REWIND
New Delhi, 21 April 2022
PIOUS PLATITUDES ON
COMMUNALISM
By Inder Jit
(Released on 25
February 1986)
Strong splendid words have been spoken once
again to warn the nation of the mounting menace from communalism. This time the
alarm has been sounded by the President, Giani Zail Singh, in his address to
the two Houses of Parliament last week. He said, “Communalism continues to pose
a serious threat to national unity. It is being reinforced by religious
fundamentalism and fanatacism.” Not long earlier, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi told the
Congress Centenary session: “We proclaim and celebrate the unity of India. It
is a fact of transcending significance. But is it not also a fact that most of
us, in our daily lives, do not think of ourselves as Indians? We see ourselves
as Hindus, Muslims or Christians, or Malayalees, Maharashtrians, Bengalis…. And
we shed blood to uphold our narrow and selfish denominations…Political parties,
State Governments and social organisations promote policies, programmes and
ideologies which divide brother from brother and sister from sister… Is this
the India for which Mahatma Gandhi and Indira Gandhi sacrificed their lives?”
Indira Gandhi also spoke sternly against
communalism. Some seven months before her assassination, she declared in the
Lok Sabha that communalism was the “biggest divisive factor” in India and they
must all unitedly fight it. She was speaking on an adjournment motion in the
Lok Sabha on violent developments in Punjab and Haryana. Two days later, she
again thundered on the subject and described communalism as the “Indian version
of fascism.” She also called upon all the parties “to unite at least to root
out this evil.” Ironically, however, she failed to respond adequately and
constructively to the basic thrust of a thought-provoking speech on the
adjournment motion by Mr. Charan Singh. Significantly, Mr. Charan Singh made
his suggestion for combating communalism in 1983 also when the House debated an
adjournment motion on the Punjab situation following the killing of Atwal, a
DIG of Police, near the Golden Temple. I then regretted that Mrs. Gandhi was
not in the House and the country had been denied the opportunity of getting the
Prime Minister’s responses.
Communalism was expected to die a natural
death when, following independence, India chose to become a secular democracy.
Yet this has not happened. We do not seem to have learnt the bitter and bloody
lesson of partition, an outcome of rabid communal politics. Communalism has
continued to grow and flourish even though Jawaharlal Nehru, too, spoke
strongly against it time and again. In fact, it has been allowed to be
exploited for too long in the calculated and pernicious pursuit of power.
Policies of divide and rule have continued to be recklessly followed and one
community pampered in preference to the other. Secularism implies an
institutional separation of the state from religion --- an impartial approach
to all faiths. But it has generally come to imply a pro-minority policy. By and
large, a Hindu is today accepted as secular only if he is pro-Muslim and
perhaps pro-other minorities. He is lauded as genuinely secular if he is also
critical of Hinduism. If, on the other hand, he speaks of Muslim communalism,
he is promptly denounced as a Hindu chauvinist, if not worse.
Conscious of the havoc that communalism might
cause again, India’s Constituent Assembly (Legislative) took a welcome step of
basic importance to India’s secular polity. It unanimously adopted on April 3,
1948, a resolution seeking to eliminate communalism from India’s body politic.
The resolution was moved by Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, who later became
Speaker of the Lok Sabha. It was supported by an impressive list of members,
headed by Jawaharlal Nehru, then Prime Minister and leader of the House, and
including Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Giani Gurmukh Singh Musaffir,Prof. N.G.
Ranga and Mr. Tajamal Hasan. What Nehru said then is still like a breath of
fresh air today. But before quoting him I would like to recall another little
known fact. The Assembly resolution went far ahead of the Government and the
Congress Working Committee resolution adopted following the Mahatma’s
martyrdom. The Government resolution merely stated: “There is no place in India
today for any organization preaching violence or communal hatred… No such
organization will, therefore, be tolerated.”
At least one member, Haji Abdul Sattar Haji
Ishaq Seth tried to water it down. He argued during the debate that the ban
should be imposed only on organizations “preaching violence and communal
hatred” as emphasized by the Government earlier. But Nehru preferred to go
along with Mr. Ayyangar’s resolution. In fact, Nehru’s mind was made up from
the word go. He took the floor soon after Mr. Ayyangar and said: “Sir, before
this debate proceeds any further, I should like to indicate the attitude of
Government in regard to this resolution. Government welcomes this resolution
and desires to say that they wish to do everything in their power to achieve
the objective which lies behind this resolution. After the eloquent speech of
the honourable mover I need not say much about the desirability of this resolution.
