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