The Gujarat State Assembly while amending its anti-conversion law classified Jains and Buddhists as part of Hinduism. Such a classification is an unwarranted assault on the distinct religious identity recognised by the Indian Constitution itself.

One is tempted at the outset to pay a left-handed compliment to the the Modi government that it has unwittingly done a great service to the cause of Jain religious identity and its minority status by taking this absurd and constitutionally untenable step of including the Jains along with the Buddhists in the Hindu religion.

Gujarat State has close to five and half lakhs of Jain population and it is the third largest Jain population States in India, the first being Maharashtra with a Jain population of 1,301,842 and the second Rajasthan with 650, 493 Jains according to the 2001 Census. The total population of the Jain religious community in India is 4,225,053. It means that there is one Jain among 243 Indians. Though so less in the numbers, Jains are to be found in 34 out of 35 states and union territories. And the Jains are the only real religious minority after the Buddhists in India because the Sikhs the other national minority are a majority in Punjab and the Christians are a majority in the eastern Indian States, and the Hindus are a minority in Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir and the eastern States. It is pertinent to note that right from the first Census in 1873 the Jains have been counted as a major religious community along with Christians, Muslims and Sikhs.

The Gujarat government?s Freedom of Religion Bill which may be more appropriately termed as ?the Religious Slavery bill? has suddenly awakened the Gujarat Jain community which mainly belongs to the Shwetambar sect-there are two major Jain sects, Digambara and Shwetambar among the Jains, just as Shia and sunni in the Muslim community and Catholic and Protestant in the Christian. This section of the Jains so far has been stressing that they are Jains as a religious entity but Hindu by culture whatever that means. They have been suddenly jolted into the saffronite inclusion in the Hindu religion. They also oppose minority status for the Jains though their religious heads of the educational trusts like the Tapovan Trust have quietly secured educational minority status for their institutions!

Before I comment on the constitutional and legal aspects of this Bill classifying Jains and Buddhists as Hindus ostensibly as per the Article 25 Expl. II of the Constitution it would be useful to discuss the general religio-Hindutva environment of India and the historiographical context in which these two Sramanic-Indic religions- Jainism and Buddhism arose in ancient India because almost irreparable damage has been done to the religious identity of these two major religions by the conscious Vedic-Brahminic so called Hinduisation which has assumed Frankenstenistic character ever since the Sangh Parivar took charge of this fundamentalist weapon for which the ?Hindutva? concept of Savarkar was quite a boon for their proclamation of a Hindu Rashtra.
Right from the adoptionof the Constitution the Jain community has been disturbed by their inclusion along with the Sikhs and Buddhists in Explanation II of Article 25 of the Constitution in the Hindu definition ostensibly to carry out certain reforms of religious institutions. On 25th January 1950, a Jain delegation met Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and other central leaders to draw their attention to the anomalous position of the Jains under sub-clause (b) of Clause 2 of Article 25 and a petition was submitted. Jawaharlal Nehru clearly assured the delegation that the Jains are not Hindus.

Six days later his Principal Private Secretary, Mr. A.V. Pai, replied to the petition in which he said: ?It is clear that Buddhists are not Hindus and therefore there need be no apprehension that the Jains are designated as Hindus. There is no doubt that the Jains are a different religious community and this accepted position is in no way affected by the Constitution."

In his Allahabad speech on 3rd September 1949, Nehru said: "No doubt India had a vast majority of Hindus, but they could not forget the fact that there are also minorities Moslems, Christians, Parsis and Jains. If India was understood as a "Hindu Rashtra" it meant that the minorities were not cent per cent citizens of the country." (The Statesman, 5-9-1949)

It may be recalled that the Deputy Prime Minister of India Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel in his letter of 25 August 1946 addressed to Sir Bhagchand Soni, President, All India Digamber Jain Mahashbha. He assured the Jain Community not to be worried about their religious rights and promised that "in free India there would be no restrictions upon the religious liberty of any Community and there need be no apprehensions in this regards."

It is important to note in the foregoing context that in the pre-independence period a decision in the erstwhile Madras High Court:The acting Chief Justice Kumar Swami Shastri held in Getappa vs. Eramma & Others (AIR 1927);

?Were matters res integra, I would be inclined to hold that modern research has shown that the Jains are not Hindu dissenters but that Jainism has an origin and history long anterior to the Smritis and Commentaries which are recognized authorities on Hindu law and usage. The Jain religion refers to a number of previous Tirthankaras and there can be little doubt that Jainism asa distinct religion was flourishing several centuries before Christ. In fact, Jainism rejects the authority of the Vedas which form the bed rock of Hinduism and denies the efficacy of the various ceremonies which Hindus consider essential. So far as Jain Law is concerned it has its own Law books of which Bhadrabahu Samhita is an important one. Vardhamana Neeti and Aradhana Neeti by the great Jain teacher Hemchandra deal also with Jain Law.?

Mr. Justice Rangnekar of the Bombay High Court observed in the Hirachand Gangji vs. Rowji Sejpal (AIR 1939, Bombay 377) :

?It is true that the Jains reject the scriptural character of the Vedas and repudiate the Brahmanical doctrines relating to obsequial ceremonies, the performance of Sraddhas and offering of oblations for the salvation of the soul of the deceased. Amongst them there is no belief that a son by birth or adoption confers spiritual benefit Hindus in their conduct towards the dead, omitting all obsequies after the corpse is burnt or buried. Now it is true, as later historical researches have shown that Jainism prevailed in this country long before Brahmanism came into existence or converted into Hinduism. It is also true that owing to their long association with the Hindus, who formed the majority in the country, the Jains have adopted many of the customs and even ceremonies strictly observed by the Hindus and pertaining to Brahmanical religion.?

In the Ratilal Panachand Gandhi vs. State of Bombay (1954, ?56 Bom.L.R. 1184(S.C.) the Supreme Court taking a wider view of the fundamental right and a moe realistic view of what religion is and how its nature and content should be determined laid down:

?It may be noted that ?religion? is not necessarily theistic and in fact there are well known religions in India like Buddhism and Jainism which do not believe do not believe in the existence of God or of any Intelligent First Causes.. Religious practices or performances of acts in pursuance of religious beliefs are as much part of religion as faith or belief in particular doctrines.? (Religion, Law and the State in India by J. Duncan M. Derrett, 1968)

The National Minorities Commission arrived at their recommendation that the Jain community be declared as a minority religious community. It was in consideration of the following: 1)the relevant constitutional provisions, 20 various judicial pronouncements, 3) the fundamental differences in philosophy and beliefs (theism vs. atheism principally) vis-a-vis Hinduism, and 4) the substantial number of Jain population in the country resolved to recommend to the Government of India that the Jains deserve to be recognised as a distinct religious minority, and that, therefore the Government of India may consider including them in the listing of "Minorities." This recommendation was issued on Oct. 3, 1994.