As a matter of fact, it is an inevitable policy which an independent country
must adopt… Even in the past, those of us who accepted any measure of
communalism erred and acted unwisely and we have suffered greatly for our
unwisdom.”
Nehru then said: “In the past conditions were
different. But when a country is functioning independently, there is no
alternative except to follow this (policy). The only alternative is civil
conflict. We have seen as a matter of fact how far communalism in politics has
fed us: all of us remember the grave dangers through which we have passed and
the terrible consequence we have seen. In any event, now there is no other alternative” and we must have it
clearly in our minds and in the mind of the country that the alliance of
religion and politics in the shape of communalism is a most dangerous alliance,
and it yields the most abnormal kind of illegitimate breed. .. the combination
of politics and religion, resulting in communal politics is a most dangerous
combination and must be put an end to. It is harmful to the country as a whole;
it is harmful to the majority, but probably it is most harmful to any minority
that seeks to have some advantage from it. I think even the past history of
India will show that.” Loud applause greeted Nehru’s declaration. Everyone was
happy.
Most sadly, however, Nehru did not implement
the resolution, moved two months after Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination. Worse,
Nehru ignored his own earlier stand and gave respectability to communalism.
This happened when the Congress formed a coalition Government with the Muslim
League in Kerala in 1960. Nehru, I learn, did oppose a coalition with the
League when it was first mooted by U.N. Dhebar as Congress President and the
proposal was dropped. But it was revived successfully and put through by Indira
Gandhi after she took over as the party President. To the great horror of
thinking Congressmen and others, Nehru justified his party’s coalition with the
League on the plea that the League in Kerala was different from the League in
the north. Clearly, the pursuit of power took a heavy toll. Nehru was forced by
his close advisers to accept a combination of politics and religion and thereby
virtually give communalism a new life and a new thrust. What is more, the
policy has willy nilly continued despite pious platitudes against
communalismmouthed ad nauseum by top leaders.
Hopes of a ban on communal parties were
revived behind the scenes in mid-1984--- after “Operation Blue Star”.Mr.
G.S.Nihal Singh Wala, a courageous Congress-I member of the Lok Sabha from
Punjab, gave notice of a brief bill providing for such a ban. The bill
comprising four clauses defined communal party as “a party based on religious
community and sectional appeal to serve its communal interests and whose
activities are against the interests of the nation.” Clause 4 also provided for
a ban on “the use of religion and places of worship for political purposes.”
The statement of objects and reasons of the bill said: “Communal forces are
creating disintegration in the country and disaffection among various
communities. Some parties have taken to exploiting religious sentiments for
political ends and are pressing various claims as members of different
communities rather than as Indians.” The bill was due to be introduced on July
27, 1984. But it was not. The powers that be suddenly changed their mind. The
reason? Developments in Hyderabad. The Congress-I under Indira Gandhi decided
to seek the help of the Majlis Ittehadul Musalimeen to bring down NTR, an
exercise which later ended in a fiasco.
Where do we go from here? It is time to cry a
halt to the dangerous drift and take overdue action. We cannot swear by
secularism and yet allow communal parties to function and push the country
towards more trouble, even havoc. (Some leading communalists and mullahs are
reported to be secretly talking in termsof another homeland!) Secularism cannot
be a one-way street. Each community must respect the sentiment of the other.
Concerted efforts must, therefore, be made to promote a secular way of life and
shed the hangover of the British Raj. We must undoubtedly ensure that there is
no oppression of the minority. At the same time, we must also ensure that there
is no oppression of the majority. India needs a ban on communal parties in the
first instance. We missed the chance of imposing a ban following the
assassination of the Mahatma. We threw it away again when we chose to slur over
the tragic lesson of Punjab for petty political gain. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi needs to
take another hard decision to safeguard India’s unity and independence before
it is too late. Double talk and double think will not do.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
|