Friday, October 21, 2016

India of My Dream



A little more than 65 years ago, on 26 November 1949, we, the people of India, adopted, enacted and gave unto ourselves our Constitution, laying down, thereby, our solemn resolve to constitute our motherland into a sovereign socialist Democratic Republic and the secure to all its citizens Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. While elaborating the forms of these fundamentals of our Republic we left little out of view, perhaps as a wishful flourish of the principles on which we fought the struggle for independence ; or perhaps because we were too sure that the monolithic structure of our ancient culture will be fit to support the multifaceted edifice. 

Today, when the third generation of free Indians is about to hand over the reins of the country to a fourth, the cardinal question whether, and to what degree, we have realized our ambitious goals continues to remain unanswered. It is my considered belief that we are not leaving much hope for the next generation. Social, economic and political justice has been hogged by the privileged few. Liberty of thought, expression, faith and worship, which was supposed to widen the spiritual and intellectual horizons of the human soul, has become the most handy instrument of exploitation of human personality. Equality of status and opportunity is buried under the garbage heap of dishonesty and corruption. And fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual and the integrity of the nation, has become a commercial exhibition reserved only for the Republic Day. 

We have perhaps yet to realize that our over-ripe culture is in an advanced state of decay.  What is good in it is no longer alive and has been overtaken by the destructive element of international trade winds. The mental frame that we adopted from our erstwhile rulers to sustain us through the teething times has developed grievous metal fatigue. We are the cross-roads and have to choose the straight and narrow path if we are to achieve our ambitions. 

If a statement of truth gets a man dubbed a cynic, call me so. I am not a cynic. I am not an escapist either. Nor do I deny the astronomical leaps taken by the country, particularly in comparison with those who gained freedom at the same time in history as India. We were at a starvation corner in 1947. Today we are not only self-sufficient in food but are among its exporters. And the fact that this green revolution was achieved by a totally uneducated peasantry and in a god forsaken underdeveloped hinterland is a miracle to be seen and believed. We had a wretched skeleton of an industrial base, mainly composed of agro-products, and a small number of textile mills, coalfields and ore mines. Today we are the eight largest industrialized nation of the world, manufacturing or at least assembling almost everything from a safety pin to a supersonic aircraft. From a nation which perforce, under an alien and self-seeking rule, produced only office clerks, we have now become a nation whose prowess as the third largest bank of techno-economic manpower is unquestioned. All this cannot be denied.

But the dignity of the individual, the inner strength of human character, and the courage to accept and do only that which a man in his conscience believes to be correct, that self-respecting mettle which is nurtured only by true education and persistent exercise, and “maketh a nation great and strong” in the true sense is as deplorable today in the age of the supersonic aircraft as it was in the age of the bullock cart.

The Indian of my dreams is not an India of high-tech economic advancement. It is a vision which perhaps died with the freedom fighters – “where the mind is without fear and head is held high’’ – it is that haven of freedom into which we still have to lead our ancient nation. The dignity of the individual which is at the heart of the cosmic concept of fraternity and national pride inalienable to my dream of a strong and free India. Justice, liberty, equality and fraternity- the hallmarks of a living democracy- are elusive ideals unless the individual gets his due.

A democracy is one in which the rule of law prevails. People are ruled by consent enshrined in the laws made by their chosen representatives, and have a right to dissent and challenge that which is illegal and underhand. Coercion of any kind, mental economic, political or intellectual, is a form of violence and should find no place in any democracy. Form a statistical point of view we have the largest number of laws covering and uncovering almost every aspect of human life. But the inside out of Indian democracy today is that law is obeyed more in circumvention and defiance than in effect. 

A democracy is one in which the true choice of the people gets reflected in the public representative. We have yet to make a beginning in that direction. Elections in India continue to yield to the manipulative tactics of the privileged few whether privileged by sheer dint of being in power at the sacred time of the poll or being privileged to be able to commandeer enough financial resources to influence and purchase the people’s choice. A third category of the privileged professional who are swarming the holy precincts of our legislatures are the musclemen who first worked for those who began to depend on them to browbeat the voters and then preferred to displace their erstwhile masters. Absence of purity in our election process is at the root of corruption in India.  
I dream of an India in which the voter shall be able to assert his true choice will be free and aware enough to indentify the appropriate man for the helm of affairs. Public awareness is the key to a vibrant and living  democracy- awareness of what ails the nation, what are our ills and what remedies are best under the prevailing environment, awareness of what are the rights and obligation of the citizens and what a faithful exercise of  these rights will contribute towards the general good and well-being of all.

And this awareness which has always been the proud possession of the vibrant Indian psyche has played second fiddle all through our recent post-Independence period. Our system of education is still limited in its approach. “Education”, said Hazlitt “is that which remains in us after we have forgotten what we learnt in books.” Educations in India is still only bookish and merely career-oriented. It does not train fully grown, aware and self- assured young men and women to swim confidently in the tumultuous ocean of the competitive and conflict- ridden society. Women who constitute half the mass of people are still by and large deprived.

The India of my dreams, though technologically keeping pace with the world and economically sound and self-sustaining, will be only an Indian of clay and mud if the foundations are not built on human character and honesty sustained by education which nurtures the human personality in its true sense.


Wednesday, May 18, 2016

My Take on Allama Iqbal

I have read many eminent people version on Iqbal and sometimes tends to get confused on the diverse understanding of such a great personality.  I have my own interpretation of what Iqbal stood for.  I have often described him as the prophet-philosopher for modern India. My view is based entirely on selective readings of his work and my personal revulsion against the widely prevalent interpretation of the Hindu ethics and way of life—the do-nothing attitude of meditation to cultivate peace of mind. Peace of mind is sterile concept productive of nothing but peace of mind. No great works of art, science or literature, no great discoveries or inventions have been made mind at rest but only by those in state of agitation bordering on insanity. Iqbal was first to revolt against an apathetic view of life and extol the virtues of the work- ethic and ceaseless striving for excellence. I deliberately chose the ignore his obsession with Islam and was instead inspired by his daring to talk to God on equal terms and lay a fair share of the blame for the downfall of Muslim glory on Him. While being a devout Muslim he never ceased to castigate the mullah and the maulvi for their backward looking interpretation of Holy Scripture.
            
Two pastimes which Iqbal indulged in lessened his image as a poet. These were law and politics. Although he qualified as a barrister and set up practice at the Lahore High Court, he did not take the profession seriously and very few briefs came his way. The then Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Shadi Lal, quite rightly turned down proposals to make Iqbal a judge of High Court. His forays into politics were equally desultory and inconsequential. He made little contribution to the Round Table Conference to which he was invited more as a man of letters than as a politician and found it difficult to get on with Muslim leaders of the time.M. A. Jinnah soon discovered that he could not get Iqbal to toe his line. State leaders like Mian fazl Hussain and Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan did not take him seriously. Nor he them. It is unfortunate that more has been read into the few speeches he delivered at political conference than they deserved. It is ironic that while he strongly condemned nation states based on religion and refused to accept restricting Islam within geographical boundaries, he continues to regarded as the emotional basis for Pakistan. His vision was pan- Islamic – more in line with the ideas of Jamaluddin Afghani and Maulana  Maududi than those of Jinnah and the Muslim League.
            