So far Jains have been declared as a minority in Maharashtra, (which has the largest population of Jains in India) Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttara Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Uttaranchala. I am pursuing the issue of national minority status for Jains in the Supreme Court of India.

Hindus and Jains are fundamentally different. Lokmanya Tilak said: "In ancient times innumerable animals were butchered in sacrifice. But the credit for the disappearance of this terrible massacre from the Brahmanical religion goes to the share of Jainism." (Bombay Samachar, 10-12-1904).

Thus it would be appropriate to say that the Hindus of the modern India have adopted the Jain culture instead of saying that the Jains assimilated the so-called Hindu culture or customs. There was nothing known as Hindu in Vedic times. It is significant to note that the Jains do not believe in the most characteristic Hindu-Vedic-Brahmanic ritual Shraddha.

NOW THE SO-CALLED HINDU CULTURE AND ITS IMPACT

The principle of ahimsa (non-violence) and the prescription of strict vegetarianism are the prime and unique characteristics of Jain religion and ethics. They could not have developed in Vedic-brahmanic Aryan culture: there is ample evidence to show that meat eating was not a taboo to imigrant Aryans. But abstention from meat came naturally to the native inhabitants of India because of the climate. That the concept of ahimsa was foreign to Vedic culture is shown by the eminent Indologist Prof. W. Norman Brown in his Tagore Memorial Lectures, 1964-65, Man in the Universe:

"Though the Upanishads contain the first literary reference to the idea of rebirth and to the notion that one's action-karma determines the conditions of one's future existences, and though they arrive at the point of recognising that rebirth may occur not only in animal form but also in animal bodies, they tell us nothing about the precept of ahimsa. Yet that precept is later associated with the belief is later associated with the belief that a soul in its wandering may inhabit both kinds of forms. Ancient Brahmanical literature is conspicuously silent about ahimsa. The early Vedic texts do not even record the noun ahimsa nor know the ethical meaning which the noun later designated? Nor is an explanation of ahimsa deducible from other parts of Vedic literature. The ethical concept which it emdodies was entirely foreign to the thinking of the early Vedic Aryans, who recognised no kinship between human and animal creation, but rather ate meat and offered animals the sacrifice to the gods." (pp.53-54)

Therefore Prof. Brown concludes:

"The double doctrine of ahimsa and vegetarianism has never had full and unchallenged acceptance and practice among Hindus, and should not be considered to have arisen in Brahmanical circles. It seems more probable that it originated in non-Brahmanical environment, and was promoted in historic India by the Jains and adopted by Brahmanic Hinduism."

Prof . Hermann Jacobi, the eminent German Indologist said: "In conclusion, let me assert my conviction that Jainism is an original system, quite distinct and independent from all others; and that, therefore, it is of great importance for the study of philosophical thought and religious life in ancient India."

HINDU PERSONAL ACT LAWS

However, the Personal law Acts, The Hindu Marriage Act 1955, the Hindu Succession Act 1956, the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, all apply to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs - as is declared by their opening provisions.

All the four Acts clarify that
the ?expression 'Hindu' in any portion of this Act shall be construed as if it included a person who, though not a Hindu by religion, is nevertheless a person to whom this Act applies by virtue of the provisions contained in this section."

Clearly, this is a rule of interpretation which cannot, by any dint of imagination be treated as a definition of the word "Hindu" in general. Nor can it ever be stretched to claim that in law Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are one and the same religion. It is necessary to differentiate between "Hindu by religion" and "Hindu for the purpose of application of laws" - the latter expression referring to those non-Hindus who share with Hindus certain laws. This is true of the so-called "definition" of the expression 'Hindu' in Article 25 of the Constitution as well as of the same in the Hindu-law Acts of 1955-56 and the legislation relating to Hindu religious endowments.

Thus, the provision of Explanation II in Article 25 has no religious connotation. Instead of saying the same thing four times of four different religious communities - Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs - Article 25 (2)(b) says it once, for the Hindus, and then adds that the same provision be read in the Constitution for three other communities as well - the Buddhists, the Jains and the Sikhs. Makers of the Constitution did not intend to merge the Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs into the Hindu religion; nor were they indeed competent to do so. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism remain, under the Constitution and the law of India, four different faiths; and their followers four different religious communities.?

Even when Sikhs and Buddhists have been distinctly recognised as religious minorities and notified as such not being sure of their constitutional position the Sikhs made a strong representation to the Constitution Review Commission under Justice Venkatachaliah that the anomalour position of the Sikhs being included along with Buddhists and Jains in Expl. II of Article 25 relating to religious freedom being included in the definition of Hindus be amended and got a recommendation to that effect.

BUDDHA 7 BUDDHISM

As regards Buddhists the case is not much different. The Buddha is almost universally adopted by the Hindu theology as an incarnation of Vishnu. Radhakrishnan himself had no philosophical or theological difficulty is calling him a Hindu.

It is a well-attested historical and indological fact that Buddha was a junior contemporary of Mahavira 24th prophet of Jains, erroneously called the founder of Jainism, in 6th century B.C. Not only that but no less a person than Bhikshu Dharmanand Kosambi (father of the eminent scholar-historian-archeologist Prof.D.D. Kosambi) has written on the basis of Buddhist scriptures that Buddha was for some time a disciple of Mahavira in the initial stages of his search of an ascetic/renunciatory discipline, but having found the Jain renunciatory practice too severe left it and searched his own Middle Path.Dr. Hermann Jacobi also believes that "Jainism goes back to a very early period, and to primitive currents of religious and metaphysical speculation, which gave rise to the oldest Indian philosophies. They (the Jains) seem to have worked out their system from the most primitive notions about matter."

In the Buddhist scripture Majjima Nikaya, Buddha himself tells us about his ascetic life and its ordinances which are in conformity with the Jain monk?s code of conduct. He says, "Thus far, SariPutta, did I go in my penance. I went without clothes. I licked my food from my hands. I took no food that was brought or meant especially for me. I accepted no invitation to a meal." Mrs. Rhys Davis has observed that Buddha found his two teachers Alara and Uddaka at Vaisali and started his religious life as a Jain.

In Dighanikaya?s Samanna Phal Sutta, the four vows of Lord Parshvanath (who flourished 250 years before Mahavira?s liberation) have been mentioned. Attakatha of Anguttara Nikaya has reference to Boppa Sakya a resident of Kapilvastu who was the uncle of Buddha and who followed the religion of the Nigganathas i.e. Jains.

Critical and comparative study has brought to light several words like ?Asrava?, `Samvara? etc., which have been used by Jains in the original sense but which have been mentioned in Buddhist Literature in figurative sense. On the basis of these words Dr. Jacobi has concluded that Jainism is much older than the religion of Buddha and therefore it is incorrect to imagine Jainism as the offshoot of Buddhism.

