Mr. S. N. Srivastava, of the Allahabad High Court in Uttar Pradesh, ruled that the state has a duty to recognize the Bhagavad Gita as rashtriya dharma shastra or national religious doctrine. According to the judge, the Bhagavad Gita, the most popular Hindu epic poems, must be taught to members of other religions.

Judge Srivastava has a track record on intervening in religious matters. At the start of this year he denied Muslims the status of religious minority, thus depriving them of state subsidies in the educational field.

Reactions to the ruling were swift. Sajan K. George, who chairs the Global Council of Indian Christians, said that whilst the Bhagavad Gita “is part of Indian culture, it cannot be seen as a religious text for all faiths. This goes against the constitution which guarantees religious freedom.”

Lenin Raghuvanshi, director of the People's Vigilance Committee on Human Rights, minces even fewer words. He told that “this sentence strikes at religious minorities, but also at the pluralistic nature of our society. If we go in this direction we run the risk of undermining social harmony.”

Maulana Mahmood Madni, general secretary Jamiat Ulama-e Hind sounds astonish over the judge's utterance. He said, "It is petty that such people are becoming judges".

As in his controversial judgment in the earlier case about the status of Muslims in Uttar Pradesh, in the present case Mr. S. N. Srivastava has clearly overstepped his brief. The case in hand did not require Srivastava to pontificate on the Gita, let alone recommend that it be hoisted upon all Indians as their national 'religious book'.

The case that Srivastava was hearing related to a dispute over a property dedicated to the Hindu deity Shri Shaligram Shila, incarnation of Krishna, in the Mohalla Til Bhandeshwar locality in Varanasi. The case involved two Bengali Brahmins, Shyamlal Ranjan Mukherjee and Nirmal Ranjan Mukherjee, both of whom claimed control over the said property. The former, the petitioner in the case, had shifted to Gujarat for work, and in the meanwhile the latter sold the said property to a fellow Hindu.

In his complaint, the former questioned this sale deed, claiming that a person entrusted with the responsibility of taking care of a property dedicated to a Hindu deity could not sell or mortgage it. In his defence, the latter argued that he had sold the property because the locality in which it was located had been allegedly affected by communal violence for many years, because of which he and his family had felt insecure, compelling them to shift to Allahabad, along with the deity he was meant to take care of.

That, in short, were the bare facts of the case. But rather than restrict himself to the case, the 'Honourable' Judge of prestigious Allahabad High Court went on to raise several questions and pass remarks that, critics would argue, the case did not require him to. The defendant's claim of his locality being affected by communal tension seems to have been taken at face value by Srivastava, who used it to create the distinct impression that Hindu temples in particular were under attack in Uttar Pradesh and elsewhere.

This suggestion was reinforced by Srivastava's lengthy references to colonial and Hindutva writings on alleged temple destruction by Muslim rulers, which, of course, have no direct bearing on the case but seem to have been marshaled in order to back a distinct Hindutva and anti-Muslim agenda.

Curiously, there was no reference in Srivastava's judgment to the wanton destruction of Muslim places of worship (besides the regular anti-Muslim pogroms, in Uttar Pradesh and elsewhere) that continues to happen on a far larger scale than the destruction of Hindu religious places. Instead of referring to this issue as well, Srivastava approvingly quoted Sanjay Goswami, Amicus Curiae in the case, who argued that 'it is the duty of the state of U.P. to take appropriate steps to look after such properties to ensure proper management, security and safety of religious rights of Hindus from communal violence, grabbing by anti-social or communal elements'. The need for similar protection of Muslim religious institutions and properties was left unmentioned.

Srivastava rounded up his long diatribe by arguing that Hindu temples in Uttar Pradesh were under grave threat from non-Hindu 'anti-social' forces. Hence, he concluded, as such all the temples of religions within the fold of Hinduism require protection. For this purpose, he suggested that the state create a separate security force or a separate section in the existing police forces.

The Judge went on passing his judgment and declared that all religious faiths which had their origins in India are part of that amorphous body now known as 'Hinduism', and among these he included Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and the Kabir Panth. Adherents to these religions are thus sought to be effectively robbed off their separate identity through this arbitrary and hegemonic definition of Hinduism, as Srivastava reduced them to mere branches of the Hindu faith.

Equally contentious is his announcement that 'the Bhagavad Gita is a Dharma Shastra of India' and that it is the duty of [the] State to recognize this text as the 'National Dharma Shastra'. The judge's convoluted and puerile logic leads him to argue that, 'As India has recognized National Flag, National Bird, National Anthem and National Flower, the 'Bhagavad Gita may also be considered as National (Rashtriya) Dharma Shastra'.

The absurdity of these declarations is, of course, plainly obvious. But one wonders how a Judge produces such funny ideas whilst on the chair of a justice!