APRIL 24 The National Agenda

anything, even further from the goal of nationhood than it has ever been, no party having gained the absolute majority essential to stability and longevity of governance. Instability is, indeed, an alarming state of affairs. The question arises as to why the country, after so many years of independence, is now faced with this problem. This can be answered only in terms of the forces at work in the country. In this recent election, there were two big contenders, one upholding secularism, the other Hindutva. Both staked a claim to being the true representatives of the Indian public. But neither actually gained public support, because a third force—a combination of regionalism and casteism—swallowed up more than half of the votes. Even after fifty years of freedom, regional and caste loyalties stand in the way of arriving at a consensus which would bind all our countrymen with the one cord. We are still very far from the land-based concept of nationality, the idea of a homeland for all, regardless of caste, creed or ethnicity. Secularism and Hindutva, which, in different ways, identify with and support the concept of nationhood, were opined to be sufficiently all-encompassing in their separate theories and to have sufficient mass appeal to guarantee a thumping majority to their respective upholders. They were also seen as powerful, emotive binding forces among the mass of potential voters. But the election results soon gave the lie to such optimistic views. As I see it, the reason for public neglect of parties whose envisaged sphere of influence and functioning is the nation as a whole is simply intellectual backwardness. Whatever concepts an under-educated society is in possession of are derived from common daily experience of a very limited nature relating, for instance, to language, style of living, personal relations, immediate economic interests, racial bias, etc. Among these, one seldom, if ever, finds the concepts of oneness, cohesiveness or homogeneity as applicable to the entire nation. Local experience in such a society can bring into being human islands, but not oceans of humanity. In any society where education is not widespread people’s thinking tends to be narrow and immature, so that social cohesion remains a local matter, confined to small groups. The well-known 19th century educator and reformer, Horace Mann, aptly observed: “A human being is not, in any proper sense, a human being till he is educated.” Mann also observes: “Education is our only political safety. Outside of this ark, all is deluge.”