Iqbal’s biographers have not been fair to him. They have tried to portray him as a paragon of virtue and above human failing. He was a full- blooded man who despite having a succession of wives at home, had a long love – affair with a Bombay socialite and a fleeting one at the time he was Heidelberg University. There is enough material on record in the way of correspondence between him and his lady friends to establish that these relationships were not platonic. Biographers have unfairly – in my view, dishonestly – tried to ignore, gloss over explain away these associations and create an image of an anemic, ascetic- like figure totally absorbed in philosophical speculation and writing poetry.
           
Iqbal’s massage can be summed up in the old adage, ‘God helps those that help themselves’. There is a constant refrain that man must strive with all that he has in him before he expects God to give him the fruits of his labour.  Perhaps the lines most often quoted are:

Khudi ko kar buland itna
Keh har Taqdeer say pahley
Khuda bandey say khud poochhey
Bataa, teyree razaa kya hai?  

Endow thy will with such power
That at every turn of fate it so be
That God himself asks of his slave
‘tell me, what it is that pleaseth thee?’

Khudi has been variously translated as self-hood, self-will, self-confidence and determination to succeed. God himself exhorts a man to determine his destiny.

Too apnee sar navisht khud apneey qalam say likh
Keh khaalee rakhee hai khana-e-haq nay teyree jabeen

Write your life’s story with your own hand
For God who is just has left a blank space on your forehead.

Another couplet frequently quoted convey the same massage:

Amal say zindagee bantee hai
Jannat bhee, jahannum bhee
Yeh khakee apni fitrat mein
Na nooree hai na naari hai

Its how we act that makes our lives,
We can make it heaven, we can make it hell.
In the clay of which we are made
Neither light nor darkness of evil dwell.

Iqbal makes it clear that man’s striving must be for a good cause and not for selfish or evil purpose:
            
            Yaqeen mahkam, amal paiham
            Mohabbat faatah-e-alam;
            Jihad-i-Zindagani main hain
            Yeh mardon kee shamsheeren
           
In man’s crusade of life, three weapons has he;
Faith that his cause is just;
Courage to wage eternal strife;
Love that encompasses all humanity.

For those who aspire to be leader of man Iqbal prescribes further reles:
            
            Nigah buland, sukhan dilnawaaz, jaan pur soz
            Yehi hai rakht-e-safar Meer-e-kaarvan kay liye
            
            Broad vision, heart-warming speech, a warm personality
            These are all the baggage the laeder of acaravan needs to carry.

Each individual has a role in making up the community to which he belongs.
Afraad kay haanthon hai aqvaam kee taqdeer—the fate of humanity is in the hand of every human being. He has to be conscious of his responsibilities to society because he cannot function alone: Fard Qaaem rabt-e-maillat say hai—an individual is sustained by society: tanha kucch nahin—by himself he count for nothing; he is like a wave of the ocean which ceases to exist if there were no ocean.

Iqbal did not believe in separating religion from politics because politics divorced from religion (ethic) would lead to tyranny. It is not quite clear whether Iqbal believed in democracy. He admired strong man and wrote in praise of dictators both communist and fascist. At the same time he believed in freedom and right to chalk out one’s own course of life. Perhaps he subscribed more to meritocracy than the kind of democracy we have today.
            
            Is raaz ko ik mard-i-firangi nay kiya faash
            Har chand kay daanaa usey khola nahin kartey;
            Jamhauriyat ik tarz-e-hakoomat hai keh jis mein
            Bandon ko ginaa kart ay hain tola nahin kartey

            A foreign gentlemen exploded the myth
            Which secret wise men have never betrayed
            Democracy is a form of government in which
            Heads are counted, men never weighed.

Iqbal had faith in man’s ability to rise to supreme heights, to reach beyond the stars provided his quest was constant and not debased by thoughts of petty, personal gain. His flight was to be like that of the golden edge surveying the earth beneath it, not like that of a vulture looking for carrion. It was not to compromise his principals matter what the consequences were. Manzur Qadir’s son, Basharat, chose the following lines from Iqbal for the epitaph on a friend of the family, Mohammad Anwar:
            
           Qaid-e-mausem say tabeeat Azaad uskee
            Kash! Gulshan mein samajhta koee faryaad uskee
            From the prison bars changing seasons he remained free
            Alas! There was none in the garden to lend ear to his plea.

A man must be committed to the truth, then only can he be courageous:
           
            Aaeen-e-jawan mardaan haq-goee-o-baby baakee
            Allah kay sheyron ko aatee naheen boobaki
            The aim of young man is to boldly uphold the trust
            The leonine sons of Allah know not the art of deceit.

Every setback in life to him was another opportunity to prove his worth:  az bala-o-tarse? – do you fear evil; Hadith-i-Mustafa ast --- it is a saying of the prophet; Mard ra roz-e-safaa ast—to a man a day of ill-luck is but a day of purgatory.
There is nothing hidden from man if only he strives to unravel the mysteries of life:
            
            Mard-e-har say naheen posheeda zamee-e-taqdeer
            Khwaab mein deykha hai aalam i-nau kee tasveer
            Aur jab bang-e-azaan beydaar kartee hai usey
            Karta hai khwaab mein deykhee hooi duniya taameer
            
            From a free man are not hidden the secret of destiny
            He sees in his dreams vision of the world to be
            When the morning call to prayer rouses him
            He strives to build the world of his dreams.

Not for Iqbal, the ideal of the Hindu ascetic sitting cross-legged in the lotus pose, controlling his breath, stilling his mind and trying to rouse the serpent power lying coiled at the base of his spine. He was the prophet of restless energy:
            
            Khuda tujhey kisee toofaan say aashna kar day
            Key teyrey behr kee maujon mein izhtiraab naheen
            
            May God bring a strom in your life!
            I see no vitality in the waves of the ocean of life.

Words like iztirrab and talaatum (restlessness) appear frequently in Iqbal’s writing.
What was ture of individuals was equally true of races. They rose in strife, had their ups and down and collapsed into decadence:
            
            Aa tujh ko battaaoon main taqdeer-i-umam kya hai
            Shamsheer-o-Sana avval, taoos-o-rhubaab aakhir
            
           Come let me tell you of the destiny of races!
 They rise with the sword and the dagger
 They end with the lute and the viol.
            But a people at rest were a people without life:
            
            Nishaan yahee hai zamaaney mein zinda Qaumon ka
            Key subhoh-o-shaam badaltee hain in kee taqdeeren
            
            The real signs of life in races in this age are
            That morn and eve their fortunes change.