HINDUISM & JAINISM

As regards Hinduism being the "parent faith" of India this is the most deep-rooted Hindu shibboleth from which even Dr.Radhakrishnan was not immune. Even Buddha or Buddhism is no exception for such misrepresentations. It is incredible but true that S. Radhakrishnan in his Foreword to the volume brought out on the occasion of 2500th Anniversary of the Mahaparinirvana of the Buddha in 1956: 2500 Years of Buddhism (published by the Ministry of Information, Government of India, 1956) states:?The Buddha did not feel that he was announcing a new religion. He was born, grew up, and died a Hindu. He was re-stating with a new emphasis the ancient ideals of the Indo-Aryan civilization.?

With all such irreconciliable inconsistencies and reservations on the meaning of the term ?Hindu? in practical terms the majority of the those residing in India, having faith in Vedas, and those not believing in Vedas such as Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists are bundled together as Hindus on the specious consideration that these are all following a Hindu way of life and hence are taken to be followers of Hinduism. This is precisely where the crux of the Minority problem, its communalization lies; just because Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs have grown together through centuries with the rest of the Brahminic Hindus and inevitably other religious and ethnic minorities and there is an intermingling of oustom, tradition and culture it cannot simply mean that the non-Hindu or non-Vedics have forsaken their individual religious and ethnic identities.

ART.25 AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN INDIAN CONSTITUTION

The whole terminological muddle and the fundamentalist division in the Indian context can be traced to the desperate and impossible quest of the fanatic elements in the original Vedic Brahmanic, that is, the so called ?committed to Hindutva philosophy to fraudulently gobble minorities like Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs in their grand design to create a ?Hindu Rastra? as a theological counterpoint to the major minority of the Muslims in India. By a clever stoke of constitutional drafting this was accomplished by such eminent draftsman of the Fundamantal Rights Sub-Committee comprising of stalwarts like Dr. Ambedkar and Dr. Munshi when Article 25 relating to religious freedom and particularly its Explanation 2 including Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs in the definition of Hindus was finalized without proper discussion.

A careful reading of the Article 25 as a whole makes it crystal clear that there is no reference to Hindu religion except with reference to the Hindu religious institutions of a public character in Sub-clause (b) of clause (2) . It is also clear that the provision for social welfare and reform or throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus is also specifically refers to the Hindu religion . It is impossible therefore to know what Constitutional purpose the founding Fathers were contemplating to serve by construing the reference to Hindus as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion. Why was it necessary to drag these three Sikh, Buddhist and Jaina religions and club them together with the reference to Hindus? Granted, the Founding Fathers were keen to provide social welfare and reform or throw open the Hindu religious institutions or temples to all classes and sections of Hindus, or they were concerned to end untouchability by law, or they contemplated to carry out any other unspecified social or religious reform vis-?-vis the Hindu religion.

Still that does not explain the rationale of including the other three religions of Indian origin under the specious umbrella of the Hindu religion. Jainism and Buddhism do not have casteism. As a matter of fact Mahavira who was the reformer of the ancient religion of Jainism specifically gave the message of a casteless society and and gave a call against slaughter of animals in sacrificial Vedic Yajnas. Buddha did the same.Sikhism too does not have untouchability.

Therefore the question remains what constitutional purpose was sought to be fulfilled by including Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists among the Hindus. As B.Shiva Rau?s classic exposition The Framing of India?s Constitution: A Study shows that Article relating to religious freedom and particularly its Explanation II including Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs in the definition of Hindus was finalized by the Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee comprising of stalwarts like Sardar Patel, Dr.Ambedkar and Dr.Munshi without proper discussion. It is indeed a constitutional conundrum why the Founding Fathers should have resorted to this devious means of social welfare and reform of Hindu religious institutions by a blatant invasion of the admittedly distinct sikh, Buddhist and Jain religious identities.

Clause (b) of Article 25 and its specious Explanation II is truly a religious Pandora?s box. There is no reason why the religious institutions of Sikh, Buddhist and Jain faiths should be treated on par with the Hindu religious ones to push forward Hindu social welfare and reform. It could be a nothing but a surreptious attempt-and rather a clumsy one- to take away the religious freedom guaranteed by that very Article under a pretentious Hindu pretext .

A very unconvincing and clearly untenable attempt which cannot be sustained by constitutional rationalization. It confirms the suspicion that the particular clause was not discussed threadbare, nor does it appear from the Constituent Assembly Debates that the protagonists of Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs were given a fair opportunity to discuss its implications .

And if constitutional stalwarts including its very architect Dr. Ambedkar who had publicly burnt Manu Smriti could be such unwitting victims of the so-called Hindutva tradition so as to obliterate the separate religious identities of well defined religious minorities albeit under the constitutional cover of certain limited objective one can well understand the logic of the Frankensteinian spread of Hindutva today intent on eliminating the smaller religious denominations like Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism. While Sikhs and Buddhists cannot be easily dealt with what with the militant and uncompromising character of the one and the universal impact of the other Jains alone are left to fend for themselves with their non-violent creed.

DR AMBEDKAR HINDU CODE BILL AND THE CONSTITUTION

This constitutional subterfuge,or almost a terminological sleight of hand, was very much in evidence in the then Law minister, Dr. Ambedkar?s comments in the Clause by Clause discussion of his Hindu Code Bill in Parliament from 5th Feb. 1951 to 25th Sept. 1951 when various eminent Hindu and Muslim members, and particularly Sikh members took serious objection to the terms ?Hindu? comprising Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains. They objected to its communal, discriminatory character and were strongly critical of its circumlocutory, roundabout and circuitous way of defining who is Hindu. Some members very clearly stated that the Bill in whatever form it was passed should not be forced on any section of the Hindu community or the Sikhs or Jains.

Dr. Ambedkar tried to brush aside these objections in a magisterial manner by saying that the:

?peculiarity about the Hindu religion, as I understand it, that it is one religion which has got a legal gramework integrally associated with it? it would not be difficult to understand why Sikhs are brought under the Hindu religion, why Buddhists are brought under the Hindu religion and Jains are brought under the Hindu religion?In this country although religions have changed the Law has remained one? The Jains come and ask: ?What are you going to do to us? Are you going to make us Hindus? The Sikhs say the same thing. The Buddhists say the same thing. My answer to that is this: I cannot help it. You have been following a single law system and it is too late now for anyone to say that he shall reject this legal system wholesale? That cannot be done. Therefore, the application of the Hindu Law and the Hindu Code to Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs is a historical development to which you and I cannot give any answer.? (Dr. Ambedkar and the Hindu Code Bill, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Vol.14, Part Two,1995 , Pp.886-888)

Dr. Ambedkar?s contention of a historical and hegemonic operation of Hindu Law in India was categorically rebutted by Sardar Hukam Singh and Sardar B.S.Mann. Sardar B.S. Mann quoted Mayne?s Hindu Law which says:

?As regards the village communities the Punjab and the adjoining districts are the region in which alone they flourish in their primitive rigour. This is the tract which the Aryans must have first traversed on entering India. Yet it seems to have been there that Brahminism most completely failed to take root and the religious element has never entered into their secular law.?
Commenting on this Sardar Mann said:

?If I have enjoyed emancipation from Manu for so long a time, will it not be tyranny of the times if I have to submit now to a modern Manu. Let me give credit to Manu that at least he was original in many respects, but my modern Manu ?Oh, what a fall has he had!?

