Anti-Hindu CJI Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai || The controversy surrounding the comments made about Lord Vishnu || Is Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai religious, but not secular? || Is the Collegium system the root cause of corruption in the judiciary and detrimental to Hindu interests?
What is in the name? The recent comment by Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, mocking Hindu idol worship, has sparked outrage among Hindus. His name include Ram and Krishna, the two avatars of Lord Vishnu. The current case pertains to the Javari Temple in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh, a UNESCO World Heritage site, maintained by the Archaeological Survey of India. The temple houses a seven-foot-tall, damaged statue of Lord Vishnu, missing both arms and its head. Petitioner Rakesh Dalal had filed a public interest litigation (PIL) demanding the restoration and reconstruction of the damaged statue, arguing that it was damaged during Mughal invasions and that the Archaeological Survey of India and the central government's negligence in its preservation violated the fundamental right to worship. A bench comprising Chief Justice Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih reprimanded the petitioner, stating, "Your petition is not a public interest litigation(PIL), but a publicity Interest Litigation Petition." Gavai told the petitioner, "If you are a devout devotee of Lord Vishnu, go and pray to him; only he can do something. This is an archaeological site; the Archaeological Survey of India has to give permission." He didn't stop there, adding, "Meanwhile, if you have no objection to Shaivism, you can worship the Shiva Linga; Khajuraho has the largest Shiva Linga."
Gawai's comments are astonishing because they do not seem to be those of a person of stature of Chief Justice, from any perspective. If it is not revealed who made these comments, they would appear to be the crude remarks of a vulgar, uneducated, and bigoted person. These are not ordinary comments, especially from a judge who is not Hindu. One expects a person of another religion not to insult another faith, but he did, and this is now part of the Supreme Court’s record. This has hurt the sentiments of the majority Hindu community, and they are very angry. A few days ago, the same bench, while hearing a petition related to a M@slim shrine (Dargah) under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), had ordered the Central Government and the ASI to repair and maintain the shrine. This petition was no different, so why did Gawai make this comment?
No matter how much one thinks about these remarks, there is no satisfactory answer. The sole purpose of such comments is to insult Hinduism, which he did like a typical Ambedkarite. So why all the fuss? Hindus have given everyone this right because such comments about Hinduism are frequent, and the Hindu community never reacts strongly. Therefore, everyone has become fond of making such comments, whether politicians, bureaucrats, judges, or people of other religions. This is a very serious problem facing Hindus today. Gawai is not an ordinary person. He is a scholar, a lawyer, a judge of the High Court and Supreme Court, and now the Chief Justice of India. It is not unreasonable to expect from such a person to demonstrate a spirit of religious harmony in his words and actions, regardless of any bitterness or prejudice he may harbor.
If the Chief Justice had wanted to uphold his judicial duty, he could have simply ordered the government and the Archaeological Survey of India to consider the points of the petition, as this was not a dispute between two religions, and the same bench had issued an order on a similar petition a few days earlier. He could have dismissed the petition without any comment, and no one would have said anything. Therefore, these comments cannot be considered unintentional, and they sent a message of disdain to the Hindu community: "Don't come to the Supreme Court with religious grievances; pray to your deity and seek redress." But if that were to happen, Hindus would have to act according to religious texts, not the Constitution, and the constitutional framework, within which the Supreme Court's authority lies, would crumble.
If we examine Gavai's comment closely, it is a mockery of idol worship and the Hindu community, which is the declared ideology of Isl@mic extremists. Is this what secularism means? That if a case involving a church or mosque comes up, it will be heard and a decision rendered, but a Hindu religious site case will be dismissed with ridicule? Why is the Supreme Court hearing the Waqf Board case? Why wasn't the petitioner told to go to All@h? In the Krishna Janmabhoomi and Gyanvapi temple cases, the M@slim community could have been told to go to All@h. The disputed Jama Masjid in Sambhal, built after demolishing the Vishnu Hari temple, is also under the Archaeological Survey of India. Why didn't the Supreme Court tell the M@slim community to approach the ASI with their grievance, when even the ASI staff cannot enter it? Gavai made another, even more dangerous, comment that the media hasn't discussed. He told the petitioner that if there is no objection to Shaivism, they can worship the Shiva Linga; Khajuraho has the largest Shiva Linga. This doesn't mean Gavai doesn't know about Hinduism; rather, by saying this, he is mocking the Shaiva and Vaishnava sects of Sanatana Dharma. He wants to highlight the differences between these groups and divide Hindus in a new way, which is precisely what today's Ambedkarites, communist and Isl@mist are doing.
When Gavai was promoted to Chief Justice, the media discussed that he was India's second Dalit Chief Justice, which is true also, but Gavai didn't hesitate to react and stated that he was India's first Buddhist Chief Justice. According to Hinduism, Lord Buddha is considered as 9th incarnation of Vishnu, so Buddhism is considered a sect of Hinduism according to constitutional provisions. Can someone who disrespects Lord Vishnu so much be a Buddhist? Probably not, he cannot be a Buddhist at all, but he can be an Ambedkarite. Most of the 22 vows taken by Ambedkar were against Hinduism. Gavai is an Ambedkarite Buddhist who, after becoming Chief Justice, visited Lumbini, the birthplace of Lord Buddha, with his family and became the first Indian Chief Justice to visit the birthplace of Buddha. He described Nepal, the birthplace of Buddha, as 'the cradle of thinkers and reformers' who challenged existing norms, inspired moral thinking, and tried to improve society. Gavai must be aware that the Supreme Court building was set on fire during the recent Gen-Z movement in Nepal. This clearly shows that he is religious, but in my opinion, he is not secular.
Although Gavai said he is completely secular and that his comments were misrepresented on social media, but he did not express regret for what he said. If anti-Hindu sentiment is the benchmark for secularism in the judiciary, then he is definitively secular, and expecting tolerance or goodwill for Hinduism from such secularists is futile because their origin, the Collegium system, is such that only a certain type of person can become a judge. Therefore, since independence, no one has seen a Chief Justice who had any sense of goodwill or empathy towards Hinduism.
Even after being in power for 11 consecutive years, the Modi government has failed to bring about any change in the anti-Hindu character of the judiciary. It is no longer acceptable to say, "The government is Modi's, but the system is Congress's." Therefore, it is the responsibility of the entire Hindu community to openly oppose every anti-Hindu act of the judiciary, while maintaining respect for the institution. The collegium system must be strongly opposed until it is abolished, as it is the most effective stronghold of leftist and isl@mic extremist ideologies. The awakened Hindu society cannot be suppressed any further, but it is also essential that everyone be made aware of this reality.
~~~~~~~~~~~Shiv Mishra~~~~~~~~~~
No comments:
Post a Comment