By Inder Jit
(Released on 3 March 1987)
Communalism and religious fundamentalism have been strongly denounced once again in Parliament. The nation has been warned sharply of the mounting menace from the two evils. This time also the alarum has been sounded by the President, Giani Zail Singh, in his address to the two Houses last week. He declared: “Communal and fundamentalist forces, aided and abetted by external elements, are challenging our basic values of nationalism, secularism, democracy and socialism… The situation clearly calls for a reappraisal… Our precious heritage of unity and diversity can be preserved only by fighting all divisive forces.” The Giani also did something which I have been repeatedly endeavouring to do for the past four years. He drew Parliament’s attention to a resolution adopted by the Constituent Assembly (Legislative) as far back as April 3, 1948 calling upon the Government to take steps to eliminate communalism from India’s body politic. But, as he candidly admitted in his address prepared by the Union Government, the challenge and the threat has greatly grown over the years.
President, Giani Zail Singh, in his address to the two Houses last week. He declared: “Communal and fundamentalist forces, aided and abetted by external elements, are challenging our basic values of nationalism, secularism, democracy and socialism… The situation clearly calls for a reappraisal… Our precious heritage of unity and diversity can be preserved only by fighting all divisive forces.”
Brave, indeed, splendid words were spoken against the evil last year too and the nation alerted against the mounting danger from communalism. Giani Zail Singh spoke then also on the issue in his address to Parliament. He said: “Communalism continues to pose a serious threat to national unity. It is being reinforced by religious fundamentalism and fanaticism.” Not long earlier, Mr Rajiv Gandhi honestly told the Congress Centenary Session at Bombay: “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, Maharastrians, 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 constructively to the basic thrust of a thought-provoking speech on the adjournment motion by Mr Charan Singh, the Lok Dal leader. Mr Charan Singh then recalled the resolution adopted by the Constituent Assembly (Legislative) in 1948 and bluntly stated that things would not have come to the present tragic pass if only it had been implemented. Importantly, Mr Charan Singh pressed for implementation of the 1948 resolution the previous year also —in 1983.
The House was then debating an adjournment motion on the Punjab situation following the killing of Mr Atwal, a DIG of Police, near the Golden Temple. Regrettably, Mrs Gandhi was not present in the House at this time and the country was denied the opportunity of getting the Prime Minister’s response to the Lok Dal leader’s demand. The Constituent Assembly (Legislative’s) resolution reads as follows: “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 organisation 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.”
What precisely happened in the Constituent Assembly then also meeting as the Central Legislative Assembly? The broad facts deserve to be reproduced now that the president himself has drawn the nation’s attention to the resolution brought forward by a leadership fearful of the havoc that communalism might cause again. 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 included Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Giani Gurmukh Singh Musaffir, Prof. G. Ranga and Mr Tajmal Hasan. What Nehru said then is like a breath of fresh air even today. But before quoting him I would like to recall another 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 merely stated: “There is no place in India today for any organisation preaching violence or communal hatred… No such organisation will, therefore, be tolerated.”
The Constituent Assembly (Legislative’s) resolution reads as follows: “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 organisation 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.”
At least one member, Haji Abdul Sattar Haji Ishag Seth argued during the debate on Mr Ayyangar’s resolution that the ban should be imposed only on organisations “preaching violence and communal hatred” as emphasised by the Government earlier. But Nehru preferred not to dilute the resolution and went along with Mr Ayyangar’s formulation. In fact, Nehru’s mind was made from the start. 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 added: “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 dangers 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 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.”
Nehru said: “…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 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.”
Not only that. Nehru also went into the implications of the resolution and said: “We warmly welcome the objective underlying it and the spirit behind it. But this resolution mentions administrative and legislative measures to be taken to give effect to it. Exactly what those administrative and legislative measures might be, it is impossible to say straight-off: it will require the closest scrutiny, certainly the legislative part of it. And presumably the right course for Government will be to consider this matter and see what administrative and more specially what legislative measures are necessary to gain this end; and then later when this House meets again, for another session, to consider any recommendations in that respect so far as legislative measures are concerned… Further, the purpose of this resolution, I take it, is also to give a lead to the country in this matter, so that the country may realise as clearly as possible that the only right way for us to function is to do away with communalism in its political aspect in every shape and form. That we accept.”
Tragically, Nehru did not implement the resolution. Worse, he ignored his own early stand and in 1960 gave respectability to communalism at the instance of Indira Gandhi, then Congress President, by joining hands with the Muslim League to form a coalition Government in Kerala. Alas, this policy has continued to be pursued opportunistically. Even today the Congress-I does not appear to see anything wrong in joining hands with the Muslim League. Hopes of a ban on communal parties were raised in mid-1984 following “Operation Blue Star”. Mr Rajiv Gandhi and his close aides took active interest in the matter. But the idea was dropped when Indira Gandhi decided to seek the help of the Majlis Ittehadul Musalimeen in the Andhra Assembly to topple NTR. The National Integration Council was reconstituted last year with great expectations. But it has proved feeble and ineffective. Not a few among the members are responsible for bringing India to its present pass. Meanwhile, communalism has snowballed, as spotlighted by the Ranganath Mishra Commission’s report and the recent developments in Punjab. Pious platitudes and double talk will not do. It is time for hard decisions and concrete action. — INFA