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.