This misinterpretation of history is compounded by what the doyen of Indian Indologists , Dr.R.G. Bhandarkar noted as to how ?India has no written history. Nothing was known till within recent times of the political condition of the country, the dynasties that ruled over the different provisions which composed it, and the great religious and social revolutions it went through. The historical curiosity of the people was satiated by legends. What we find of a historical nature in the literature of the country before the arrival of the Mahomedans comes to very little.? P.i-ii (Early History of the Dekkan Down to the Mahomedan Conquest, 2nd Ed. 1983)

Tarachand whose seminal work entitled Influence of Islam on Indian Culture, written in 1922 but published only in 1964, brought out the impact of Islam on Indian religious and cultural life. In its preface he stated:

"The history of India which furnishes a striking illustration of the impact of many divergent cultures which were gradually transformed by a process of mutual adjustment, surely needs the attention of a student of sociology and history who endeavours to understand the interaction of human mind and the effects of cultural contacts as presented in the customs, religion, literature and art of a people."

MISLEADING STEREOTYPES ABOUT JAINISM

Yet histories and encyclopaedias of world religions with a few exceptions fail to mention Jainism as a religion. There are pervasive misconceptions about the origin of Jainism, its relation with the Brahmanic, Vedic so-called-Hinduism, about Mahavira being the founder of Jainism, about its being an offshoot of Buddhism or Hinduism or its being a reformist sect of Hinduism. There are misrepresentations galore. It is overshadowed by Hinduism and Buddhism or if noticed at all it is mentioned in passing as one of the ancient India religious movements subsidiary to Buddhism.

Such is the context of the pervasive impact of the misleading Indian historiography from the deleterious effects of which even the most eminent historians, both right and left are not immune. One of the consequences of this failure is the continuing hold of misleading stereotypes of the nature of Indic religious thought and practice. I think this has a vital bearing on the devastatingly damaging impact of the misconceived Indological and ?Oriental? stereotypes on the Indian ethno-religious historiography so as to necessitate a paradigmatic revaluation..

The date of the foundation of the Maurya dynasty by Chandragupta has been determined to be about 322 B.C. on the basis of the known dates of the corresponding Greek persons or events such as the invasion of Alexander the Great which brought the Greeks in contact with India or such historical fragments as are left by Megasthenes?s Ta Indika.

Such is the common strategy of the historians, philosophers and academicians in dealing with the Indic Sramanic religious traditions. Issues are obscured, by introducing irrelevancies and thus an attitude of cotemptuous prejudice is provoked by exciting ridicule.

In her TarREPRESENTATION OF JAINISM AND BUDDHISM IN INDIAN HISTORY TEXT BOOKS Tara Sethia of the History Department,California State Polytechnic University, Pomona has noted how ?In reviewing six leading college textbooks on Indian History, however, I find a very different message. In this paper I will demonstrate that in these textbooks the coverage of Jainism and Buddhism is less than adequate; and their representation in historical narrative is often superficial, impertinent, misleading, and at times even reminiscent of orientalism. This is a particularly vexing situation given the emerging scholarship pertaining to India as well as world history. Recent scholarship about India has questioned the orientalist approach in the Indological discourse1 Over the last few decades, specialized studies about India have increasingly become far more inclusive in both content and approach. Historians are becoming increasingly interdisciplinary in their analysis, which are more inclusive in terms of their.....?

Further ?for a proper understanding of Jainism and Buddhism in the context of Indian history. For instance, it will be reasonable to expect to learn about Jainism and Buddhism from an Indian history textbook in terms of the following. What was the historical milieu of their ?founders? and the larger context in which these ?religions? emerged and subsequently evolved? How are Buddha and Mahavira represented in Indian history? What do we learn about their world-view, key concepts, and fundamental teachings or lessons? What do we learn about their followers, patrons, and persecutors? What has been their larger historical significance in terms of the historical change and impact within and outside India? Equally important is the question of how this information about religious traditions is integrated in the larger scheme of historical narrative about India.?

?Indian history has acquired something of a religio-cultural bias. Whole chapters devoted to the teachings of Buddha, the mathematical and musical theories of ancient India, or Hindu devotional movements are standard fare in most Indian histories. .. [Keay, p. xix]

CHANDRAGUPTA MAURYA AND JAINISM

But such distortions are not confined to Orientalist interpreters of ancient Indian history. I am quoting below an excerpt from The Age of Mauryas by the eminent historian Romila Thapar:

?Chandragupta is said to have accepted Jainism in his later years, and in fact to have abdicated the throne and become a wandering ascetic dying through slow starvation in the orthodox Jain manner. Considering the difficulties that he faced in making himself king and building an empire it is hardly likely that he would have abdicated at the end of his reign in order to become a wandering ascetic. It is possible though that he accepted the teachings of Mahavira and became a Jaina. This interest may be excused as originating in the fact that he was of low origin, a vaisya, and by accepting Jainism he eluded the contempt of the higher caste nobility.The teachings of Mahavira were at this period, regarded more as an offshoot of Hinduism, an extreme discipline, and the Jainas themselves as a sub-sect of the ealier religion, we can discoutenance the above idea. The interest it would seem was largely intellectual. Accepting Jainism did not raise one?s social prestige in the eyes of high-caste Hindus whose social ethics were already being determined by caste rules.? (Italics supplied)

I am aware that this is an earlier historical reading by the eminent, liberal, progressive historian Romila Thapar. I am also aware that that her readings of Indian ancient history have progressed from her A History of India (Pelican 1966) to Early India :From the Origins to A.D. 1300 , Allen Lane, 2002)

In her A History of India (Vol.I) Thapar has perceptively noted that ?much of the early history of India was reconstructed almost entirely from Sanskrit sources i.e. from material preserved in the ancient classical language?. (p.18) In her latest version ?substantial changes in the readings of early Indian history? are made. Mauryan India is Thapar?s special field of historical study. That is why one is concerned to question her cavalier and even presumptuous remarks - so unhistorical in character - regarding Candragupta.

I am quoting once again the particular sentence: ?This interest may be excused as originating in the fact that he was of low origin, a vaisya, and by accepting Jainism he eluded the contempt of the higher caste nobility.?

I simply fail to understand this judgemental remark on what Chandragupta did making a totally unhistorical presumption on his alleged inferiority complex as a Vaisya and even more questionable presumption that he did so to elude the contempt of ?higher caste nobility?. One is almost led to wonder whether Candragupta?s soul materialised by some transmigratory power before Romila Thapar to make such a guilty confession stating: ?Well, Madam, you know how embarrassing it was to be a Vaisya with such glittering nobility around me!?

