COMMUNITY AND COMMITMENT

COMMUNITY AND COMMITMENT

1988 1 January 21-25 COMMUNITY AND COMMITMENT (2216) When we look for the solution to communal problems, we find that it really lies with the individuals who make up each community. For their part, it is a change of attitude that is required. Each individual must begin to think of his own and to others’ communities as if they were actually brothers and sisters belonging to the same family.

What is it that makes a community what it is?

What is it that draws its members together in close-knit unity, so that they live, at least for the greater part of the time, in mutual peace and harmony? Some of the reasons are to be found in the history of a people and in the geography of their environment – elements shared in common by every member. But mostly, it is common ideals which are the great cementing factor, being derived, consciously or unconsciously from religion. In their daily living, the members of the different communities are motivated, albeit in varying degrees, by the fundamental tenets of their own faith. Granted that the standards set before them by their respective religions are all very much concerned with honesty and decency, it may seem surprising to denizens of countries where there are no serious communal issues that different communities, living side by side in the one country (as they do in India) cannot live in peace with each other.

They have been likened to the members of one big family who dwell together under one roof, with strong bonds of affection for parents and grandparents, and a good living and working arrangement with each other, instances of friction and quarrelling being only occasional. But this analogy is only partially correct. True, the different communities owe allegiance to the head of state (as it were, to the head of the family) and they inhabit one country, just as the family members live under one roof, but as to having good living and working arrangement with each other that is quite a different matter. That is not to say that some such arrangement does not exist, but it is a very tenuous affair, ruptured at the slightest untoward incident and not always adhered to, even at the instance of the state authorities. Bouts of quarrelling are not just occasional, but increasingly frequent and communities, unlike family members, rarely make spontaneous efforts at reconciliation.

They are also apt to administer correctives in a way calculated to offend rather than instruct. The kindliness of the family is sadly missing. The genuine desire to help, love, tolerate is just not there. When we are all members of the same human race, all imbued with time-honoured ideals, why is it that when we attach different communal labels to each other, we forget that we belong to the Family of Man?

When we look for the solution to communal problems, we find that it really lies with the individuals who make up each community. For their part, it is a change of attitude that is required. Each individual must begin to think of his own and to others’ communities as if they were actually brothers and sisters belonging to the same family. It would then be found that the solution to communal problems would be as easy as the solution to family problems. Whenever friction arises in a family, its members are constantly alert as to how divisive a force this is and, regardless of the irritation or discomfiture they may be suffering, they eventually control their feelings in order to bind themselves together again, and, even more important, they prevail upon the younger and more hot-headed members to do likewise. The family as an entity is put first, and the individuals second.

Never, even in a moment of forgetfulness, should you treat anyone in a manner by which you yourself, if treated in this way, would feel affronted.

Similarly, living in harmony as a nation should be put first and the projection of individual identities of communities put second. And if pride in members of a family must be kept under tight rein, so must communal pride be held in check. Just as individuals who are unwilling to submit to parental authority must leave the family nest and make lives for themselves elsewhere, so must a community bow to national imperatives or find itself beyond the pale.

Family unity is based on mutual consideration and respect. This happy state of affairs could easily be extended to the communal scene if enough individuals simply put their minds to carrying it into effect. If the kind of harmony which is achieved by families through patience, affection and general tolerance were set up as a definite aim by all communities, there is no reason why it should not be attained in the very near future. It is a question of wishing it to be so, making positive efforts towards it and forgetting all the old scores to be settled, all the old grievances which are like so many running sores on the face of national unity.

From my childhood days, I remember a friend who used to recite:

Kabhi bhul kar kisi se na karo suluk aisa

ke jo tum se koi karta tumhen nagawar hota

(never, even in a moment of forgetfulness, should you treat anyone in a manner by which you yourself, treated in this way, would feel affronted.)

This Hadith in couplet form was the remedy he prescribed for all family ailments. Indeed, it is the most vital principle of social life. If we could only call it to mind at crucial moments, both inside and outside the home, all friction would simply disappear.

This formula is particularly important when a dispute has a certain measure of right and wrong on both sides. Consider the case of A’s son angering B’s son and being beaten by him. The original mischief was the doing of A’s son, but B’s son appeared the greater offender because he became violent. But what has to be looked at really critically is the behaviour of Mr. A. He came rushing out of his house and proceeded to deliver Mr. B’s family a lecture on the subject of civilized behaviour, without, however, uttering a single word of remonstrance to his own son. He may have had a point about B’s son having turned physically aggressive, but his failure to reprimand his own son taught him nothing about being civilized and could have been interpreted as tacit encouragement to further mischief. And it certainly did not improve relations between the two families.

