New Delhi: Hinduism, the Supreme Court said in a landmark 1966 judgment, “does not satisfy the traditional features of a religion or creed”. It does not claim any one prophet, worship any one God, subscribe to any one dogma or follow any one set of religious rites. “It is a way of life and nothing more.”
The court had made this sweeping observation while deciding whether the Swaminarayan sect was a religion separate from Hinduism. The case arose from a dispute over the entry of non-Satsangi Harijans into Swaminarayan temples in Ahmedabad. The sect’s followers had argued that their faith was a distinct religion and that its temples therefore fell outside the purview of the Bombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, 1947.
The suit was filed on 12 January 1948 by followers of the Swaminarayan sect in Ahmedabad. They were worried that Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya, president of the Maha Gujarat Dalit Sangh, would assert the rights of non-Satsangi Harijans to enter the Swaminarayan temples under the 1947 Act, which said temples covered by it had to be open to Harijans “for worship in the same manner and to the same extent as other Hindus in general”.
The appellants claimed that the Swaminarayan temple of Sree Nar Narayan Dev of Ahmedabad wasn’t covered by the Act because the Swaminarayan sect was “a distinct and separate religious sect unconnected with the Hindus and Hindu religion”.
The trial court in Ahmedabad ruled in favour of the Swaminarayan followers on 24 September 1951. But it did not accept their argument that the sect was a religion separate from Hinduism. Muldas and the State of Bombay filed an appeal in the Bombay High Court. While the litigation was pending, the state passed the Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship (Entry Authorisation) Act, 1956.
The appellants continued to argue that Satsangis did not profess the Hindu religion. They pointed to four features: Swaminarayan was considered the Supreme God; the temples were established for his worship; the sect taught that worship of another God would be a betrayal of his faith; and initiation, or diksha, gave a devotee a distinct character as a Satsangi.
In 1958, the High Court rejected their argument. It found that followers of the Swaminarayan sect did profess Hindu religion and formed part of the Hindu community. The matter then reached the Supreme Court.
What the Supreme Court said
The principal question before the five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice PB Gajendragadkar was whether the Swaminarayan Sampradaya was “a religion distinct and separate from Hindu religion” and whether its temples came within the 1956 Act.
But in trying to decide whether Swaminarayanism was a separate religion, the bench dealt with a larger question: what exactly is Hinduism?
The court said Hinduism could not easily be fitted into the conventional definition of a religion. It noted that Hindu thought had long dealt with questions about God, the soul and the ultimate purpose of human existence, but there was no single answer to these questions.
“According to Hindu religion the ultimate goal of humanity is release and freedom from the unceasing cycle of births and rebirths and a state of absorption and assimilation of the individual soul with the infinite.”
On the means of reaching that goal, however, the court said there was “a great divergence of views”: some stressed Gyana, others Bhakti or devotion, while others emphasised the performance of duties with devotion and knowledge.
The court saw this diversity as a defining feature of Hinduism. It said Hindu religion had recognised from the beginning that truth was “many-sided” and that different views contained different aspects of truth.
“This knowledge inevitably bred a spirit of tolerance and willingness to understand and appreciate the opponent’s point of view.”
And because of this broad philosophical sweep, the court said, “there is no scope for excommunicating any notion or principle as heretical and rejecting it as such.”
The court then linked the emergence of different Hindu sects to reform movements within Hinduism itself. Saints and religious reformers, it said, had repeatedly challenged corruption, superstition, ritual dominance and the power of the priestly class.
“Underneath that divergence lie certain broad concepts which can be treated as basic, and there is a kind of subtle indescribable unity which keeps them within the sweep of broad and progressive Hindu religion.”
The court identified acceptance of the Vedas as the first of these basic concepts. But it also made a much broader observation about the nature of Hinduism by comparing it with other religions in the world, saying the Hindu religion “does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances.”
It then delivered a line that would become one of the most cited descriptions of Hinduism in Indian courts.
“It is a way of life and nothing more.”
It was this understanding of Hinduism that the court applied to the Swaminarayan sect.
Swaminarayan sect vs Hinduism
The court examined Swaminarayan’s teachings and found that, philosophically, he was a follower of Ramanuja. His teachings included acceptance of the Vedas, the belief that Bhakti or devotion leads to moksha, devotion to Lord Krishna, and a determination to remove corrupt practices and restore Hindu religion to its original glory and purity.
“This shows unambiguously and unequivocally that Swaminarayan was a Hindu saint.”
The court also considered the arguments about initiation and the divinity of Swaminarayan himself. It found that these features did not take the sect outside Hinduism.
“Further, the facts that initiation is necessary to become a Satsangi, that persons of other religions could join the sect by initiation without any process of proselytising on such occasions, and that Swaminarayan himself is treated as a God, are not inconsistent with the basic Hindu religious and philosophic theory.”
The court ultimately had no hesitation in rejecting the appellants’ central claim.
“The Swaminarayan sect to which the appellants belong is not a religion distinct and separate from Hindu religion,” it held, and consequently its temples fell within the ambit of the 1956 Act.
There was also a striking observation about why the litigation had begun in the first place. The court said the appellants’ apprehension that the entry of non-Satsangi Harijans would violate their religious beliefs was genuine.
But it added: “The said apprehension is founded on superstition, ignorance and complete misunderstanding of the true teachings of Hindu religion and of the real significance of the tenets and philosophy taught by Swaminarayan himself.”
By the time the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in 1966, the court said, the Constitution and Article 17 had fundamentally changed the social and religious landscape.
“As a consequence, the controversy raised before us in the present appeal has today become a matter of mere academic interest.”
The court dismissed the appeal with costs, while making one final point about temple entry and the Constitution: “social justice is the main foundation of the democratic way of life” enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
(Edited by Prashant Dixit)