REWIND
New Delhi, 2 March
2023
TIMELY ALERT AGAINST DISASTER
By Inder Jit
(Released on 3 May 1983)
Parliament’s
discussion of the Punjab situation last week on an adjournment motion helped to
spotlight a matter of crucial national importance which is not receiving the
attention it deserves. The issue: communalism, which led to India’s partition
and again threatens to play havoc with the country. The credit for raising the
subject goes to Mr. Charan Singh and his thought provoking but poorly reported
speech. The former Prime Minister spoke for almost 50 minutes and did what was
expected of a top leader even as a Congress-I member repeatedly interrupted:
“Baba Adam ki baat choriye. Aaj ke sawal per boliye.” (Forget about old times.
Talk of today’s issue.) Strictly, the discussion was on “the failure of the
Government to ensure that religious places like the Golden Temple are not used
in a manner to aggravate law and order situation as evidenced by the killing of
a senior IPS officer near the Golden Temple, Amritsar.” But Mr. Charan Singh
wisely used the occasion to analyse the situation, direct notice to mounting
communalism and sound a timely alert against drifting to disaster.
The Lok Dal leader
made his basic point by recalling something which few seemed to remember: a
unanimous resolution adopted by the Constituent Assembly (Legislative) way back
on April 3, 1948 to eliminate communalism from India’s body politic. Things, he
said, would not have come to the present tragic pass if only the resolution had
been implemented. The resolution, which deserves to be reproduced, reads: “Whereas
it is essential for the proper functioning of democracy and the growth of
national unity and solidarity that communalism should be eliminated from Indian
life, this Assembly is of the opinion that no communal organization which by
its constitution or by the exercise of discretionary power vested in any of its
officers or organs, admits to or excludes from its membership persons on ground
of religion, race and caste, or any of them, should be permitted to engage in
any activities other than those essential for the bona fide religious,
cultural, social and educational needs of the community, and that all steps,
legislative and administrative, necessary to prevent such activities should be
taken.”
Mr Charan Singh did
not go into the details of the resolution. But I later found the motion was
moved by Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, who became Speaker of the Lok Sabha, and
was supported by an impressive list of members, headed by Jawaharlal Nehru,
then Prime Minister and Leader of the House. Prominent among the others were
Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Giani Gurmukh Singh Musafir, Prof. N.C. Ranga and
Mr. Tajamal Hasan. What Nehru said then is 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 resolutions adopted following
the Mahatma’s martyrdom. The Government resolution said: “There is no place in
India today for any organization preaching violence or communal hatred…. No
such organization will, therefore, be tolerated.” The Working Committee
resolution called upon “all Congressmen and organizations to initiate and carry
out in intensive drive against communalism…”
At least one member,
Haji Abdul Sattar Haji Ishaq Seth argued during the debate on Mr. Ayyangar’s
resolution 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 formulation. In fact, Nehru’s
mind was made 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 welcome
this resolution and desire 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 led us; all of us remember the grave danger through
which we have passed and the terrible consequences 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 brood… 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”.
Some people have of
late raised a demand for reviving reservations and separate treatment for the
minorities. Nehru touched on this point, too, and said: “We have to think
always in terms of raising the level of all those who have been denied
opportunities in the past. I do not personally think myself that the best way
to do that on the political plane is reservation of seats and the rest. I think
the best way, and the more basic and fundamental way, it is to advance them
rapidly in the economic and educational spheres and then they will stand on
their own feet. There is a great danger whether you deal with an individual,
group of community, of giving certain props to that community which gives it a
false sense of strength which does not belong to it, which does not come out of
its own strength, but which is external to it and which when removed suddenly
makes it weak… So these external props, as I might call them--- that is
reservation of seats and the rest --- may occasionally be helpful possibly in
the case of the backward groups, but they produce a false sense of the
political relation a false sense of strength…”
Mr. Charan Singh’s
lament was not limited to the resolution. He regretted that Nehru had not only
not implemented the resolution but had greatly encouraged communalism by
allowing the Congress Party to form a coalition Government with the Muslim
League in Kerala in 1960. Nehru as Prime Minister and Mrs. Gandhi as the
Congress Chief, he said, had then argued that the Muslim League in Kerala was
“different and not communal as in the north”. But the explanation was
unconvincing. (Nehru, I learn, did oppose the coalition with the League when it
was first proposed by Mr. Dhebar as Congress President. Mr. Sadiq Ali, who was
then General Secretary, recalls: “Panditji reacted sharply and said: ‘You do
it. But I will oppose it in the AICC.” The proposed was then dropped. But it
was revived successfully by Mrs .Gandhi when she took over as President not
long thereafter.) Mr. Charan Singh said communalism “got a further fillip under
Mrs. Gandhi” when India sought to participate in the Islamic Summit at Rabat
(September 1969) and subsequently accepted the active support of the Muslim League
for her party candidates to the Lok Sabha from Bombay city in 1971. Some countries
like Syria had then stayed away from Rabat on the ground that they were
secular.