I am concerned to make an issue of such ?historical? interpretations or rather mis-interpetations to show how personal historiography of the historians, apparently not affected by any transparent cultural bias can go astray. But since the issue has been raised it must be dealt with in a rational historical manner. I cannot do better here than quote Dr.Radha Kumud Mookerji.

RADHA KUMUD MOOKERJI AND CHANDRAGUPTA MAURYA

Dr. Mookerji has commented at length on the theory of the base birth of Chandragupta in his Chandragupta Maurya and His Times (1943):

?The theory of the base birth of Chandragupta Maurya was first suggested by the derivation which a commentator was at pains to find for the epithet Maurya as applied to Chandragupta by the Puranas.? Further after explaining how the commentator on Purana was wrong in explaining grammatically Maurya from Mura and how it is impossible to ?to derive by any grammar Maurya as a direct formation from Mura? Dr.Mookerji states : ?The derivative from Mura is Maureya. The term Maureya can be derived only from masculine Mura which is mentioned as a name of a gotra in a Ganapatha in Panini?s Sutra (IV. I, 151). The commentator was more interested in finding a mother than in grammar! The only redeeming feature of the commentator is that not merely is he innocent of grammar and history; he is also innocent of any libel against Chandragupta. For he has not stated that Mura, the supposed mother of Chandragupta was a Sudra woman or a courtesan of the Nanda king?Thus even the commentator of the Purana cannot be held responsible for the theory of Chandragupta?s low origin.? (Pp.9-10)

Dr Mookerji makes a solemn invocation which should serve as a solace to one in search of sober history: ?Heavens save us from commentators who supplement texts by facts of their own creation!? Well, this is precisely my watchword for my humble effort to trace the evolution of the Sramanic religious tradition of Jainism and Buddhism and its impact on the Indic civilisation.

Further to press home the conclusion from Jain and Buddhist sources Dr.Mookerji notes that the ?Mahavamsa (a Ceylones Buddhist account of about 5th century AD) states that Chandragupta was ?born of a family of Kshatriyas called Moriyas? (Moriyanam khattiyanam vamse jatam)?, and the Buddhist canonical work Digha Nikaya (II, 167) mentions the Kshatriya clan known as Moriyas of Pippalivana.

Even more monumental evidence, according to Dr.Mookerji, is derived from the Buddhist as well Jain tradition connecting the peacock, Mayura, with the Moriya or Maurya dynasty. Thus the Ashoka pillar at Nandangarh has been found to bear at its bottom below the surface of the ground the figure of a peacock while the same figure is repeated in several sculptures on the Great Stupa at Sanchi associated with Ashoka. Therefore Dr.Mookerji concludes that the ?Buddhist and Jain tradition are at one in declaring for him (Chandragupta) a noble birth.? ((Pp.14-15) Ibid.

As noted above ?The date of the foundation of the Maurya dynasty by Chandragupta has been determined to be about 322 B.C. on the basis of the known dates of the corresponding Greek persons or events such as the invasion of Alexander the Great which brought the Greeks in contact with India or such historical fragments as are left by Megasthenes?s Ta Indika. Chandragupta Maurya?s ascention to the throne and his historicity is an important landmark or even a high watermark in the vague almost non-existent ancient Indian historical accounts.

I am emphasising the siginificance of the Chandragupta Maurya dynasty in ancient India because Chandragupta?s role was also crucial in the spread of Jaina religious and cultural traditions in the whole of South India. In a remarkable monograph Jainism or the Early Faith of Asoka with Illustrations of the Ancient Religions of the East From the Pantheon of the Indo-Scythians with A Notice on Bactrian coins and Indian Dates by Edward Thomas F.R.S., read at the Meeting of the Royal Asiatic Society, Feb.26, 1877 (published Trubner & Co, London, 1877)

E.Thomas states re; Jaina Sramanic faith of Chandragupta quoting Abul Fazl, the ?accomplished minister of Akbar? known to have been largely indebted to the Jaina priests and their carefully preserved chronicles? from his Ain-i-Akbari ?three very important entries, exhibited in the original Persian version quoted below, which establish: (1) that Asoka himself first introduced ?JAINISM? into the kingdom of Kashmir; (2) that ?Buddhism? was dominant there during the reign of Jaloka (the son and successor of Asoka);; and (3)that Brahmanism superseded Buddhism under Raja Sachinara?? which evidence he takes ?to infer that Asoka?s conversion to Buddhism occurred late in his life or reign? and that the ?annals of Kashmir, on the other hand, more emphatically imply that either he did not seek to spread, or had not the chance or opportunity of propagating his new faith.?

Thomas also emphasizes that the ?leading fact of Asoka?s introduction or recognition of the Jaina creed in Kashmir, above stated, does not however, rest upon the sole testimony of the Muhammadan author, but is freely acknowledged in the Brahmanical pages of the Rajatarangini.

VAJPAYEE AND BJP's HINDU RASHTRA

A pertinent pointer to the implicit concept of Hindu rashtra in the RSS ideology is available in the former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee?s letter dt.July 17, 2000, commenting on the Islamic scholar, Dr.Rafiq Zakaria?s book Discovery of God displayed on the back cover page of his book Communal Rage in Secular India. Mr.Vajpayee?s appreciation states:

?Yet you have succeeded in presenting it in a fresh, simple and highly persuasive manner, with the power of your central thought that GOD IS ONE. This monotheistic thought is the defining principle of India?s age-old civilization. Our ancient sages articulated it in these words: Ekam Sat Viprah Bahudha Vadanti (The truth is one, wise men describe it differently). They also taught us the secular canon, which is the basis of our nationhood: Sarva Panth Samabhava (Equal respect for all faiths).?

It is worth noting that Mr.Vajpayee knows what he means as a true Swayamsevaka,-volunteer of the RSS, remember his statement: ?Sangh is his soul.? Yet he makes a glaring linguistic slip by translating Panth as faith. In 1995 Mr.Vajpayee declared that Hindutva and Indianness are one and the same when he was honoured with Rashtriya Ekatmata (National Unity) award by the R.G. Joshi Foundation in Mumbai at the hands of the late Mr.Nani Palkhivala. The former prime minister?s well-known expertise in doublespeak notwithstanding is there any dictionary ?excepting the unique RSS glossary of the Savarkarian Hindutva which has also been lucky enough to gain the judicial stamp of approval in the Manohar Joshi case- which translates ?Panth? as ?faith? Can this be anything else than a systematic linguistic sabotage of the basic structure of the Constitution?

Such being the Vedic pedigree and genesis of the term Hindutva one can well realize Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee?s somewhat tortuous journey towards accepting the ?synonymousness? of Hindutva and Bharatiyatva. But does it mean that the Bharatiya Janata Party will change its name as ?Hindu? Janata Party? It is inconceivable that the BJP will take this ultimate nomenclatural ideological leap because the term ?Hindutva? for all its rigmarole of all inclusive Hinduishness cannot connote the comprehensiveness, breadth and a certain secular cultural synthesis peculiar to the confluence of a medley of religions, Eastern and Western, that have grown together through centuries, in the term ?Bharatiya?. And the moment BJP re-christans itself in a rash Hindu brainwave it will be immediately branded as ?fundamentalist ? and ?communal? like Muslim League or Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Hence one can make out why with all its ideological compulsions to paint the Indian map with saffron colour the BJP has prudentially continued with the term ?Bharatiya?, and still has innermost reservations that ?Hindutva? and ?Bharatiyatva? cannot be one and the same.

