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.
