( ISSN 2277 - 9809 (online) ISSN 2348 - 9359 (Print) ) New DOI : 10.32804/IRJMSH

Impact Factor* - 6.2311


**Need Help in Content editing, Data Analysis.

Research Gateway

Adv For Editing Content

   No of Download : 75    Submit Your Rating     Cite This   Download        Certificate

THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF THE WORD "HINDU" – AN ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE PERSPECTIVE

    1 Author(s):  DR GHULAM YAZDANI

Vol -  8, Issue- 12 ,         Page(s) : 266 - 278  (2017 ) DOI : https://doi.org/10.32804/IRJMSH

Abstract

Religion is certainly a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not necessarily theistic. A religion may not only lay down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept, it might prescribe rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion. The meaning and scope of the word "Hindu" occurring in Hindu Religious legislations about its meaning or what is meant by the term "Hindu" occurring in the different legislations. In a judicial exposition in the M. Muraleedharan Nair case of the term ‘Hindu’ by the Kerala High Court, to the effect that only those persons who believe in idol worship are Hindus, leaves the impression by implication that those not believing in idol worship are outside the fold of Hinduism. In contrast to this judicial pronouncement, political statements of certain nationalist leaders tend to expand the scope of the term ‘Hindu’ when they say that all Indians including Muslims, Christians, Jews and Parsis are also Hindus. In the wake of these developments, a close look at the existing legal literature on the subject seems to be an interesting study. This paper therefore envisages a cursory but analytical and critical study of the subject in the light of juristic textual, judicial and legislative materials.