But while the BJP is willing to stike but afraid to wound the ?Bharatiyatva? concept frontally despite Shri. Vajpayee?s categorical assertion that Hindutva is synonymous with Bharatiyatva because it is still Bharatiya Janata Paty and not ?Hindu ? Janata party its Hindutva ideology has received judicial imprimature from the Supreme Court of India in its judgment in the Election petition case. The Supreme Court judgment in cases against the Shiv Sena BJP elected representatives upholding the concept of Hindutva as the ?way of life of the people in the sub-continent? shows how even the highest judicial for a cannot remain immune to the deceptive spell of the Vedic Hindu metaphysical concepts and so-called Hindu tradition.

INDIAN SUPREME COURT AND 'HINDUTVA'

The Supreme Court judgment is at once a high watermark of the Hindutva impact in the highest judicial echelons of the country and also a crucial challenge to the Preambulary Secular constitutional character of the Indian Nation. The Supreme Court in its judgment has attempted to do something which was not dictated by its jurisdiction nor called for, that is, arriving at a definition of ?Hindutva? and ?Hinduism? something from which even the foremost scholars have shied away. The apex court has rushed in where the angles fear to tread and veritably opened a Pandora?s box. It did not pause to consider that if Hinduism and Hindutva per se is a way of life it could be similarly the case with Islam, Christanity or any other religion. In ancient times India was known as Jambu-Dvipa or Bharat Varsha. As Mahamahopadhyaya P.V. Kane says in his monumental History of Dharma Shastra the correct word to describe our country must be Bharatvarsha.

It is simply incredible therefore to find such colossal ignorance of our ancient Indian heritage and culture. Perhaps it is not ignorance but simply the judges were unable to dissociate from their minds the very deep impact of their Hindu upbringing and look dispassionately at the fundamentalist manifestation of the ?Hindu? spectre of the BJP brand. Such ?faithful? aberrations even at the highest judicial level are enough disquieting indication of the irreparable damage being done to the secular constitutional fabric.

In a strong rebuttal of the Supreme court judgments in an article Brenda Cossman and Ratna Kapur (Economic and Political Weekly, Sept 21,1996) have argued that

?Hindutva continues to be a political category that at its core is an attack on the legitimacy of minority rights? and that the ?Supreme Court has failed to understand the assault on religious minorities that is a constituent element of the concept of Hindutva. From its roots in the writing of Savarkar to its contemporary deployment by the likes of Bal Thackeray, Manohar Joshi, Sadhvi Ritambara and L.K. Advani, Hindutva has been based on the idea of Indian society fractured by the conflict between Hindus and Muslims, wherein the majority of Hindus have been and continue to be oppressed at the hands of the Muslim minority, Hindutva is a call to unite against these religious minorities; at best it is call to assimilate these minorities into the ostensibly more tolerant fabric of Hinduism, and at its more modest assimilationist mode and in its more extreme and violent mode, Hindutva is an attack on the rights, indeed, on the very legitimacy of religious minorities. As a call to assimilate or otherwise undermine the very identity and integrity of minority communities, it is based on a total disregard and lack of respect for other religious group.?

This is precisely the dilemma and danger the Jain community is contending with in its fight for recognition as a minority community. In a powerful theoretical exploration of Hindutva and fascism and the RSS? ability to capitalise on such anti secular traditions Aijaz Ahmad says in his recent book Lineages of the Present Political Essays that we in India need to be especially careful in our understanding of the relationship between fascism and the oppression of minorities. As put by him, ?Racism in our case, communalism can arise as the centerpiece of fascist demagogy and fascists can then fashion a comprehensive programme for organizing the heretofore unorganized mass morbidity; countless members of the minority can undoubtedly suffer in the process, and there may be even a fully fledged holocaust; but the real object of the fascists is not the elimination of the minority but the construction of a fascist state, hence the subjugation of the whole society..?

The basic ideological ambivalence in the terms ?Bharatiya?, and ?Hindu? can best be appreciated by comparing two statements of Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee, one in 1980 and the others in 1995. In 1980 Shri Vajpayee said: ?I still feel that instead of the phrase ?Hindu rashtra? we should use ?Bharatiya rashtra?. Contrast it with his statement in Dec. 1995 : ?There is no difference between Hindutva and Bharatiyatva, in Hindutva alone are the roots of Bharat.?

Mr Vajpayee?s ideological evolution during a decade and half towards ?Hindutva? indistinguishable from ?Bharatiyatva? unmistakeably shows the inexorable march of the Bharatiya Janata Party towards a ?Hindu? India, thus coming back full circle to Savarkar?s vision of India in his book ?Hindutva?
?Asindhu Sindhu Paryanta yasya Bharatbhumika pitrubhu punyabhu sarvaih hindu iti smritah? that is ?One who considers the country or nation spread between Sindhu river to the sea coast as his Fatherland and Holyland is verily a Hindu.? Pertinently one must note that instead of ?Motherland? Savarkar calls it ?Fatherland?, a peculiarly definitive partrilineal concept characteristic of Vedic and the ?Hindu? Brahminism which later developed into the racist and Fascist Nazi concept of pure Aryan Vaterland thus making the fascist geneology of Hindutva clearly evident.

According to this convenient portmanteau definition of ?Hindu? most of the Indians, except of course Muslims and Christians, comprising those who believe in Vedas, as also, those not believing in Vedas such as Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs, are lumped together as ?Hindus?. As explained by the Hindu-ideologue J.S. Karandikar in his Marathi book ?Hindutvavada? ?Although Jains, Buddhists, Vedic, Burmese, Arya, Sikh , Manbhava, belong to differenct religions sects Hindusim is alone the spring source of all these sects and these have grown into separate branches at various times for various reasons . ?This leads to the pan-hinduistic position of Viveknanda stating that any religion in the world has its ultimate origin in Hinduism, but we do not want to connect Christian and Islamic religions by such far fetched relationship.?

Besides, the Jains, Buddhists and the Sikhs have been counted as separate religious denominations right from the first Census in India in 1873 under the Indian Census Act.

PRESS STATEMENT BY ADVANI ON JAIN MINORITY

Press Statement issued by Mr L.K. Advani (Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha) PRESS RELEASES (Issued by the BJP Office) at Pune on April 11, 2006 on Mahavira Jayanti day: i)Communal reservations, fueled by the politics of minorityism, could lead to fragmentation of Hindu society.
Saluting Mahavira Shri Advani said: ?I salute the Jain samaj in India which has shown how, in spite of being relatively small in number, a community can prosper in trade, commerce and various professions solely on the strength of the hard work and dedication of its members. The Jain community has always been in the forefront of philanthropic activities in education, healthcare, care of the destitute and the disabled, care of animals. It is also a model to all others in terms of national integration and social harmony.