Interestingly, the Lok
Dal leader recalled his talk with Mrs. Gandhi in October last year and said he
had told her quite plainly that “Congress-I policies had led to the rise of
communalism, casteism and linguism, leading to regionalism”. He had also
conveyed all these views to her in a subsequent letter dated February 22, 1983
In his talk and in the letter, he had accused her of making a “hero” of Sant
Bhindrawale and asked: what stands in the way of the Government arresting him or,
for that matter, any man wanted by the police, from inside a Gurudwara or any
other place of worship? Second, should a suspect be put above law and allowed
to select the time and place of his surrender to the guardians of law in the
presence of a huge gathering? Third, Sant Bhindrawale was allowed to come to
Delhi and go around the capital with unlicensed arms conspicuously displayed on
top of the bus in which he and his colleagues were travelling --- despite the
fact that the Chief Minister of Punjab had warned the Union Home Ministry of
the intentions of the Sant. Quried the Chaudhuri: “For God’s sake why?”
Mr. Charan Singh also
quoted an excerpt from Mrs. Gandhi’s reply of March 25, to his letter in which
she said: “We do not have to prove our bona fides in our desire to deal firmly
with communal elements. We are certainly concerned about sanctuary being
provided to anti-social elements in Gurudwaras, but your suggestion of
policemen entering places of worship is likely t have repercussions which
cannot be ignored.” But Mr. Charan Singh went on to emphasise: “No one can be
allowed to be above law. Criminals must be apprehended and duly punished. The
Government must assert itself. Either rule or resign”. Expectedly, the
Opposition members cheered the Chaudhuri who came out of the debate remarkably
well. At one stage, when Mr. Charan Singh was indicting Nehru and Mrs. Gandhi
for joining hands with the Muslim League in Kerala, a Congress-I member
interjected: “What about Muslim Majlis?” Mr. Charan Singh maintained his cool
and said “Yes, some of us joined hands with them to form a Government (in U.P.)
But as I said at the outset, we all are to blame. Our leaders went wrong and we
copied them. Even now the ruling party is pandering to extremist elements for
the sake of votes --- and power.”
It is a pity that Mrs.
Gandhi was not present in the House during the debate and, according to the
Home Minister, Mr. P.C. Sethi, chose to hear the discussion in her room through
the relay. Had she been there, she
could have intervened in the debate in the best tradition of her father an
given Parliament her reply to the many charges made by Mr. Charan Singh. Mr.
Sethi’s denial of these charges as “unfortunate” was not enough. Clearly, there
is need to take a good look at what the Lok Dal leader has said against the
backdrop of what Mrs. Gandhi herself stated on April 26 at Jaipur. She said
that communal and caste elements were “raising their head again and a united
and determined effort was required to combat them.” Yet, six days earlier, the
Minister of State for Home, Mr.Laskar, told Parliament: “The Government has no
proposal to ban any political party or organisation allegedly propagating
communal hatred, casteism and violence in the country.” Either we wish to
eliminate communalism or we do not. We can ignore the warning given by the
Chaudhuri at our own peril. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)
|