In Iqbal’s scheme of things man came first, God had a secondary role. Many a time he chides God for breaking His word ti mankind. God created the universe but it is man who gave it meaning:
            
           Too shab aafreede, chiraagh aafreedam
            Saqaal Aafeedee, agaam aafreedam
            Biyaabaan-o-Kohsaa-o-raagh aafreedee
            Khayaabaan-o-gulzar-o-baagh aafreedam
            
            Thou madest the night, I the lamp to light it
            Thou madest the clay, I moulded it into a goblet
            Wild wastes, mountains and jungles were were mode by Thee
            Orchards, flower lands and gardens were laid by me.

No doubt that God did create the world for us but it was also God who threw Adam and Eve out of Paradise for daring to transgress His ordinances. Iqbal question God’s might to impose such dire punishment on the progeny of Adam and Eve and ask Him to accept a fair share of the blame for the downfall of mankind.
           




Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Five Powerful Ways to Build Self Confidence

Self-confident people are admired by others and inspire confidence in others. They face their fears head-on and tend to be risk takers. They know that no matter what obstacles come their way, they have the ability to get past them. Self-confident people tend to see their lives in a positive light even when things aren't going so well, and they are typically satisfied with and respect themselves.

Wouldn't it be amazing to have this kind of self-confidence, every day of the week? Guess what? You can.

"Low self-confidence isn't a life sentence. Self-confidence can be learned, practiced, and mastered--just like any other skill. Once you master it, everything in your life will change for the better." --Barrie Davenport
It comes down to one simple question: If you don't believe in yourself, how do you expect anybody else to?

Try some of the tips listed below. Don't just read them and put them on the back burner. Really begin to practice them daily, beginning today. You might have to fake it at first and merely appear to be self-confident, but eventually you will begin to feel the foundation of self-confidence grow within you. With some time and practice (this is not an overnight phenomenon), you too can be a self-confident person, both inside and out, whom others admire and say "Yes!" to.

1. Stay away from negativity and bring on the positivity

This is the time to really evaluate your inner circle, including friends and family. This is a tough one, but it's time to seriously consider getting away from those individuals who put you down and shred your confidence. Even a temporary break from Debbie Downer can make a huge difference and help you make strides toward more self-confidence.

Be positive, even if you're not feeling it quite yet. Put some positive enthusiasm into your interactions with others and hit the ground running, excited to begin your next project. Stop focusing on the problems in your life and instead begin to focus on solutions and making positive changes.

2. Change your body language and image

This is where posture, smiling, eye contact, and speech slowly come into play. Just the simple act of pulling your shoulders back gives others the impression that you are a confident person. Smiling will not only make you feel better, but will make others feel more comfortable around you. Imagine a person with good posture and a smile and you'll be envisioning someone who is self-confident.

Look at the person you are speaking to, not at your shoes--keeping eye contact shows confidence. Last, speak slowly. Research has proved that those who take the time to speak slowly and clearly feel more self-confidence and appear more self-confident to others. The added bonus is they will actually be able to understand what you are saying.

Go the extra mile and style your hair, give yourself a clean shave, and dress nicely. Not only will this make you feel better about yourself, but others are more likely to perceive you as successful and self-confident as well. A great tip: When you purchase a new outfit, practice wearing it at home first to get past any wardrobe malfunctions before heading out.

3. Don't accept failure and get rid of the negative voices in your head

Never give up. Never accept failure. There is a solution to everything, so why would you want to throw in the towel? Make this your new mantra. Succeeding through great adversity is a huge confidence booster.

Low self-confidence is often caused by the negative thoughts running through our minds on an endless track. If you are constantly bashing yourself and saying you're not good enough, aren't attractive enough, aren't smart enough or athletic enough, and on and on, you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. You are becoming what you are preaching inside your head, and that's not good. The next time you hear that negativity in your head, switch it immediately to a positive affirmation and keep it up until it hits the caliber of a self-confidence boost.

4. Be prepared

Learn everything there is to know about your field, job, presentation--whatever is next on your "to conquer" list. If you are prepared, and have the knowledge to back it up, your self-confidence will soar.

5. For tough times, when all else fails: Create a great list

Life is full of challenges and there are times when it's difficult to keep our self-confidence up. Sit down right now and make a list of all the things in your life that you are thankful for, and another list of all the things you are proud of accomplishing. Once your lists are complete, post them on your refrigerator door, on the wall by your desk, on your bathroom mirror--somewhere where you can easily be reminded of what an amazing life you have and what an amazing person you really are. If you feel your self-confidence dwindling, take a look at those lists and let yourself feel and be inspired all over again by you.


Thursday, April 21, 2016

Massacre Ghat : Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India







Massacre Ghat is one of the most important ghat among many ghats in Kanpur. Massacre Ghat, is situated just hundred yards of my residence in the Cantonment Area. It is located on the right bank of the River Ganga. Scores of people visit and have many tales to tell. Here is my research I share with you all.

Massacre Ghat has become extremely significant in history since the Revolt of 1857, which is also popularly referred to as the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 or the first war of Indian Independence.

Said to trigger off the first war of Independence in India, on 27th June, 1857, Kanpur witnessed one of the darkest events of all times. As many as three hundred British men, women and children were butchered at the in Kanpur. Those who were able to escape such a brutal fate were later killed at what came to be known as the 'Bibighur Massacre'. The Ghat was renamed as Nana Rao Ghat as the rebellion was believed to have been led by Nana Sahib of Peshwa. This Sati Chaura Ghat later got recognized as Massacre Ghat.

Today the Massacre Ghat stands to tell the tragic story to those who visit it. A white temple stands at the site. Massacre Ghat in Kanpur, India would reveal to you, a darker and lesser known side of the history of Indian Independence.

Historical Massacre Ghat, that was a mute witness to one of the most gory massacre of the First War of Independence 1857, has fallen over bad days. It has even been discarded by Ganga. The river has changed its course and drifted about a kilometre from the ghat in Cantonment and towards Shuklaganj.

Today stray cattle loiter on the ghat littered with garbage and puja waste. Weeds have grown all over as district administration too has turned a blind eye towards its plight. The ghat has in fact gone dry as Ganga has drifted away. A few poodles of stagnant drainage water is what is left of once a swift flowing river. Devout, who turn up at the ghat for a dip, have to cover a long distance on river bed to reach the mainstream. Despite being a historical ghat it is lying neglected. Foot fall decreased drastically ever since the river drifted away. People turn up in the evening only during monsoon, when the river assumes gigantic proportion and even touches the ghat."

The ghat, gained notoriety as Massacre Ghat during the 1857 war of independence. Shedding light on it, local historian Manoj Kapoor said that on June 27, 1857, Kanpur (then known as Cawnpore) witnessed one of the grimmest incident during the struggle for independence. He said, "On June 26, 1857, head of British forces based in Cawnpore, Wheeler, surrendered before Nana Sahib after the latter promised to provide the Britishers with boats and safe passage to Allahabad through Ganga.