Demand for "minority status" to Jains is flawed and fraught with peril: Lately, I have heard a few voices ? marginal and not mainstream ? from within the Jain community that they be declared as a minority community. The principal reasons behind this demand are two-fold:

?Firstly, those who raise this demand think that, with the Congress party and some other parties announcing religion-based reservations for minorities, securing a "minority" status for the Jain community would enable its members to enjoy the benefit of quotas in education and jobs. ?

This was definitely a prelude to the Freedom of Religion Bill in Gujarat

IMPACT OF HINDUISATION PROCESS ON JAIN POPULATION

It is, however, pertinent to note in this context the insidious impact of the Hinduisation process on the Jaina population. Hinduism has never been a proselytizing religion like Christianity and Islam but the way the Hindutva propaganda is operating that Jains are Hindus the result is a surreptious conversion of Jains by their misleading enumeration as Hindus in the census. This is glaringly evident in the Census figures.

The growth of the Jain population between 1951 to 1981 has been on an average 24% to 25% per decade and it has doubled in 30 years from 16,18,406 in 1951 to 32,06,038 in 1981 which confirms to the demographic pattern that a given population doubles, on an average, in about three decades. In the earlier decades i.e. before 1951 the Census enumeration of the Jains was faulty. Hence in pursuance of a Jain delegation?s representation to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel the Govt. of India issued a direction that the Jains should be properly designated as distinguished from Hindus. As a result for the next three decades there was a reasonably dependable Census enumeration of Jains.

But in the 1991 Census the Jain population is 33,52,706 which shows a growth rate of just 4% while the rest of the Indian population registered a growth of about 23.8%. This can be contrasted with the growth rate of the Jain population of 26% in the very next decade of 1991-2001. This confirms the apprehension of the Jain Community that the BJP VHP propaganda that the Jains are Hindus is takings its demographic toll.

HISTORIOGRAPHICAL AMBIGUITY OF ?HINDU? AND HINDUISM

As Dr.Will Sweetman has noted tracing the geneology of the term ?Hindu? that it was in use among Europeans from the early seventeenth century Dr.Will Sweetman has noted:

?One of the most striking advances in modern scholarship is the view that there is no such thing as an unbroken tradition of Hinduism, only a set of discrete traditions and practices reorganized into a larger entity called ?Hinduism?.

Perhaps the first to criticise the term Hinduism and to advocate abandoning its use was Wilfred Cantwell Smith:

?The term ?Hinduism? is, in my judgement, a particularly false conceptualization, one that is conspicuously incompatible with any adequate understanding of the religious outlook of Hindus. Even the term ?Hindu? was unknown to the classical Hindus. ?Hinduism? as a concept certainly they did not have. And indeed one has only to reflect on the situation carefully to realize that it would necessarily have been quite meaningless to them.?

The far-reaching politically damaging consequences of such an inherently deceptive connotation are noted in a clinching argument by Robert Frykenberg who argues that: ?the concept of ?Hinduism? as denoting a single religious community has already done enormous, even incalculable, damage to structures undergirding the peace, security, and unity of the whole Indian political system. What?s more, continued popular use of this concept and popular belief in the existence of a monolithic ?Hinduism??in short, fervent adherence to any doctrine which assumes that there is one single religion embraced by the ?majority? of all peoples in India?can still do even greater damage. If such usages and beliefs continue to be dogmatically and persistently maintained, there is no telling how much more harm such a notion may do to the wellbeing of India?s peoples.

As Max Weber has pointed out, ?Only in recent literature have the Indians themselves begun to designate their religious affiliation as Hinduism. It is the official designation of the English census for the complex of religion also described in Germany as Brahmanism. And as explained by him further : ?In truth, it may well be concluded that Hinduism is simply not a ?religion? in our sense of the word.? (Ibid. p.44)

COLONIAL OR ORIENTAL CONSTRUCTION OF HINDUISM

How did this modern myth of Hinduism begin? It had its origin in the Orientalism created by the colonial Sanskrit scholar in the 19th century. As Richard King has discussed in his book Orientalism and Religion :Postcolonial Theory, India and The Mystic East? He notes that

?William Jones in his role as Supreme Court Judge in India, initiated a project to translate the Dharmasastras in the misguided belief that this represented the law of the Hindus, in order to circumvent what he saw as the ?culpable bias? of the native pundits. In taking the Dharmasastras as a binding law-book , Jones manifests the Judeo-Christian paradigm within which he conceived of religion, and the attempt to apply such a book universally reflects Jones? ?textual imperialism?. The problem with taking the Dharmasastras as pan-Indian in application is that the texts themselves were representative of a priestly elite (the Brahmin castes), and not of Hindus in toto. Thus even within these texts, there was no notion of a unified Hindu community, but rather an acknowledgment of a plurality of local, occupational and caste contexts in which different customs and or rules applied.?

As he notes succinctly further:

?It was thus in this manner that ?society was made to conform to ancient dharmasastras texts , in spite of those texts? insistence that they were overridden by local and group custom. It eventually allowed Anglicist administrators to manipulate the porous boundary between religion as defined by texts and customs they wished to ban.? (author?s italics quoting from Rocher?s British Orientalism in the Eighteenth Century p.242

This colonial construction of ?Hinduism? contributed according to Richard King to the merging of the Brahmanical forms of religion with Hinduism which is notable in the ?tendency to emphasize Vedic and brahmanical texts and beliefs as central and foundational to the ?essence of Hinduism and in the modern association of ?Hindu doctrine? with the various brahmanical schools of the Vedanta??p.102

RSS INFILTRATION IN THE ADMINISTRATION

There has been a long a strong suspicion right from the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi that the RSS cadres had infiltrated in various administrative departments. This was noted by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and therefore RSS was banned after the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.

As Pyarelal, a close confidant and secretary to Mahatma Gandhi notes in Mahatma Gandhi: the Last Phase (1958) describing the antecedents of the conspiracy to murder the Mahatma over the lack of security despite the bomb incident on 20th January 1948:

?What , however surprises one, is that in spite of the definite and concrete information of which the authorities were in possession, they should have failed to trace and arrest the conspirators and frustrate their plan. The failure was an index of the extent of the rot that had permeated many branches of the services , not excluding the police. In fact later it was brought to light that the RSS organization had ramifications even in the Government departments, and many police officials, not to mention the rank and file, gave their sympathy and even active help to those engaged in RSS activities?A letter which Sardar Patel after the assassination of Gandhiji from a young man, who according to his own statement had been gulled into joining the RSS organization but was later disillusioned , described how members of the RSS at some places had been instructed beforehand to tune in their radio sets on the fateful Friday for the ?good news? After the news sweets were distributed in RSS circles in several places?The rot was so insidious that only the supreme sacirifice could arrest or remove it.? P.756

If the poisonous rot of the RSS ideology was so deep at the dawn of freedom one cannot simply imagine its hydra-headed extent and its cancerous damage to the body politic today. I corresponded with the Chairman of the Gandhi Memorial Fund, Mr.R.R. Diwakar in 1964 expressing shock and indignation at the revelation of a Poona Editor that Nathuram Godse used to discuss with him his plan to murder Mahatma Gandhi six months prior to the assassination at the Satyanarayan ceremony held to celebrate the return of Gopal Godse after serving his life imprisonment as the convict in the Gandhi murder case.

