“Hindutva is a way of fife”: Supreme Court reaffirms Bharat’s civilisational ethos

The Supreme Court’s refusal to revisit its landmark observation that “Hinduism is a way of life” is not merely a judicial reiteration. It is a civilisational affirmation. At a time when Hindutva is constantly caricatured through narrow political lenses, the Court, during the hearing of Sabarimala on Wednesday has once again underlined a truth deeply embedded in Bharat’s historical and philosophical consciousness: Hindutva is not confined to the rigid boundaries of a semitic religion. It is a vast cultural-civilisational framework that accommodates countless streams of thought, methods of worship, philosophies, and even disbelief.

 

The phrase itself entered constitutional discourse most prominently through the 1995 judgment delivered by Justice J. S. Verma in the famous Hindutva cases. The Supreme Court observed that “Hindutva” or “Hinduism” could not be understood merely as narrow religious fundamentalism and described it as a “way of life” of the people of the subcontinent. Critics have repeatedly attempted to portray this observation as judicial endorsement of majoritarian politics. But the Court’s refusal to reopen or dilute this formulation shows that the judiciary continues to recognise the unique civilisational character of Hindu thought.

 

The discomfort among certain ideological sections stems from the inability to understand Hindutva outside Western theological categories. The very word “religion” itself emerges from an Abrahamic framework. In the Western understanding, religion generally revolves around a single prophet, one holy book, exclusive doctrines, and compulsory modes of worship. Christianity has the Bible and Christ. Islam has the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad. The structure is linear, exclusive, and doctrinally centralised. Hindu civilization evolved differently.

 

There is no single founder of what is called the Hindu way of life. There is no one compulsory scripture. There is no single church-like authority that decides who is a Hindu and who is not. The terms like `kafir’ or ‘non-believer’ have no place in the Hindu way of life. A Hindu may worship Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti, Surya, Ganesha, or Kartikeya. One may follow the Advaita of Adi Shankaracharya, Dvaita of Madhvacharya, Vishishtadvaita of Ramanujacharya, or Bhakti traditions of countless saints. One may even reject idol worship altogether and still remain within the Hindu fold. The Charvaka tradition openly embraced materialism and scepticism, yet it emerged from within the broader Indic philosophical universe.

 

 

That is why Hindutva is better understood as “Dharma” rather than religion in the Western sense. Dharma is not merely worship. It is duty, ethics, order, conduct, harmony, and a way of living. It encompasses family life, social obligations, spiritual pursuits, and relationships with nature and society. It is simultaneously philosophical and practical.

 

The uniqueness of Hindu civilization lies precisely in this accommodative capacity. A Shaivite and a Vaishnavite may differ intensely in theology yet coexist within the same civilisational identity. A believer and a non-believer can both culturally remain Hindu. This extraordinary elasticity has few parallels in world history.

The Supreme Court’s reaffirmation indirectly recognises this deeper truth that Hindutva, at its philosophical core, is cultural and civilisational rather than merely denominational.

 

This openness also explains why Bharat historically became a refuge for persecuted communities across centuries. Jews found shelter here after fleeing persecution elsewhere. Parsis escaping Islamic conquest in Persia were welcomed on Indian shores. Syrian Christians found space in Kerala long before European colonialism arrived. Indic civilisation did not insist upon homogenisation.

 

Ironically, many of the loudest critics of Hindutva today invoke “pluralism” while refusing to acknowledge that pluralism itself flourished most naturally within the Hindu civilisational ethos.

 

This does not mean Hindu society was free from social distortions or internal injustices. No civilisation is perfect. But the philosophical foundation of Hindu thought has always allowed reform from within. Saints, reformers, and philosophers continuously challenged social evils without dismantling the civilisational framework itself. From Basaveshwara to Swami Vivekananda, from Dayananda Saraswati to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s critique of rigid caste structures, the Indic tradition retained the ability to debate itself.

 

 

The same flexibility is far less visible in exclusivist religious systems that often divide humanity between believers and non-believers. Throughout history, both Christianity and Islam expanded through strong institutional and political structures that frequently viewed competing belief systems as inferior or illegitimate. The medieval destruction of temples, forced conversions in several regions, and colonial missionary aggression are part of India’s historical memory. Even today, many evangelical and Islamist groups continue to see indigenous traditions through conversion-oriented lenses rather than civilisational coexistence.

 

Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court’s stand acquires larger significance. It is not simply about one legal phrase. It is about acknowledging Bharat’s civilisational distinctiveness in constitutional language.

For decades, sections of academia and politics have attempted to portray Hindutva as inherently intolerant while simultaneously applying Western frameworks to judge Indian civilisation. But the Court’s consistent refusal to erase the “way of life” formulation indicates that the Indian constitutional structure itself recognises the difference between an imported theological understanding of religion and the expansive Indic conception of Dharma.

The ideological significance of this cannot be overstated.

 

The SC observation strengthens the intellectual legitimacy of cultural nationalism by affirming that Hindu identity is not necessarily exclusionary. It can accommodate diversity, contradiction, philosophy, ritual, and even dissent within a larger civilisational umbrella.

 

That is why millions who may not regularly visit temples still identify culturally as Hindu. That is why festivals, customs, family structures, pilgrimages, yoga, reverence for rivers, respect for teachers, and the idea of spiritual plurality all become part of a larger Hindu way of life.

 

The Supreme Court has once again reminded the nation that the Hindu way of life cannot be compressed into narrow textbook definitions borrowed from Europe or the Middle East. It is an ancient civilisational continuum — flexible yet enduring, diverse yet connected, spiritual yet deeply rooted in daily life.

And that is precisely why it has survived for millennia.