On June 27 morning, a large column of Britishers, including women and children, led by Wheeler emerged from the entrenchment. Nana Sahib had sent a number of carts, palkis and elephants to ferry women, children and the sick to Satti Chaura Ghat,. Company officers and armymen were allowed to carry arms and ammunition with them. At this ghat, Nana Sahib had arranged around 40 boats for their departure to Allahabad." Kapoor further said, "Wheeler and his party were the first to board a boat set it adrift. At the same moment somebody fired a shot possibly from high banks. In confusion, Indian boatmen jumped overboard knocking off a few cooking fire in the process. The fire soon engulfed a few boats."


Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Finding Beauty in You Scars

“Because of your smile, you make life more beautiful.” ~Thich Nhat Hanh

Beauty is a concept I struggle with—what it means, why it matters. I struggle because huge chunks of my life have not been beautiful. They have been ugly, marred by trauma, with pain, and anger.

We think of beauty and often visualize glossy magazine pages and wafer thin models. We see beauty as superficial—eye color, hair texture, and numbers on a scale. We see beauty as something to be measured and weighed.

I don’t see beauty that way. I see beauty as the grace point between what hurts and what heals, between the shadow of tragedy and the light of joy. I find beauty in my scars.

We all have scars, inside and out. We have freckles from sun exposure, emotional trigger points, broken bones, and broken hearts.

However our scars manifest, we need not feel ashamed but beautiful.

It is beautiful to have lived, really lived, and to have the marks to prove it. It’s not a competition—as in “My scar is better than your scar”—but it’s a testament of our inner strength.

It takes nothing to wear a snazzy outfit well, but to wear our scars like diamonds? Now that is beautiful.

Fifteen years ago, I would have laughed at this assertion.

“Are you crazy?” I’d say, while applying lipstick before bed. I was that insecure, lips stained, hair fried by a straightening iron, pores clogged by residue foundation, all in an attempt to be different from how I naturally was, to be beautiful for someone else.

I covered my face to hide because it hurt to look at myself in the mirror. I was afraid my unbeautiful truth would show somehow through my skin—that people would know I had been abused, that I as a result was starving myself, harming myself in an effort to cope. I was afraid people would see that I was clinging to life by a shredding thread.

Now? I see scars and I see stories. I see a being who has lived, who has depth, who is a survivor. Living is beautiful. Being a part of this world is beautiful, smile-worthy, despite the tears.

Beauty isn’t a hidden folder full of Kate Moss images for a kid dying to forget and fit in, a lifted face, a fat injected smile, or six-pack abs. It is the smile we are born with, the smile that sources from the divine inside, the smile that can endure, even if we’ve been through a lot.

Emotional pain is slow to heal, as I have been slow to heal. My healing started with a word I received as a birthday gift. It was a photograph my friend took of a forest, the word “forgive” painted in pink on a stone. I didn’t understand why that word meant something until I really started to think about it.

I blamed myself for so long for things that weren’t my fault. Life stopped being beautiful to me, I stopped feeling beautiful inside, and my smile stopped shining beauty out into the world.

I think in order for us to make life beautiful we need to feel our smiles as we feel our frowns.

For so long, I only honored only my pain and my sorrow. I lost my smile, less because of the trauma and more because I spent so much time lamenting my scars.

When I decided they were beautiful, I became beautiful. When I took power away from the negative emotions, my unchangeable traumatic past, I was better able to find joy in the present.

How did I do this?

First, I made a soul collage, a board for the life of my dreams. I pasted onto the poster magazine images that depicted things I see as myself and want for myself. It became a beautiful visual guide for what matters to me beyond the superficial.

This board reminds me to honor who I am in essence, who I was before anything bad happened to me, before I believed anything was wrong with me. This board provides me with a path of beauty through the scars.

Secondly, I found the book The Why Café, by John P. Strelecky. He encourages readers to pinpoint their PFE (purpose for existence). While reading, I realized beauty is my PFE. My purpose is to make whatever I can beautiful. Not beautiful in the superficial sense but in the smile of the heart and soul sense. Thus far, it’s working.

Sometimes all it takes for your life to change is a shift in perspective, one solitary action, one solitary word, and everything is different—an action like a smile, a word like forgive.

Take a moment now to smile. Do you feel it in your muscles? In your skin? In your toes? Where do you feel happiness?

When bad things happen, we don’t instinctively feel happy and beautiful, but we don’t need to despair because life gets ugly sometimes. Joy and beauty are everywhere, in everything, in every one of us—no matter how we look, and no matter how we may hurt temporarily.

Grace is beauty in motion and we can create it by choosing to smile—to recognize that we’re strong, despite our insecurities, and the world is an amazing place, despite its tragedies.

We may hurt, but we will heal—and there’s beauty in our scars.





Tuesday, February 16, 2016

The New India


I met many Indians who hand left India after independence and settled in London, Birmingham and Manchester and many other cities of the world.  I asked them why they had left India.  They replied that their homeland was dear to them, but that they had had to leave it, as there was no good system there, no opportunities for making progress – a point worth thinking about.

All manner of sacrifices were made in order to achieve independence and to improve the system of the country after the removal of colonial rule.  Yet, with the dawn of independence, the practical result was quite the reverse.  The system of the country actually worsened.

Moti Lal Ghosh, the former editor of the daily Amrit Bazar Patrika, died in 1920.  In his last days Mahatma Gandhi had met him in a hospital in Calcutta.  According to Jawahar Lal Nehru, Moti Lal Ghosh said in this final meeting with Gandhiji that ‘I am going to die.  But I am happy that I am going to a world where the British Empire did not exist’.

This shows what hopes were associated with independence.  Yet all our hopes remained unrealized.  Previous generations had held the British responsible for all our problems but, when independence came, it in no way solved our problems; it rather aggravated them.

It is something of a paradox that while our previous generations preferred death to living in India under the British, our present generation prefers to leave India in order to settle in the very homeland of their former ruler.  They even take pride in telling others that they and their children are settled in the UK.

Before independence, our leaders held the British collectively responsible for all of India’s ailments.  But when home rule was established, the country’s problems, far from being solved, began to increase. 

I should like at this point to narrate a personal experience.  Born in 1925, I grew up in a family where active interest was taken in national affairs, and there was much talk of independence.  The whole atmosphere outside the house was likewise emotionally charged with the urge to be free.  All this led me to believe that slavery was the worst of conditions and independence the very best.  Like many others, I formed an innocent conception of the independence movement as being designed to bring the country straight out of hell and into heaven. 

With all those impressions I waited for the day of independence in a state of high expectation.  It came finally on August 15, 1947.  I was then 22 years of age and living in the UP city of Azamgarh.  I still remember going out at night a seeing all the shops and houses illuminated.  The new sense of freedom made me feel elated and as I walked along in a state of jubilation, I felt my feet were barely touching the ground. This was a state of happiness I had only so far read about.  Now I was having my first real experience of it on August 15, 1947, unfortunately, it was also my last.

When the dawn appeared after the night of August 15, all the lights had gone out, and never again did they shine with the same brilliance.  Never again, in our state of freedom, did we experience the same euphoria as we did when we were as yet on the brink of being independent.  We now had our freedom having been realized.  The happiness we had expected had somehow failed to materialize.