Mr.Diwakar consulted some high authorities and also there was a furore in the Parliament. As a result the Government of India appointed a Commission of Inquiry under the Chairmanship of Mr.Pathak to inquire once again into the Gandhi murder conspiracy. On Mr.Pathak's appointment as a minister Justice J.L. Kapur was appointed.

Twenty years after the assassination, the Justice Jivan Lal Kapur commission of inquiry found that Badge?s evidence was being corroborated by Savarkar?s bodyguard Appa Ramchandra Kasar and Gajanan Vishnu Damle. Justice Kapur?s conclusion: "All these facts taken together were destructive of any theory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and his group."

As a striking instance of how CBI too is under the spell of the RSS I can quote from a report of the former director of the CBI Shri Joginder Singh speaking to an RSS rally and proclaiming that "RSS is the only hope of the nation."

The very inspiration of the RSS cadres and their paramilitary training was derived from the Blackshorts of Mussolini when Dr. Munje visited him in 1932 as detailed in Marzia Casolari's article in the Economic and Political Weekly :Hindutva?s Foreign Tie-up in the 1930s Archival Evidence Economic and Political Weekly, January 22, 2000.

?To understand militant Hinduism, one must examine its domestic roots as well as foreign influence. In the 1930s Hindu nationalism borrowed from European fascism to transform ?different? people into ?enemies?. Leaders of militant Hinduism repeatedly expressed their admiration for authoritarian leaders such as Mussolini and Hitler and for the fascist model of society. This influence continues to the present day. This paper presents archival evidence on the would-be collaborators.

As noted by Marzia Casolari : Defining the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) and, in general the organizations of militant Hinduism as undemocratic, with authoritarian, paramilitary, radical, violent tendencies and a sympathy for fascist ideology and practice, has been a major concern for many politically oriented scholars and writers. This has been the case with the literature which started with Gandhi?s assassination and continues up to the present day with works such as Amartya Sen?s India at Risk (The New York Review of Books, April 1993) and Christophe Jaffrelot?s The Hindu Nationalist Movement in India (Viking, New Delhi, 1996). The latest book published on the subject, or the well known Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags (Orient Longman, New Delhi, 1993). Which came our soon after the destruction of the Babri masjid. As a result, the fascist ideological background of Hindu fundamentalism is taken for granted never proved by systematic analysis. This is an outcome that is, to a certain extent, explained by the fact that most of the above-mentioned authors are political scientists and not historians.

?It is a fact that many of those who witnessed the growth of Hindu radical forces in the years around the second world war were already convinced of the Sangh?s fascist outlook. Particularly acute was the perception that the Congress had of these organizations and their character. There is no need to mention the already well known opinion of Nehru, who, right from the beginning had pointed at these organizations as communalist and fascist. Less well known is the fact that, as shown by a confidential report circulated within the Congress most probably at the time of the first ban of the RSS, after Gandhi?s assassination, the similarity between the character of the RSS and that of fascist organizations was already taken for granted. In fact, the report itself states that the RSS.

?To demonstrate this, I will reconstruct the context from which arose the interest of Hindu radicalism in Italian fascism right from the early 1920s. This interest was commonly shared in Maharashtra, and must have inspired B.S.Moonje?s trip to Italy in 1931. The next step will be to examine the effects of that trip, namely how B.S.Moonje tried to transfer fascist models to Hindu society and to organize it militarily, according to fascist patterns. An additional aim of this paper is to show how, about the end of the 1930s. the admiration for the Italian regime was commonly shared by the different streams of Hindu nationalism and the main Hindu leaders. As emphasiozed by Casolari ?More generally the aim of this paper is to disprove Christophe Jaffrelot?s thesis that there is a sharp distinction between nazi and fascist ideology on one side and RSS on the other as far as the concept of race and the centrality of the leader are concerned.?

But there are favourable judicial straws in the wind. The latest Division Bench judgment delivered by Justice Dalveer Bhandari in the Supreme Court is a significant pointer that all is not lost for the Jain minority.

In the latest Supreme Court CASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 9595 of 2003 PETITIONER:
Committee of Management Kanya Junior High School Bal Vidya Mandir, Etah, U.P. RESPONDENT: Sachiv, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad Allahabad, U.P. & Others, DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/08/2006 BENCH:
S. B. SINHA & DALVEER BHANDARI

The Judgment emphatically states ?Jain religion indisputably is not a part of Hindu religion. The question as to whether the Jains are part of the Hindu
religion is not open to debate. Jains have a right to establish and administer their own institution. But, only because an institution is managed by a person belonging to a particular religion, the same would not ipso facto make the institution run and administered by a minority community. A minority is determinable by reference to the demography of a State. Whether an institution is established and administered by a minority community or not may have to be determined by the appropriate authority in terms of the provisions of the statute governing the field. Furthermore, minority institutions are not immune from the operations of the measures necessary to regulate their functions. To what extent such regulations would operate, however, again is a matter which would be governed by the statute.

?Minority communities do not have any higher rights than the majority. They have merely been conferred additional protection. This has been laid down by a Eleven Judge Bench of this Court. [See: P.A. Inamdar & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others, (2005) 6 SCC 537].

?The Court in the said judgment also dealt with the object of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The Court in para 97 of the judgment observed the relevant para which reads as under:"The object underlying Article 30(1) is to see the desire of minorities being fulfilled that their children should be brought up properly and efficiently and acquire eligibility for higher university education and go out in the world fully equipped with such intellectual attainments as will make them fit for entering public services, educational institutions imparting higher instructions including general secular education. Thus, the twin objects sought to be achieved by Article 30(1) in the interest of minorities are: (i) to enable such minority to conserve its religion and language, and (ii) to give a thorough, good, general education to children belonging to such minority. So long as the institution retains its minority character by achieving and continuing to achieve the abovesaid two objectives, the institution would remain a minority institution."

In view of the foregoing evidence I would respectfully submit that the proposed Bill of Freedom of Religion as passed by the Gujarat Assembly is clearly a violation of the constitutional religious identity of the Jains and Buddhists and urge that it should be rejected.

________________________________________________________________________________________

http://sabrang.com/cc/archive/2006/dec06/forum.html
http://www.indiancatholic.in/newsread.asp?nid=5566
http://americanbuddhist.net/node/4092