposes of consideration of Religious minority. 

The first case in which Hinduism was considered by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court is the judgment reported in AIR 1966 SC 1119, Sastri Yagnapunushadji v. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya, relevant part of which is being quoted below:- 
"Who are Hindus and what are the broad features of Hindu religion, that must be the first part of our enquiry in dealing with the present controversy between the parties. The historical and etymological genesis of the word 'Hindu' has given rise to a controversy amongst indologists; but the view generally accepted by scholars appears to be that the word "Hindu" is derived from the river Sindhu otherwise known as Indus which flows from the Punjab. "That part of the great Aryan race", says Monier Williams, "which immigrated from Central Asia, through the mountain passes into India, settled first in the districts near the river Sindhu (now called the Indus). The persian pronounced this word Hindu and named heir Aryan brethren Hindus. This Greeks, who probably gained their first ideas of India from the Persians, dropped the hard aspirate, and called the Hindus 'Indoi' ("Hinduism" by Monier Will Hams. P.1) 
The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol VI, has described 'Hinduism' as the title applied to that form of religion which prevails among the vast majority of the present population of the Indian Empire (p.686). As Dr. Radhakrishnan has observed, "The Hindu civilization is so called, since its original founders earliest followers occupied the territory drained by the Sindhu the (the Indus )river system corresponding to the North West Frontier Province and the Punjab. This is recorded in the Rig which give their name to this period Indian history. The people on the Indian side of the Sindhu were called Hindu by the Persian and the later western invadors." (The Hindu view of Life" by Dr. Radhakrishnan. P.12). That is the genesis of the word "Hindu". 

When we think of the Hindu religion, we find it difficult, if not impossible to define Hindu religion or even adequately describe it. Unlike other religion 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 any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional feature of any religion or creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more. 

............The term 'Hindu', according to Dr. Radhakrishnan, had originally a territorial and not a credal significance. It implied residence in a well-defined geographical area. Aboriginal tribes, savage and half-civilized people, the cultured Dravidians and the Vedic Aryans were all Hindus as they were the sons of the same mother. The Hindu thinkers reckoned with the striking fact that the men and women dwelling in India belonged to different communities, worshipped different gods, and practised different rites (Kurma Purana) (Ibid p.12) 
Monier Williams has observed that "it must be borne in mind that Hinduism is far more than a mere form of theism vesting on Brahmanism. It presents for our investigation a complex congeries of creeds and doctrines which in its gradual accumulation may be compared to the gathering together of the mighty volume of the Ganges, swollen by a continual influx of tributary rivers and rivulets, spearding itself over an every-increasing area of country and finally resolving itself into an intricate Delta of tortuous steams and jungly marshes...The Hindu religion is reflection of the composite character of the Hindus, who are not people but many. It is based on the idea of universal receptivity. It has ever aimed to accommodating itself circumstances, and has carried on the process of adaptation through more than three thousand years. It has first borne with and then, so to speak, swallowed, digested, and assimilated something from all creed". (Religious Thought & Life in India" by Monier Williams, P. 57). 

We have already indicated that the usual tests which can be aplied in relation to any recognised religion or religious creed in the wordld turn out to be inadequate in dealing with the problem of Hindu religion. Normally, any recognised religion or religious creed subscribes to body of set philosophic concepts and theological beliefs. Does this test aply to the Hindu religion? In answering this question, we would base ourselves mainly on the exposition of the problem by Dr. Radhakrishnan in his work on Indian Philosophy . ("Indian Philosophy" by Dr. Radhakrishnan. Vol. I, pp.22-23). Unlike other countries, India can claim that philosphy in ancient India was not an auxiliary to any other science or art, but always held a prominent position of independence..... "In all the fleeting centuries of history", says Dr. Radhakrishnan, "in all the vicissitudes through which India has passed, a certain marked identity is visible. It has held fast to certain psychological traits which constitute its special heritage and they will be the characteristic marks of the Indian people so Loungsri as they are privileged to have a separate existence". The history of Indian thought emphatically brings out the fact that the development of Hindu religion has alrways been inspired by an endless quest of the mind for truth based on the consciousness that truth has many facts. Truth is one, but wise men describe it differently.(...) The Indian mind has, consistently through the ages, been exercised over the problem of the nature of godhead the problem that faces the spirit at the end of life, and the interrelation between the individual and the universal soul. "If we can abstract from the variety of opinion', says Dr. Radhakrishnan, "and observe the general spirit of Indian though, we shall find that it has a disposition to interpret life and nature in the way of monistic idealism, though this tendency is so plastic, living and manifold that it takes many forms and expresses itself in even mutally hostile teachings."(..) 
.....Naturally enough, it was realised by Hindu religion from the very beginning of its career that truth was many-sided and different views contained different aspects of truth which no one could fully express. This knowledge inevitably bred a spirit of tolerance and willingness to understand and appreciate the opponent's point of view. That is how "the several views set forth in India in regard to the vital philosophic concepts are considered to be the branches of the self-same tree. The short cuts and blind alleys are somehow reconciled with the main road of advance to the truth." (..) When we consider this broad sweep of the Hindu philosophic concepts, it would be realised that under Hindu philosophy, there is no cope for ex-communicating any notion or principle as heretical and rejecting it as such. 
xxx xxx xxx 