The True Cause

This tragedy is attributable not so much to the British as to the Indians themselves. There had indeed been a problem between the British and Indians prior to 1947, but the only solution offered was an intensification of the loathing the Indians felt for the British in the hopes that the latter would begin to feel themselves so alienated from the country that they would become unable to rule it.

All possible methods were resorted to surround the British with an inimical atmosphere, and pains were taken to project even their well-intentioned acts in the worst possible light.  Or instance, before partition, the British had laid a 35,000 mile long railway line which, for the first time, facilitated travel from one end of the country to the other.  But even to this a negative aspect was found.  These railway lines were portrayed as iron chains forged by the British to keep Indians everywhere fettered in slavery.

It was in this atmosphere of antagonism that the journey towards freedom was made.  Those who made the most venomous speeches against the rulers were considered great leaders.  Those who launched barbed verbal assaults on them were regarded as mighty heroes.  Enmity for the British became synonymous with love for one’s country.

The period prior to 1947 was marked by destructiveness; the policy of animosity and opposition proved highly effective.  After 1947, there should have ensued a period of constructiveness inspired by love and fellow-feeling.  But this was not to be. For reasons of a very convoluted nature, the politics of hatred persisted throughout the dawn of this supposedly new age.  The failure to transform them into the politics of love proved the greatest obstacle to the realization of the Indian dream of post-independence days – the dream which had sustained and inspired all Indians in the very darkest of hours.

Minority and Majority 
             
It is a historical fact that, in any given country, the community numerically next in line to the majority always stands in dread of the larger community’s antagonism.  While other, smaller minorities remain out of focus, the majority community and the next largest community inevitably become rivals.  If, in pre-independence days, the country was faced with the British-Indian problem, the present point at issue is Hindu-Muslim rivalry. 

However, the two situations are not entirely identical.  While the solution to the British-Indian problem lay in hatred, that of the Hindu-Muslim problem lay in love.  Just as the former problem could be resolved only through mutual hatred, the latter could be resolved only through mutual love.  At this  delicate turn of events, our leaders proved inadequate for the roles they were required to play.  That is why even after 1947 the policy of hatred persisted, and the problem went on becoming more and more delicate, and more and more complex.

Japan had a similar problem, and the way the Japanese solved it provides superb example to other nations.  Before the second world war, the Japanese rose as a nation on the basis of hatred for the Americans, and it was under the influence of this sentiment that they bombed and destroyed Pearl Harbour, an American Naval base, in December 1941.  The ensuring hostilities between the US and Japan ultimately resulted in the total defeat of the latter in 1945. 

Now, one probable outcome of this state of affair could have been a persistently hostile stance towards the Americans.  But Japanese statesmen held that the time had now come to change their national policy from hatred to love.  They made their people understand that if the US had destroyed Hiroshima, so also had the Japanese destroyed Pearl Harbour.  The destruction of Hiroshima was a simple act of retaliation.  They then advocated coming forward and holding out the hand of friendship to the US, thus heralding a new age of construction in Japan. 

They called this turning from hatred to love their ‘reverse course.’  Those very same nations, which had been considered their enemies before the second world war, were now accepted as their friends.  It is as a result of this change that a new Japan has emerged before the world.  The same Japan which had been vanquished in the second world war has emerged as the victor in the world of today.

It was just such a ‘reverse course’ which was required in India after independence.  Hatred needed to be converted into love.  But our leaders failed to act when the time was ripe.  As a result, old hatreds were allowed to go on simmering.  The country could never, therefore, be directed towards construction.  Freedom for India had spelt nothing but ruin.

What Hindus and Muslims needed to do was abandon their policy of mutual hostility in exactly the same way that Japan had decided to make a friend, rather than an enemy of America.  In India, due to the partition movement, Hindus and Muslims had become rivals and antagonists.  Now the need of the hour is to foster the idea that they are each other’s friends and partner, that they are in fact brothers belonging to the same land.  

Before 1947, certain unwise Muslim leaders had wrongly advocated the idea that Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations.  This theory, responsible for their isolations had nothing, however, to do with either reason or Islam, because a nation is established on the basis of land, not religion.  Without doubt Hindus and Muslims have separate religions, but both are one nation because both live in the same country.  That is why all the Prophets have addressed their non-Muslim countrymen as ‘O my people.’  But in the post-independence years this concept has not been effectively presented before the people.

So far as I can gather from my study of this matter, both the Hindus and Muslims are equally responsible for the problem facing the country today.  Neither group has fulfilled its responsibility to the new India.  It is the intellectuals in a community who lead the people.  But in free India the intellectuals of both the communities have failed in this respect. 

From amongst the Hindus, pseudo-intellectuals have arisen, who advocate the concept of the ‘first defeat and second defeat.’  They say that Hindus wanted a united India and that it was the Muslims who demanded partition. On this issue the Hindus had to concede to them.  This was their ‘first defeat.’  Now, the Hindus, being in a majority and in a dominant position, will under no circumstances admit to a ‘second defeat.’

This point has been made so forcefully that the minds of Hindus, consciously or unconsciously, have been dominated by it.  That is why, wherever any controversy arises between Hindus and Muslims, the former makes an issue of it as if it were a question of a ‘second defeat.’  For instance, if a Hindu procession passes through a Muslim locality and the residents ask the participants to change their route, the latter will never accede to this request, because for them this would constitute a ‘second defeat.’  As a result of this psychology, Hindu energies are largely directed towards negative pursuits, and not towards to positive construction of the country.  In a bid to save themselves from a ‘second defeat’ they are moving head-on towards total defeat.

Maulana Hifzur Rahman (1901-1962), a leader of Jamiat ‘Ulama-e-Hind, once said that he would consider India a secular country only when it became possible for a Muslim to slap a Hindu in the street without it triggering a communal riot in the city.  It is undeniable that every time such a riot takes place, it is caused by some relatively trifling matter, and mostly the conflict starts between just two individuals.  As such it should be resolved at that level.  But whenever any such incident takes place, it immediately becomes a prestige issue between the two communities, ultimately assuming the proportions of bloody communal riots.  This is entirely the result of the above mentioned psychology.     

Had Hindus taken partition not as a ‘first defeat’ but just as an incident in past history, India could have been launched on a completely new and positive course, just as happened in Japan in 1947 after the second world war.  But, thanks to the first defeat psychology, India’s full potential is yet to be realized.  

The strategy worked out to solve the minorities problem was, although differently worded, that of Hindutva of Indianisation.  This strategy briefly stated, aims at developing a uniform culture by obliterating the differences between all of the cultures co-existing in the country.  This was felt to be the way to communal harmony and national unity.  It was thought that this would put an end once and for all the minorities problem. 
           
However beautiful this suggestion may appear to be, it is certainly impracticable.  In the first instance, it was the Emperor Akbar who had wanted to have this uniform culture prevail and over the country.  Yet, with all his great political strength, he failed.  After independence, Dr Bhagwan Das spent thrity years in the preparation of this book The Essential Unity of All Religions, but it was all to no avail.  Mahatma Gandhi also espoused the same cause saying, Ram Rahim ek hai, (Ram and Rahim are one and the same) but he had no real success with this policy. 