Every incident can be viewed from different standpoints, and it is a mistake to think that one’s own is always the correct one. If we were all to stop and think that there might just be some aspect of the other man’s argument which is worthy of consideration, instead of exaggerating the virtues of one’s own cause and the vices of the other’s, there would be much less ill-feeling, and the causes of quarrels when viewed coolly and in a spirit of tolerance would often be seen just to disappear.

Recently, I met a resident of Jeddah in Saudi Arabia, who has been a highly successful businessman for the last 30 years. Since he was widely travelled and experienced in the ways of life, I asked him the secret of his success in dealing with people. He smiled and said that this ‘secret’ was the one mentioned in the Quran-Iraz, or avoidance. This means overlooking unpleasantness rather than doing battle over it with words or fists. He said he himself was always ready to withdraw from unpleasant situations rather than tackle them head-on. That was why, he said, he never found himself faced with insuperable difficulties.

He related various instances to bear out this theory, one of which was particularly to the point. “Once,” he said, someone who imagined I had given him cause for offence came to me and began to hurl abuse and threats at me. I made no reply. When I judged that he had given full vent to his ire, I told him that he might do whatever he wanted, but that I too had a weapon. Infuriated, he asked me what this weapon was, to which I replied that the more he abused me, the more I would pray for him. And the more he tried to pressurize me, the more I would bend. At these words all his anger evaporated. He quietly walked away, and never spoke offensively to me again.” He added that this policy not only saved him being placed, quite unnecessarily, at a disadvantage, but also infused him with courage. His explanation was that hatred of others makes a man into a coward, whereas love for others makes one bold. What he said was patently the truth.

In the Indian context, the factor which most undermines communal harmony is the prevailing atmosphere of doubt and suspicion which has grown out of the complex and unhappy history of the subcontinent. If only this barrier could be crossed, we should find that all communal problems died a natural death. It no doubt requires great self-control and mental effort to rise above suspicion to do so, the results are wonderful to behold. It is rather like the airliner which takes off in dense fog, but which slowly climbs above it to an altitude where all is brightness and sunshine.

In public affairs, particularly those which reach the streets, an open act of trust can have the most salutary effect. I am reminded of a certain city where, every year, the procession of one community passed the place of worship of another community, and without fail was held up at the spot for six to 8 hours because the local worshippers objected to its passing that way and wanted it to take another route. There was much obstinacy on both sides, often leading to rioting. But the cure for this came in 1986, when the local people decided not to hold up the procession, and with none of them there on the spot to hinder it, it filed peacefully past their place of worship in a mere matter of half an hour. No untoward incident marred the event. So where before, obstinacy had bred obstinacy, an act of trust swept it away.

Another instance, concerning the control of a large and a small mosque, illustrates the value of trust and mutual esteem. These two mosques had both been under the guardianship of the department of archeology in a certain city. The large mosque is now under Muslim control, while the small one is still under dispute. This dispute has arisen because certain opportunistic leaders have chosen to turn the control of the smaller mosque into a street issue, which has meant leading processions and organizing demonstrations. In this way, it has become a prestige issue for the two communities involved. Once prestige enters into a conflict, the chances of finding a solution are slim.

“The issue of the large mosque on the other hand never reached the leaders. It remained in the hands of unknown local Muslims who made every effort to find a solution by interacting with the individuals concerned at their own personal level. Non-political in their style of operating, they even managed to have the cooperation of the other community in question. It was purely by such efforts that the mosque and its surrounding land finally came under direct Muslim control. I have personally visited this mosque and felt satisfied as to its functioning. It now has a school equipped with electricity and telephone, and religious and educational work is being peacefully carried out.

Resorting to processions and demonstrations to settle differences only creates more serious problems. But if matters are quietly and reasonably discussed, a satisfactory solution can always be arrived at.

Tolerance is one of the greatest factors in stabilizing human relationships. There is one particular instance of the building of a mosque and a madrasa, where its absence almost wrecked the construction plans. The Muslims in charge of the building operations were at the stage of laying the foundations when they were told by the members of another community that they would not allow any walls to be raised there. They were asked to withdraw a distance of two yards and then to raise their wall. The school management at once agreed to this and stopped all work on the building. However, the next day, some senior members of the community came to the school authorities and expressed their regret at the manner in which some ignorant youths of their community had tried to be unreasonably obstructive. They said they had explained matters to them and that the Muslims were now free to build their wall in the place originally intended. They assured them that they had no objections whatsoever to the project. Tolerance, therefore, countered ignorance and wisdom prevailed.

In reality, many of the problems of this world arise from sheer ignorance, and it takes real wisdom to solve them. This is particularly true of communal problems, in which the element of ignorance on the part of miscreants so often sparks off disputes. If this could be properly understood, and the situation treated with wisdom and forbearance, all dispute would cease at the very outset.