The development of Hindu religion and philosphy shows that from time to time saints and religious reformers attempted to remove from the Hindu thought and practices elements of corruption and superstition and that led to the formation of different sects. Buddha started Budhism; Mahavir founded Jainsim; Basava became the founder of Lingayat religion; Dnyaneshwar and Tukaram initiated the Varakari cult; Guru Nanak inspired Sikhism, Dayananda founded Arya Samaj, and Chaitanya began Bhakti cult; and as a result of the teachings of Ramrksohin and Vivekananda, Hindu religion flowered into its most attractive, progressive and dynamic form. If we study the teachings of these saints and religious reformers, we would notice an amount of divergence in their respective views; but underneath that divergence, there is a kind of subtle indescribable unity which keeps them within the sweep of the broad and progressive Hindu religion. 
xxx xxx xxx 

......It is somewhat remarkable that this broad sweep of Hindu religion has been eloquently described by Toynbee. Says Tonbee; "When we pass from the plane of social practice to the plane of intellectual outlook, Hinduism too comes out well by comparison with the religions and ideologies of the South-West Asian group. In contrast to these Hinduism has the same outlook as the pre-Christian and pre-Muslim religions and philosophies of the Western half of the old world. Like them, Hinduism takes it for granted that there is more than one valid approach to truth and to salvation and that these different approaches are not only compatible with each other..but are not only compatible with Day Experiment in Western Civilisation" by Toynbee, pp. 48-49). 

The Constitution-makers were fully conscious of this broad and comprehensive character of Hindu religion; and so, while guaranteeing the fundamental right to freedom of religion, Explanation II to Article 25 has made it clear that in sub-clause (b) of clause (2) the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jains or Budhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly." 

In order to consider what is the Hinduism, the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 1113, Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte and others is very relevant. Paragraphs 38, 39 and 40 of the judgment are being quoted below:- 

"38. These Constitution Bench decisions, after a detailed discussion, indicate that no precise meaning can be ascribed to the terms 'Hindu', 'Hindutva' and 'Hinduism'; and no meaning in the abstract can confine it to the narrow limits of religion alone, excluding the content of Indian culture and heritage. It is also indicated that the term 'Hindutva' is related more to the way of life of the people in the sub-continent. It is difficult to appreciate how in the face of these decisions the term 'Hindutva' or 'Hinduism' per se, in the abstract, can be assumed to mean and be equated with narrow fundamentalist Hindu religious bigotry, or to be construed to fall within the prohibition in sub-section 3 and/or (3A)of S. 123 of the R.P. Act. 
39. Bharucha, J. in Dr. M. Ismali Faruqui v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360: (1994 AIR SCW 4897), (Ayodya case), in the separate opinion for himself and Ahmadi, J. (as he then was), observed as under: 
".......Hinduism is a tolerant faith. It is that tolerance that has enabled Islam, Christianity, Zoroastriansim, Judaism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism to find shelter and support upon this land...." 
(at page 442) (of SCC): (at p. 4971, para 159 of AIR) 
40. Ordinarily, the Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and it is not to be equated with, or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism. In "Indian Muslims - The Need For A Positive Outlook" by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, (1994), it is said: 
"The strategy worked out to solve the minorities problem was, although differently worded, that of Hindutva or Indianisation. This strategy, briefly stated, aims at developing a uniform culture by obliterating the differences between all the cultures co-existing in the country. This was felt to be the way of coomunal harmony and national unity. It was though that this would put an end once and for all to the minorities problem". 
(at page 19) 

The above opinion indicate that the word 'Hindutva' is used and understood as a synonym of 'Indianisation',e.e. Development of uniform culture by obliterating the differences between all the cultures co-existing in the country." 

A judgment reported in 1993 ALL.L.J., 1379, Smt. Indumatee Koorichh v. The Family Court, Lucknow and another of the learned Single Judge of this Court has also 'Hindu' religion. Relevant party of Paragraph 27 of the judgment is being reproduced below:- 
"27......expression 'Hindu' under the acts has been taken to mean and include in itself every person man or woman or child who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew and also such person, who being Muslim, Christian, Parsis or Jew when, he gets himself converted into the Hindu way of life either as a Vaishnavait, Shivait, Buddhist, Sikh or the like cults of Hindu faith and religion. Those religions, as have got their origination in foreign land or lands other than mother India, the great Hindustan, and, as such, their followers are not included in phrase Hindu. Thus considered in wider horizon or sense of connotation a person born in India or Hindustan or whose parents have taken birth in India or Hindustan the land surrounded by Himalayan range on the north and Sindhu the Sea known as Indu sarovar in the south and having faith and allegiance with this land and its culture may be called a Hindu irrespective of difference of approach towards one truth and one goal." 

