Justice Nagarathna said invasions were a historical fact which cannot be wished away and wondered whether there were no other problems that the country could focus on.
Frowning upon a petition which sought directions to restore the names of places changed by “foreign barbaric invaders”, the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed it saying “a country cannot remain a prisoner of the past” and that the “court should not be an instrument to create havoc.”
A two-judge bench of Justices K M Joseph and B V Nagarathna told advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who filed the petition, that one cannot revisit history selectively and that there is no space for bigotry in Hinduism but the counsel sought to remind that the benevolent nature of Hinduism had resulted in it being wiped out from places like Afghanistan and Pakistan and Hindus being reduced to a minority in seven states even in India
Justice Nagarathna too did not approve the petition and remarked that “Hinduism is a way of life. Because of that India has assimilated everybody. Because of that we are able to live together”. The judge sought to remind that “divide and rule policy of the British brought about schism in our society” and told Upadhyay, “let us not bring that back…”.
The bench said that “a country cannot remain a prisoner of the past. India is wedded to the rule of law, secularism, constitutionalism, of which Article 14 stands out as guaranteeing both equality and fairness in State actions”.
-
The top court said that the “history of any nation cannot haunt the present and future generations…to the point that succeeding generations become prisoners of the past.” Underlining that only fraternity will lead to unity, the court said “the golden principle of fraternity, again enshrined in Preamble, is of greatest importance”.
-
The petitioner contended that many places are named after “looters” who came from abroad. He pointed out that Delhi had places named after invaders like Ibrahim Lodhi, Mahmud of Ghazni. Muhammad Ghori, etc. but none after the Pandavas whose capital Indraprastha was.
-
Justice Nagarathna said invasions were a historical fact which cannot be wished away and wondered whether there were no other problems that the country could focus on. “Yes, we have been ruled by foreign invaders. We have been invaded several times and history has taken its part…Can you wish away invasions from history?…What are you trying to achieve? Don’t we have other problems in our country?” she asked.
-
Upadhyay sought permission to withdraw his petition and approach the government but the court said it did not want to give him that relief either. “Let us not break society with such kinds of petitions, please have the country in mind, not any religion,” said Justice Nagarathna.
-
The court said in its order that “India that is Bharat is a secular country… The founding fathers contemplated India to be a Republic which is not merely confined to having an elected President, which is the conventional understanding, but also involves all sections of people… It is important that the country must move forward. Its indispensable for achieving the triple goals enshrined in the chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy, bearing in mind the Fundamental Rights also.” The bench added that actions taken must be such that bind together all sections of society.
-
Turning to the petitioner after dictating the order, Justice Joseph said, “You will realise at some point what we have done”. He added that “this court should not become an instrument to create havoc”.
-
Justice Joseph said, “Hinduism is the greatest religion in terms of metaphysics. The heights which Hinduism have in Upanishads, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita is unequal in any system. We should be proud of that. Please don’t belittle it”.
-
Upadhyay said the names of cities as mentioned in cities don’t exist anymore. “We too have the right to religion,” he said.
-
Justice Joseph added, “We have to understand our own greatness. Our greatness should lead us to be magnanimous…The world looks to us always… I am a Christian, but I can say that I am equally fond of Hinduism. I have tried to study it. Try and understand its greatness, do not use it for a particular purpose.”
-
The judge, who hails from Kerala, said that in his home state, it was the Hindu kings who donated land and money to churches. “That is the history of India. Please understand that.”
-
Justice Nagarathna added that “there is no bigotry in Hinduism”. As the bench wondered how history can be rewritten, the petitioner asked why should history start from Ghazni or Ghori.
Source: The Indian Express