After the second world war, with people of so many diverse cultures inhabiting the US, a movement was launched there, generally known as Americanisation, which was aimed at fostering a single culture throughout the country.  It is significant for us at this juncture that this movement was a total failure, and that the principle of multiculturalism has now been adopted there.

In terms of consequences, the choice for us in this matter is not between uniculture and multiculture, but between multiculture and destruction.  If we insist on uniculture, the results will be disastrous.  Wisdom lies in adopting the ways of tolerance and in being content with religious pluralism.

Let us consider the Muslim viewpoint shortly before 1947 when the movement for the partition of the country was being launched. The Hindus opposed this move, thus giving rise to such serious misgivings in Muslim circles as could not be eradicated even after partition had taken place. Moreover, after partition, the many pseudo-intellectuals who arose, no less amongst Muslims than amongst Hindus, managed to spread the idea among Muslims that Hindus wanted to make a ‘second Spain’ of the divided India. This thinking became so common among Muslims as to form a part of Muslim psychology.

The position is now that wherever any unpleasant incident takes placed on the part of the Hindus, e.g. when they lead a procession through a Muslim locality, or some misguided Hindus raise anti-Muslim slogans, the Muslims immediately feel that the Hindus ‘want to make a second Spain.’ As a result of this defensive mentality, they at once rise to challenge the Hindus. Now with this reaction and inevitable counter-reaction, the atmosphere becomes so vitiated that the ultimate result is rioting.

Both Hindus and Muslims have fallen into negative thinking because of one fear or another. If there is a Hindu-Muslim problem in the country, it is because neither community has been able to play a truly constructive role in the shaping of the nation’s destiny.

It is too much to hope that the solution to such complex problems could ever be sought on a joint basis. Recognition of this state of impasse is of particular relevance in the present instance. If ever a solution is to be found, it shall have to come from one or the other of the communities in question. Everything will depend on one community, of its own volition, taking the initiative in the vaster interests of the country as a whole. If we keep waiting for both communities to bear equal shares in the responsibility we shall have to wait forever. Historical events and human psychology both tilt the scales heavily against any such possibility.

This being the situation, I would advise Muslims to take the initiative in putting an end – on a unilateral basis – to all mutual discord. In the process they should neither ask Hindus to change their course of action, nor should they allow themselves to be provoked by anti-Muslim slogans. They should neither complain about their comparatively minimal admissions to government services, not should they launch protest movements on issues such as Urdu, Personal Law and Muslim universities. In short, on all Muslims questions, they should abandon the methods of protest, complaint and reaction and should launch their movements not on the basis of externally targeted protestations, but on that of sound internal construction.

If Muslims follow the principle of unilateralism they will not only be traveling on the ‘reverse course’, but will also be taking major steps towards earning divine rewards, for unilateral patience is the greatest of the Prophet’s Sunnah.

The emigration to Mecca was an act of unilateral patience. So also was the return from Hudaybiyyah without performing Umrah (minor pilgrimage). Indeed, all controversial matters were similarly resolved on a unilateral basis by the Prophet Muhammad. If Muslims were to follow this principle, they would be following a Sunnah of the Prophet – a means of earning great rewards.

This is far from being a single matter, but one rather of great significance. There is no denying that after independence Muslims were in a position to play a great creative role in the country, circumstances being greatly in their favour. But they failed to give proof of the necessary forbearance and in so doing, they failed to play this creative role. They should have remembered the words of the Qur’an: ‘We made them leaders and they guided people to the truth. This happened when they remained patient.’ Leadership does demand this very high price: patience. Muslims, failing to pay this price, have become neither leaders nor guides in the new India.

India & Muslims

Centuries ago, the Muslims – Arabs – who came to India, were welcomed because of their superior qualities. In his Discovery of India Jawahar Lal Nehru writes of the Arabs coming to India with their ‘brilliant culture’ (p.227).

In later periods, when Muslim rule was established in India, the rulers, although not blessed with the same superior attributes, nevertheless brought to India the gifts of peace and justice. This Islamic revolutionary wave was so powerful that it influenced the mind of Muslim generations for several centuries.

For instance, during the rule of the Mughal Emperor Jahangir, his queen, Nur Jahan, unwittingly shot dead a passerby. The case was brought before the court of Jahangir. The Qazi fearlessly have the verdict that Nur Jahan should be put to death according to the Shari‘ah. Jahangir and his queen did not dare flout the fatwa (verdict). Compare this with the conduct of James I of England, a contemporary of Jahangir. During the reign of King James, a certain Justice Coke gave his verdict in a fiscal case in favour of a merchant and against the King. The King was so enraged at this verdict that he removed Justice Coke from office.

The Mughal period was followed by British rule in India. When the independence movement was launched, the Muslims played an important role in it at great sacrifice to themselves. The Hindus had no such concept of jihad as the Muslims had, so that it was only covers the Muslims, inspired by the concept of jihad, took an active part in it, that the movement really gained momentum. It was the Muslims who gave to the freedom movement such potent phrases as Jihad-e-Azadi, Mujahid-e-Azadi, Shahid-e-Azadi, etc.

The Freedom Movement

Then India gained its independence in 1947. But at this point Muslims, lacking an effective leadership, became the victims of circumstances. Prior to 1947 they had enjoyed the status of a giver group. But after 1947 they were reduced to being a mere taker group. And this is the greatest tragedy for Muslims in modern India.

Before 1947, Muslims were honoured and respected. But subsequently they failed to gain the same status. The cause was not traceable to enemy plots and prejudice, but lay rather in the internal weakness which had led them to divest themselves of their creativity in this modern age. They paid no heed to God’s admonition that only those would find permanence, stability and firmness in this world who proved themselves useful to others. (Qur’an 13:17).

In the new India, there for more opportunities now than ever before for Muslims to play a creative role. They are required only to identify these opportunities and avail of them. Here are two examples to illustrate this point. The first is given by Swami Vivekanand, who rises head and shoulder above other Indian thinkers on the subject of India’s post independence reconstruction. Replying to a letter in 1898, he writes, ‘For our own motherland a junction of two great systems, Hinduism and Islam, is the only hope. I see in my mind’s eye the future perfect India rising out of this chaos and strife, glorious and invincible, with Vedanta brain and Islam body’ (p.380).

The second example is given by Mahatma Gandhi. For the first time in 1936, Congress formed its government in various states. It was at the juncture that Mahatma Gandhi, through the pages of his journal Harijan (July 27, 1937) advised the Congress ministers to lead simple lives. He wanted to hold up them shining examples of this way of life, but did not choose to refer to Ram or Krishna as they were not historical personalities. So he took as his models the lives of the Caliphs of Islam of its first phase, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. The rulers of vast empires, they lives nevertheless like paupers.

