New Delhi: Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of Allahabad High Court Sunday said that while Hindus do not expect Muslims to follow their culture, they do, however, want them to not disrespect it.
Whle speaking at an event organised by right-wing organisation Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s legal cell, Yadav did not refer to the Muslim community specifically by name but asked how would their children be kind and tolerant when animals were being slaughtered in front of them since childhood.
Justice Yadav was speaking on the topic, “Uniform Civil Code: A Constitutional Imperative”. The event was held within the high court premises, in the library hall of the Allahabad High Court, with a discussion on the waqf law, the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), and the reasons and prevention of religious conversion.
Justice Yadav in his speech said, “We suffer when we see others suffering…but you don’t. We teach tolerance and kindness to our children since birth. When we have a child, we push them towards God since childhood, read Ved-mantras, teach them about non-violence, but your children are shown slaughter of animals since childhood,” he said, questioning how can the children be then expected to be kind or generous.
He asserted that one cannot “disrespect a woman who has been given the stature of a goddess” in the Shastras and Vedas. He added, “You cannot say that we have the right to keep four wives, we have the right to give halala, we have the right to pronounce talaq thrice, we have the right to not give maintenance to the wives.”
He went on, “These rights are not going to work…This right talks about having one law for the entire country. It is not the VHP or the RSS or the Hindu community, which talks about it. Even the country’s top court talks about it.”
Justice Yadav said that when the flaws in the Hindu law like Sati, Johar and untouchability were legally removed, “then why can’t you remove this law that you can keep three more wives in the presence of a wife?”
“This won’t work,” he added.
He clarified that nobody can question him about saying these things as a high court judge, because it is the law that he is talking about and that the media can print whatever they want from this speech. “The law works as per the majority. Look at families or the society, wherever there is a majority, people agree to it.”
Justice Yadav said that not everybody from this community is bad, but said “kathmullas…are fatal for the country”.
He claimed that while his fellow judges asked him to be careful about what he says on the subject of a UCC, he said that he responded by asserting that, “I am a judge of this high court, but I am also a citizen of this country, and I will say whatever is appropriate for a citizen and for this country”—a line that earned him applause from the audience.
Justice Yadav said that people had not imagined that they would be able to see Ram Lalla—referring to the Ram Mandir—but this generation did see it, he assured the gathering that this UCC bill will also see the light of the day soon.
He asserted that great men like Swami Vivekananda said that, “Say with pride, we are Hindus”, because they knew that “if anybody can make this country a vishwaguru, it is a Hindu, nobody else can do it.”
“You shouldn’t let this desire inside you die down…otherwise it won’t take very long for it become Bangladesh and Taliban. It is important to publicise it among people that they should recognise themselves and their religion,” he added.
He referred to the top court’s judgment in the 1985 Shah Bano case, which had declared that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with maintenance and applies to all citizens, irrespective of religion. However, he then spoke of how the then Rajiv Gandhi government was pressured into passing the Muslim Women (Protection on Divorce) Act, 1986 to overturn the Supreme Court verdict.
Justice Yadav also pointed out that the VHP is associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, which is going to complete 100 years of existence in 2025. He said that therefore, people should “take the steps” that are “important for this country, and for uniting the country”.
“It makes me very happy to see and to hear that you all are also moving on this path,” he added, addressing the gathering.
According to the programme schedule, seen by ThePrint, another sitting judge, Justice Dinesh Pathak, was present at the event. He was to begin the event with the “lighting of lamps and blessings”.
Who is a Hindu?
Justice Yadav started his speech by clarifying that just because he spoke of the VHP, the RSS or the Hindu culture, it does not mean that he has any differences with other religions.
“But I do expect that this country is India, and every person staying here is an Indian,” he said, adding, “People outside don’t understand (who is a) Hindu. They only consider those people Hindu who do pujas, bathe in the Ganga, wear chandan. But that isn’t true.”
He then asked, who is a Hindu, and went on to answer, “A Hindu is a person staying in this country, who calls this country his mother, who can sacrifice himself if the country falls in trouble. His method of worship can be anything, he could believe in the Quran or Bible, but he is a Hindu.”
Justice Yadav then asked that if the country is one, and the Constitution is one, then why can’t the law be one, he asked, while speaking about the UCC.
He clarified that while all communities have their personal laws, and while “the country does not want to interfere” with these customs, “we would expect that the culture of our country, the great men of the country, the God of this country—you don’t have the right to disrespect it.”
Justice Yadav pointed out that even Hindu law also had errors, including Sati and Jauhar, but people like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Vidyasagar ended these errors. He then pointed out that despite the fact that Muslim law also had concerns like talaq, maintenance and adoption, “they didn’t dare (to change it), or you can say that there was no initiative from that side”. He, however, clarified such concerns could exist not just in the Muslim personal law, but also Christian and Parsi personal law.
He asserted that if imperfections are not removed from such personal laws, then a common law would come for the entire country.
‘Gross violation of secular principles’
The event and the judges’ presence has, however, drawn flak from legal luminaries. Speaking to ThePrint, senior advocate Indira Jaising said, “This is a gross violation of the secular principles of the Constitution by the judiciary itself. The same judiciary, which swears by secularism and the Constitution, is disrespecting its own judgments.”
She added, “It’s very offensive to other communities.”
Speaking to ThePrint, Senior Advocate Rebecca John said that she was “saddened” by the judges’ participation in the event.
“I grew up in a secular republic and I feel very saddened. The court is my workplace, it’s where ordinary citizens expect justice. When we have open alliances with organisations, which are opposed to the secular fabric of India, and when sitting judges participate in such events, it’s an assault on the Constitution,” she said.
(This report has been updated with detailed excerpts from Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s speech)
Also Read: Allahabad HC judges participate in VHP event, draw flak for ‘gross violation of secular principles’
Who appoints such idiots as judges?
Reply to Mr Akhil – You are skirting around the topic ! The basic premise of his statement is how can people be expected to inculcate kindness if they are witness to slaughter of innocent voiceless beings in front of them and that too during their childhood which is the formative duration of human lifespan. It is a perfectly valid question and begs scrutiny from the aspect of empathy to other living beings rather than the myopic view of where and who does it as you said.
His argument is based on assumption that Hindus dont slaugther animals, request him to go and visit Gadhamai festival in Nepal and see how many animals are slaugthered to please the deity? Bengal and Orissa also have animal slaugther rituals. Add to that the ever increasing proportion of non vegeterians. Pscyhologucally, Vegeterianism is making men more feminine.
His definition of Hindu excludes all Hindus of other countries.