National Integration

National Integration

1989 8 August 21-24 National Integration (1505) National integration, a goal which all communities should strive towards has been the subject of ongoing debates for many years now in different parts of the country. I myself have had the opportunity to participate in several seminars devoted to this subject during the past one year. One which, to my mind, carried considerable weight, was the All India Seminar on “National Unity and Religious Minorities of India”. This was held on the 11th and 12th of February, 1989 under the auspices of the Bharat Vikas Parishad (founded in 1969 in New Delhi), its patron and president being respectively Dr L.M. Singhvi and Justice H.R. Khanna. My own contribution was a paper on the above topic, specially written for the closing session.

Naive Thinking

In contrast to the strong feeling and clear-cut ideas of the intellectuals on this subject, there is a great deal of vague and muddled thinking on the part of the people, the majority of whom pronounce themselves in favour of change of system, or changes in the law. For instance, it has been suggested that the words ‘minority rights’ in the Constitution of India should be replaced by human rights’. And the Minorities Commission should be replaced by a ‘Human Commission’.

The implication is that the very inclusion of the phrase ‘minority right’ in our Constitution perpetuates the idea of separatism and leads to a hardening of communal attitudes, leaving the field open, as it does, to claims for separate rights for every group. On the contrary, if the phrase human rights were inserted in the Constitution, all of India’s inhabitants would appear as one. The concept of separatism would then disappear, making way for a general atmosphere of unity.

This is clearly an oversimplification. The truth is that the problem calls for a change, not in the wording of official documents, but in the present state of affairs. If there are thorns in the world of rose bushes, and you would like to get rid of them, there is no way that you can do so simply by eliminating the word ‘thorn’ from the dictionary of bushes and replacing it with the word ‘flower’. The saying, ‘No rose without a thorn’ should convince us that we have to accept our rose bush as it is – thorns and all. That is, we must see the actuality of the problem, find concrete solutions for it and stop depending on word-play.

Another ‘solution’ which is offered to the communal problem is that whenever an incident takes place, the Government should resort to police action and court proceedings. Our leaders without exception, are the first to lay emphasis on this.

It has to be conceded that, in principle, this task is part of the duties of the administration and that certainly, the latter must carry out its duties. But to imagine that the administration on its own can solve this problem is to misunderstand the complexity of the issue. Administrative measures, even when utterly sincere in intention, can be only a partial and temporary solution to the problem.

Those who discuss the communal problem almost invariably make the fundamental error of thinking of the North as if it were the whole of India. They forget the very vital distinction between North India and South India – an omission which causes their analyses and proffered solutions to go seriously awry. It is a matter of historical record that over the past half century, all of the communal riots have taken place in North India. No rioting has ever taken place in the South. And if, incidentally, there has been a communal riot in South India, it has been found that its instigators came from the North. The South Indian themselves have never been involved in such riots, yet–and this is quite remarkable–all of the divergent views held by different groups are to be found there in the same measure as in North India.

This would appear to mean that the problem so desperately in need of solution in North India has already been solved, in practice, in South India. This being so, we must first of all study what makes the two regions so different from each other. Once this is established all we have to do is ‘extend’ South India to North India. What is healthy in its influence in one part of the country should be spread without delay to the remaining parts.

On various trips that I have made to the South, I have tried to pinpoint the differences. The most important of these, I found was the tolerance which South Indians have for others – a virtue completely lacking in North Indians. Where the latter are ready to clash the moment that they differ, the South Indians in the same situation show the utmost restraint. Where the intolerance of the North leads to rioting, the tolerance of the South ensures social harmony. It is ultimately a question of differing mentalities.

The above analysis shows where the solution lies. It lies in disseminating whatever factors have proved beneficial in one part of the country in all the other parts. This ultimately means fostering such a mentality as will enable people to lead their lives in communal unity, in spite of any differences they may have.

Encouraging people to think along the right lines is the only way to produce a lasting solution to a problem, which, for North India, has really arisen because of distorted thinking. It is the inability to see and think clearly which is the root cause of much of the social malaise of the present day.

In any society, the existence of various communities is but natural. The real evil in our society, however, is not their existence, but the non-existence of mutual tolerance.

The Need for Tolerance

Differences at various levels in society are inherent in character, and you simply cannot bulldoze them into uniformity. Even Stalin, the Russian dictator, did not succeed in establishing a classless society, although he crushed 25 million people in the attempt. Trying to banish disparities is like trying to achieve the impossible. The only practicable solution to this problem is to inculcate in the people the spirit of tolerance and the positive will to bear with one another. They desperately need to be taught the lesson of unity in diversity. If national unity is to be achieved, it must be in the face of all differences, for the elimination of all differences from society is simply inconceivable.

If we are to imbue people with the spirit of tolerance, we have to adopt the same process of ‘permeation’ as was advocated by the Fabian society. This would entail lengthy campaigns to improve their present understanding of the subject; it would mean, in fact, attempting to change them from within by filling their minds with correct ideas.

The phrases ‘national unity’ and ‘national integration’ have been in use in this country for the last half century, but no real attempt has been made to achieve either of these closely allied goals. It should be obvious that these are not goals that can be attained in a desultory way by holding conferences and parading in the streets with placards. It is only a continuous, vigorous campaign which will raise the consciousness of the people. Up till now, not one of those who raise the slogans of national integration has devoted himself wholeheartedly to this task.

Today, with hundreds of journals and newspapers being brought out in our country, journalism has a great role to play in this intellectual revolution. But not a single journal or newspaper is devoted to this cause. All our newspapers are, in effect, political papers, while the weeklies and fortnightlies are solely concerned with publishing sensational articles for cheap monetary gains. When what ought to be institutions of consciousness-raising have sunk to this level, no benefit is to be gained by issuing occasional appeals.

The truth is that the public cannot be changed unless the leaders first change themselves. Even if only one per cent of the writers and speakers in our country who have a formative influence on public opinion were ready to make the same sacrifice as was made by the Fabians between the first and second world wars (i.e. keeping a low profile, avoiding sensationalism and working for the public good behind the scenes) our country certainly be changed for the better.

Pandit Motile Nehru was once asked when the people would actually have the freedom for which he was struggling. He answered, “I do not know the time but I know that if I lay down my life on this path, then the fortress of freedom will surely be constructed on my dead body.”

I would repeat that even if only one per cent of the intellectuals of our country were to involve themselves fully in the campaign of consciousness-raising, their forfeiture of any personal gain would be offset many times over by the new and surging vitality which their sacrifice would give to the nation.