This appreciation of the Islamic character shown by Swami Vivekanand and Mahatma Gandhi testifies to the ability of the Muslims to play a great part in the construction of India.  In fact, the county was waiting for the Muslims to grasp the opportunity to play a decisive role and win a honourable position for themselves in the re-structuring of the nation.  But the Muslims did not fulfill these hopes.  As a result, the country as a whole has suffered.

For the post-independence reconstruction of the country, there were two prerequisites – a proper scale of values and practical examples to support them.  For instance, great value should be set upon rulers leading their lives like the common people so that they are always reminded of the common man’s needs.  By the same token, VIPs should be subordinate to the law of the land, just as any ordinary person is.  Similar importance is equality of status in society, regardless of colour, caste or creed.  Posts and honours, too, should be awarded solely on the basis of merit, and not on the strength of one’s family, or position, etc. 

Swami Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi and many other Indian thinkers were of the view that although the concept of such a scale of values existed in Hindu traditions, there were no historical examples to illustrate them in practice.  Such examples were to be found only in Islam, out of all the religions.  These great thinkers believed, therefore, that for the thorough reconstruction of the country, the Islamic contribution was vital.

This was very true and positive thinking.  But to make it a reality, the Muslims, too, had to play their part.  Alas, the Muslims failed to grasp this opportunity, so that after independence our country went seriously off course.

The self-styled intellectuals would say that in this the Muslims were not to blame.  That the real culprits were the Hindus.  They would put forward the argument that after partition the Muslims had been continually thwarted by prejudice and injustice on the part of the majority and had, as a result, fallen a prey to feelings of insecurity.  As such, their psychology had become defensive.  No one who developed such a psychology could be capable of playing a creative role.

But there is only a very slight element of truth in this.  Whatever the Muslims complained of was, in actual fact, the price they had to pay for living in this country.  Their complaints might indeed have been fewer if they had remembered the Qur’anic adage, that God grants leadership to those who prove to be patient.

Patience, after all, is necessarily the price of leadership.  An inevitable pre-condition of assuming the role of leadership in any country or community is to bear up resolutely under the injustice meted out by others.  Without this patience and forbearance, no one can with distinction wear the mantle of leadership of the world.  This is an immutable law of God, and to it there can be no exceptions.

What Muslims needed to do in post-1947 India was adopt a policy of avoidance when faced with any provocation from their countrymen.  They should also have borne with any discrimination they were subjected to.  In short, they ought to have remained patient, whatever their grievances, real or imaginary.  The unilateral adoption of a policy of non-confrontation on all occasions ought to have been a prime imperative.

By refusing to develop a negative mentality, they would have found the time and the means to present to the people not only the teachings of Islam, but also such practical examples from Islamic history as would have steered the nation on the right course.  For a whole century now the country has been waiting for just such guidance.  But since the Muslims lacked patience, they failed to play this leading role.

The Task Ahead of us

Islam is a religion in harmony with human nature.  This means that it does not require a propagator to spread its message among the various peoples.  It spreads on its own strength, flowing onwards like a mighty river to quench the world’s thirst for truth.  By virtue of its own merits, it finds its way into people’s very hearts.

Islam, moreover, is not a new religion.  Its long history has assured its status of established truth, and there is no residual element of controversy which could prejudice its general acceptance.  These very virtues of being well-known and historically authenticated have invested Islam with the power to spread, even when there is no one to expedite the process.  Even without a herald, it rings in people’s ears. 

This feature of Islam should have caused it to enter the hearts and minds of the people of this country.  In effect, this had begin to happen quite gradually, but two factors in India’s present history have had a slowing effect on this natural process. One is the ‘two nation theory’ and the other is the Muslims’ policy of protestation.

The two-nation theory was invented by certain Muslim leaders before independence.  The fact that it was never endorsed by the ‘ulama is an indication of its patent untenability.  However, for a variety of reasons, it spread among the public to the extent of giving rise to a turbulent movement.  As such it proved a major obstacle to a proper understanding of Islam.  It stands to reason that when an atmosphere is created in which people think of Muslims and non-Muslims as belonging to two separate and distinct nations, the non-Muslims are bound to feel disinclined towards Muslims.

This two-nation policy should have disappeared after 1947, but thanks to the superficial policies of certain ill-advised Muslim leaders, it continued to hold sway.  Moreover, the circumstances after 1947 caused an intensification of this negative mentality. Bearing aloft the banners of protest, Muslims stood out as a challenge to their countrymen.  The atmosphere was naturally vitiated by the resulting bitterness between the two communities.  Islam was then never given the chance to become a subject of serious discussion.            

It has now become vital for Muslims to free their minds from the two-nation theory and to refrain absolutely from all such activities as could be responsible for creating tension between Hindus and Muslims.  They should take it upon themselves, unilaterally, to ensure that favourable atmosphere is created between the two communities.

In the light of this analysis, the first and most urgent task for Muslims is to promote all forms of Hindu-Muslim amity.  They should refrain entirely from engaging in any activity which could mar Hindu-Muslim relationships and should simply bear with any injustice meted out to them by the other party. 

This is necessary if a propitious atmosphere is to be created between the two communities.  Only then will there be any chance of Islam being taken up as a matter of serious study by open-minded people.

If, in all matters of communal differences, Muslims could unilaterally adopt the policy of avoidance, and eschew all words and deeds which could produce communal hatred, then Islam could on its own become the subject of a serious study aimed at finding guidelines for social reconstruction, in the same way that western science, when seriously taken up, became the cornerstone of the nation’s industrial expansion.  Then the time would come when, with Islamic guidance, the country’s history would begin to take on a new shape. 

The self-development of Muslims is a primary condition for the propagation of Islamic teachings in this country. As part of this process, Muslims should, for instance, learn the languages of the country.  For forty years Muslims have been agitating for the safeguarding of Urdu, but instead of concentrating on Urdu, they should have been campaigning for Muslims to gain a mastery of all regional languages.  The movement to safeguard Urdu is a sign of the desire to remain static, whereas any step taken towards learning others’ languages is a sure sign of progress.

Another very important task is to make translations of the Qur’an and Hadith available in all languages at nominal prices.  This should be undertaken on such a large scale that everyone may have easy access to Islamic teachings and history in his own mother tongue. 

Books should be prepared on these aspects of Islam which are of special relevance to contemporary issues, simplicity, modesty, trustworthiness, etc., values without which no social order can be properly established.  The general public should be made acquainted with the luster of these virtues as they shine through the events of Islamic history.  Below are a few examples from the first phases of the Islamic era. 

A truly notable example of simplicity of lifestyle is that of the first Caliph, Abu Bakr Siddiq, who led a life in no way different from that of the ordinary people of Medina. Another example is that of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz. The borders of his empire stretched from Sind to Spain, yet he had no special arrangements made for his own personal security. In the spheres of justice and equality, there is the story of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph, who summoned the son of ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas, the Governor of Egypt, to confront him with a young Egyptian commoner whom he had unjustly whipped. Giving his verdict in this case, he ordered the young Egyptian to return he whipping in full measure. The fourth Caliph, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, was himself summoned to appear in court like an ordinary citizen when a Jewish merchant began litigation against him. But perhaps the most significant instance of the recognition of human equality occurred when, after the conquest of Mecca, the prophet entrusted the duty of calling azan on the Ka‘bah to Bilal, a negro slave.

