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.