This definition of Hindu has further been defined by a Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1971, 1737, D.A. V. College, Jullundur etc. v. The State of Punjab and others. Paragraphs 12, 13 and 16 of the said judgment are being reproduced below:- 
"12. For the purposes of Art. 29(1) even though it may not be necessary to enquire whether all the Hindus of Punjab as also the Arya Smajis speak Hindi as a spoken language, nonetheless there can be no doubt that the script of the Arya Samajis is ditinct from that of Sikhs who form the majoirty. It is claimed that while the Sikhs have Gurumukhi as their script the Arya Samajis have their own script which is the Devnagri script. Their Claim to be a religious minority with distinct script of their own seems to us to be justified as would appear from the following: 
13. The Arya Samaj is a reofrmist movement, believes in one God and in the Vedas as the books of true knowledge. It holds that it is the duty of every Arya Samaji to read the Vedas and have them read, to teach or preach them to others. It has a distinct organisation, the membership of which is open to all those who subscribe to its aims and objects. The Arya Samajis worship before the vedic fire and it begins with the burning of incence (the homa 'sacrifice') accompanied by the chanting of Vedic verses. 
xxx xxx xxx 

16. The passage read above show beyond doubt that the Arya Samaj by "rejecting the manifold absurdities found in Smriti and in tradition and in seeking a basis in the early literature for a purer and more rational faith" can be considered to be a religious minority, at any rate as part of the Hindu religious minority in the State of Punjab. 

In this regard, constitution of Hindu Society and what is Hindu religion has been considered by the Apex Court in Bal Patil v. Union of India case (supra). Paragraphs 26, 27, 28 and 30 of the Judgment are being reproduced below:- 
"26.The so-called minority communities like Sikhs and Jians were not treated as national minorities at the time of framing the Constitution. Sikhs and Jains, in fact, have throughout been treated as part of the wider Hindu community which has different sects, sub-sects, faiths, modes of worship and religious philosophies. In various codified customary laws like Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and other laws of pre and post Constitution period, definition of 'Hindu' included all sects, sub-sects of Hindu religions including Sikhs and Jains. 
27. The word 'Hindu' conveys the image of diverse groups of communities living in India. If you search for a person by name Hindu, he is unidentifiable. He can be identified only on the basis of his caste as upper caste Brahmin, Kshatriya or Vaish or of lower caste described in ancient India as Shudras. Those who fall in the Hindu class of 'Shudras' are now included in the Constitution in the category of Scehduled castes with special privileges and treatment for their upliftment. This was found necessary to bring them at par with upper castes in Hindu society. The aboriginals, who have no caste were considered as distinct from four castes or Varnas of Hindu society. They have been treated favourably in the Constitution as Scheduled Tribes. For them also there are provisions for special treatment and grant of special privileges to bring them on level with the other castes from the main advanced streams of Indian society. 
28. There is a very serious debate and difference of opinion between religious philosophers and historians as to whether Jains are of Hindu stock and whether their religion is more ancient than the vedic religion of Hindus. Spiritual philosophy of Hindus and Jains in many respect is different but the quintessence of the spiritual thought of both the religions seems to be the same. The influence of Hindu vedic religion is quite apparent in the custom, style of living belief and faith of Jains. Jains do not worship images or idols of Gods but worship their Tirathankars meaning their ideal personalities who have attained human perfection and excellence by a process of self-improvement. The literal meaning of the word 'Jain' is one who has attained 'victory'. It signifies a person who has attained victory over himself by the process of self-purification. 'Jain' is a religious devout who is continuously striving to gain control over his desires, senses and organs to ultimately become master of his ownself. 
30. Thus, 'Hinduism' can be called a general religion and common faith of India whereas 'Jainsim' is a sepcial religion formed on the basis of quintessence of Hindu religion. Jainism places greater emphasis on non-violence ('Ahinsa') and compassion ('Karuna'). Their only difference from Hindus is that Jains do not believe in any creator like God but worship only the perfect human-being whom they called 'Tirathankar'. Lord Mahavir was one in the generation of Tirathankars. The Tirathankars are embodiments to perfect human-beings who have achieved human excellence at mental and physical levels. In philosophical sense, Jainism is a reformist movement amongst Hindus like Brahamsamajis. Arasamajis and Lingayats. The three main principles of Jainsim are Ahinsa, Anekantvad and Aparigrah. (See:-1) Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethcis, Vol. 7 pg.465;2) History of Jains by A.K.Roy, pgs. 5 to 23: and Vinoba Sahitya, Vol.7 pg. 27 to 284)." 

It is settled now that Hinduism is not a religion but is a way of life and combination of different religions and represents a culture and is a combination of various religions founded and developed by the different saints, philosophers propounded by different philosophy relating to worship, thoughts, ways of worship of the Almighty/God. The details have already been discussed above. In fact Hindusim represents all thoughts, beliefs and way of worship borne in India. 

No comments:

Post a Comment