Islamic history abound in instances of such exemplary conduct that the general public could have benefitted greatly from having them presented in their correct historical context and in a purely realistic style. But this has seldom been attempted. It is true that books on these subjects have appeared from time to time, but they have invariably been written in a style which exudes national pride.

The actual problem of present day Muslims is the negative mentality with which they have entered upon this new age. From beginning to end, this is what has caused their modern history to go awry; and if their future is to take a more promising shape, it is imperative that they re-model their thinking along more positive lines.

Prior to 1947, Indian Muslim leaders had a 14-point list of demands. After 1947, it became a 20-point list. All along, before and after partition, the Muslims have been a demanding group, and history has shown, time and time again, that no individual or nation can be both giver and taker at one and the same time. It is because Muslims have become a taker and not a giver group that they failed to figure prominently in the task of national reconstruction.

1993 has been a year of meetings for me. During this period I have travelled extensively throughout the country and met people from a broad cross-section of society. Most of the people I met seemed to have lost their optimism about the way this country is going to develop. But I differ from them. I am still full of hope for India’s future.

It is my firm belief that despair runs counter to nature’s overall system and that like any other kind of negativism it is unworthy of serious consideration. Have we forgotten, perhaps, that event the blackest of nights is followed by the sunrise? This sequence of events is so totally and perfectly predictable that astronomer can tell with confidence the exact moment the sun will rise one thousand years from today. In a world, therefore, in which day will quite unfailingly follow night every twenty four hours ad infinitum, how is it possible that the darkness of despair will not be dispelled by the light of hope?

Here is an illustration of this point. On December 6, 1992, when the Babari Mosque was demolished, many newspapers made the assertion that this would turn out to be only the first of a long series of such incidents, anything from 300 to 3,000 mosques having been targeted by extremists for demolition. But my interpretation of the situation was quite the reverse. I said that no other mosque was going to be demolished, for what had witnessed was not the beginning of anti-masjid politics but the end.

This may appear strange today, but both communities very soon gave their tacit approval to the idea that Muslims should forget about their one mosque and Hindus should forget about the many mosques that, in the heat of the moment, they felt should be demolished. Though there is still some talk, on both sides, in the former antagonistic vein, passions are definitely cooling over what is, after all an anachronism which cannot continue indefinitely.

What underlay my own personal conviction about how this situation would develop was substantial historical evidence that destruction having run its course, must ultimately abate and come to an end. The entire history of mankind abounds in such instances.

However, a welcome panacea to cut short present ills would be the general acceptance of pluralism. But upholders of this principle have first to contend with the problem – nay, threat – of ‘cultural nationalism.’ The proponents of this latter movement insist that India’s  composite culture must be moulded into a uni-Indian culture, being of the view that it is only through such endeavour that social harmony can be produced.

Serious-minded people regard this movement as a genuine threat to the integrity of the country. This is because any attempt to replace the existing cultural set-up with an artificially formulated ‘culture’ would bring in its wake afresh spate of strife and dissension. Such steps, disruptive as they are of the status quo, can never produce social harmony.

I do not, however, see any real danger in such a movement, for the simple reason that those who set themselves up against nature are bound to fall far short of their objectives. Their goals could they but grasp this fact, are unrealizable.

Those who advocate changing the ‘composite’ culture of the country show their ignorance of the fact that culture is almost always of an inherently composite nature.  Culture is not something which can be formulated in some office, or in some meeting or conference: it is invariably the result of a long and natural process of social action, reaction and interaction.  Far from being the instant fallout of some political resolution, it is the culmination of a time-honoured, historical accretion. This being so, I regard cultural nationalism, or uni-culturalism as being against the laws of nature.  Not even a super power can fly in the face of nature.

Besides, where uni-culture smacks of narrow-mindedness, multiculture stands for broadmindedness.  I cannot believe that my countrymen would be so foolish as to prefer to be narrow-minded.  In  July, 1993, a meeting was held in New Delhi in memory of Girilal Jain, the former editor of the Times of India.  Speaking on this occasion, the present editor, Dilip Padgaonkar, made the point that because the human identity is composed of so many elements, it can never be thought of as being limited in form.  According to influences which had shaped his own life, he mentioned being born into a particular family and growing up with a particular mother tongue and having the religion of his social background.  When he went abroad to different countries, there were other influences which went into the shaping of his identity.  Many of these elements became inseparable parts of his psyche.  Describing the vastness of the human personality, he said, ‘I am large enough to contain all these contradictions.’

I think these words convey the spirit not only of India but also of humanity in its broadest sense.  In terms of the sense of identity which a language confers there are still complaints about the non-fulfillment of promises made by Indian leaders prior to 1947, that ‘Hindustani’ written in both Persian and Devnagri scripts would be the national language of liberated India.  The later decision to make Hindi the official language of post-independence India is still regarded as an affront and a deliberately limiting factor.  But, in the context of the present day, I regard all this lamentation over Hindi’s predominance as having little or no relevance. 

Language may be an important part of a composite culture, but it is not minted by a handful of people.  It comes into being after centuries of development.  When Muslims came to India, they brought with them Arabic and Persian.  At that time many languages were spoken in Delhi and the surrounding areas, such as Haryanvi, Punjabi, Khadi Boli, Brijbhasha, Rajasthani, etc.  With the interaction of Muslims and the local people, a new language began to develop.  This language came to be known as Hindustani.  It was a common language formed by deriving words from both foreign and local languages.  Even today, it is the language of many people in India, although Muslims remain more Urdu-oriented, while Hindus, generally speaking, are more Hindi-oriented.  It is significant that all the major Hindi dailies use Hindustani written in Devnagri script, that being the only really understandable language for the majority of the Indian people.

Muslims, however, still make a grievance of this use of Devnagri script.  But they are wrong to do so.  If they were simply  to apply themselves to learning this script alongwith Urdu script they would find that they could have easy access not only to news and journalistic commentary but to a much wider field of literature and general information that is available to them at present.  Devnagri script, being phonetic, is easy to learn, and its acquisition would bring it home to Muslims, once they began to make use of it, that the prevalent national language in actuality in Hindustani rather than Hindi, a language with which they have been familiar all their lives.  They should learn a lesson from the many Hindu Punjabi officials who were schooled in Persian and Urdu, but who, after independence had suddenly to make the transition from Urdu to Hindi in their official work, without their ever having had any previous knowledge of devnagri script.  No one says that this changeover was easy, but the fact remains that it was successfully accomplished by dint of personal endeavour.  Muslims must begin to see linguistic change as the need of the hour.

Whatever the concomitant pressures on the national identity, it should be borne in mind that the future of a nation, inevitably shaped as it is by historical forces, is never carved out by just a single individual, or a single group.  And India is no exception to this rule.