  1.  See, M. Muraleedharan Nair v. State of Kerala and ors. Judgment  in O.P. 5445/89.  Dated 10.4.90 High Court of Kerala.
  2.   The word ‘Hindu’ is given by Turkish and Persian Muslims to describe non-Muslims in India. Even today Arabic , Persian and Turkish word for India is Hind and Indians is Hindi.
  3.  See, Mayne’s Hindu Law and Usage, 13th ed., p.4; Monier Williams, Hinduism,p.1
  4.  See,Irfan Habib, “Medieval Popular Monotheism and Its Humanism,The Historical Setting,” Social Scientist,Vol.21,No.3-4,March-April,1993,p.79.
  5.   See, An Advaita Vedantist philosopher Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan andIndian  statesman who was the first Vice President of India and the secondPresidentof India.
  6.  Radhakrishanan, "The  Hindu, View of Life" p. 10,  as quoted by Justice Gajendragadkar in Shastri Yagnapurshadasji v. Muldas Bundardas Vaishya, Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M., Ramaswami, V., Satyanarayanaraju, P, AIR (1966) SC 119.
  7.   See,Tahir Mahmood, Studies in Hindu Law, at p. xiii (3rd edn., 1986); and M.P. Jain, Outlines of Indian Legal History(3rd edn.,1972)pp.582-608.
  8.   See, Brian K Pennington, Was Hinduism Invented? Britons, Indians and the Colonial Construction of Religion. Oxford University Press, April, 2005. ISBN 0195166558.
  9.   See, Religious Thought & Life in India by Monier Williams, p. 57]'..."
  10.   V.R. Krishna Iyer J, “Who is Who among Hindus”, Mainsream, July 7,1990,p.25
  11.   The Schools of Indian Philosophy are mainly classified into two categories; Orthodox-Theist and Hetrodox-Atheist (Buddhist and Jains), See N.R. Raghavachariar on Hindu Law : Principles and Precedents, 8th ed., (1987)p.28
  12.   M. Muraleedharan Nair v. State of Kerala and ors. Judgment  in O.P. 5445/89.  Dated 10.4.90 High Court of Kerala, quoted by Justice Iyer, supra 6
  13.   Ibid.
  14.   Paras Diwan, “Believing and Non-Believing Hindus’’, 33 JILI, p. 106 (1991).
  15.  Shastri v. Muldas, supra note 4 at 1130
  16.  Ashim Kumar v. Narendra, 76 CWN 1016; Paras Diwan  Modern Hindu Law. 8th ed., Reprint (1992) p.2.
  17.   Krishna Iyer, J.  supra n.6 at 26.
  18.   The essence of Swaminarayana sect is that an individual is enjoined to follow the basic Vedic injunctions of good, pious and religious life and that the path of salvation lies in the devotion of lord Krishna. Philosophically its founder Swaminarayana was the follower of Ramanuja. See Shastri v. Muldas, supra n.4.
  19.   This dharma began to spread about 125 years ago. See ‘The Pranami Dharma’ in the Darjeeling - Sikkim Himalayas: A Preliminary Study by Tanka B. Subbam, Religion and Society, Vol. XXXVI, No. 1, March, 1979, p.52.
  20.   B.G. Tilak’sGitarahasaya, as quoted by Justice Gajendragadkar in Shastri’s case, supra n.4.
  21.   1979 Ker LT 350: (AIR 1978 Kerala 68) affirmed in S. P. Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1 laid down that persons who do not have faith in God and temple worship should not be allowed to choose a member to manage the affairs of the Board. Any other interpretation to the term Hindu, according to the petitioner, will violate the guarantee given to the religious denomination under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
  22.   See, Tahir Mahmood, Studies in Hindu Law, xiii (2nd ed., 1986).
  23.  Prem  Singh v. Dulari Bai AIR  1973 Cal. 425; MUlla’s Principles of Hindus Law, 15th ed. (1986), p. 724.
  24.   The four acts are: (i) Hindu Marriage Act, 1995. (ii) Hindu Succession Act, 1956, (iii) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, (iv) Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
  25.  Perumal v. Poonnuswami, AIR 1971 SC 2352.
  26.  See, Mitra’s Legal and Commercial Dictionary by A.N Shah, 5th ed. (1990)  p. 365.
  27.  See, A Dictionary of Believers and Non-believers, Progress Publishers, Moscow (1989)
  28.   Rani Bhagwan Kaur v. J.C Bose,  (1903) 30 Indian Appeal,p. 249; Chandra Shekhar v. Kulandaivelu, AIR (1963) SC p. 185.
  29.   See, T. Krishnan v. G.D.M. Committee A.I.R, 1978. Kerala p.68.
  30.  Commissioner of Wealth Tax, West. v. Champa Kumari Singhi & Ors (1972) 2 SCJ 168 on 19 January, 1972; AIR, 1972 SCR (3) 118.
  31.   Ibid.
  32.   Rani Bhagwan Kaur’s, supra n. 28.
  33.   Myna Boyee v. Ootaram  (1861) 8. M.I.A. 400;  Nicolas v. Commr. Of W.T., AIR (1970) Mad. 1249 (This is the case under codified Hindu law)
  34.   Ram Pergash v. Dahan Bibi, (1924) 3 Pat 152; Mulla’s Principles  of  Hindu Law, 15th edn. (1986)  p. 83.
  35.  Abraham  v. Abraham,  (1863) 9 M.I.A. 199 Veenno Muddala v. Chehkati,1953 Mad.571;Paras Diwan, Modern Hindu Law,8th Edn.Reprint 1992 p.8
  36.   Explanation (b) to section 2 of  the  Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The other statues of the codified Hindu law contain similar provisions.
  37.   Sec. 2(1)  oF  Hindu  Marriage Act, 195; Raj Kumar Gupta v.  Barbara Gupta, AIR 1989. Cal. 165.
  38.  Kusum v. Satya (1907)   30  Cal. 999; see, R.K. Aggarwal, Hindu  Law, edited by U.P.D. Kesari, p. 14, 1993.
  39.   Ibid at 24.
  40.   Mohandas v. Devaswom Board, (1973) KLT 55 ( known as Jesudas or  Yesuda’s case).
  41.  Commr. of Income Tax v. Pratap, AIR 1959 Punj. 415.
  42.   Collector of  Madura  v. MoottooRamalinga, 1868.  12 , MIA 327.
  43.   See, Paras Diwan, Customary law,  3rd ed. (1990)p.627
  44.   Mohammad Siddiq  v. H. Ahmad, ILR 10 Bom. 1.
  45.  BaiBaiji v. Santock, ILR  20 Bom. 53; Gogireddy S. Sambi v. Gogireddy Jayama, ILR  (1973) AP 1240.
  46.  Mulla’s Muhammad Law;  R.K. Aggarwal, Hindu Law, edited by U.P.D. Kesari, p. 14, 1993.
  47.  Albuttamal v. Taluka Land Board, (1977) K.L.T.333, N.R. Raghavachariar’s Hindu Law: Principles and Precedents, 8th edn. (1987)  p.26.

*Contents are provided by Authors of articles. Please contact us if you having any query.






Bank Details