Whither India

Whither India

1990 12 December 12-16 Whither India India’s Journey – Backwards or Forwards (1906) The 30th of October, 1990 was marred by happenings which were perhaps the first of their kind in the history of India. That was the day that the city of Ayodhya – a name given by Hindu saints to signify peace and non-violence – saw a vast, unlawful gathering of extremist Hindus indulging in the most violent demonstrations. Breaking down the cemented boundary wall of the Babri Masjid and damaging one of its domes, they climbed up and fixed their flags on all the three domes of the mosque.

This frenzied violence erupted in Ayodhya while the Babri Masjid-Ram Janam Bhumi controversy was still sub judice. Not only the government, but all justice-loving people of the country made repeated appeals to the Hindu extremists to do the court the honour of waiting for its judgement and, in the meantime, to refrain from taking any action. But, ignoring all such appeals, they left their homes, entered Ayodhya by force and let loose a reign of terror.

The concept of tolerance, which has been India’s great mark of distinction for thousands of years and, as much, a source of national pride till today has been sullied and laid bow by the events of the terrible day. The authorities certainly had taken what they considered adequate preventive measures, the cost to the Central and U. P. governments being of the order of 40 crores of rupees. But nothing they could do could save this age-old tradition of tolerance. All barriers of law enforcement and administration were simply swept away by the great flood of emotionalism which has been typical of the entire proceedings, thus enabling the kar sewaks to carry their plans for destruction into effect.

The Times of India of October 31 rightly pointed out that a vast majority of Hindus would never condone such action and must, as a result, be suffering from acute embarrassment if not downright shame.

The very conscience of India has cried out against this agonizing event. People rightly feel that this violent attack did as much damage to the sacred traditions of the Hindu religion as it did to the Babri Masjid. In consequence, a large number of the people of this country have publicly expressed the deep pain they have felt at this outrageous act and have unequivocally voiced their condemnation of it in speeches and articles.

The Times of India of October 31 carries a front-page editorial entitled ‘Anguished India’ which says:

‘The BJP and the VHP clearly failed to realize that whipping up of atavistic passions for political gain would give them at best a ‘pyrrhic victory.’

The Hindustan Times of November l, 1990, has trenchantly expressed the same profound concern in a front-page cartoon. The back ground is a playing field on one side of which stands V.P. Singh, the former Prime Minister. On the other side is a enthusiastic Mr. Advani, the President of the BJP. Both are raising their hands and giving the victory sign. In front of them on the ground, lies a weak, debilitated human wreck. Upon this vanquished body is written ‘India.’

This cartoon is an apt illustration of the outcome of the political policy followed by the present Indian leaders whose sole aim would appear to be to build themselves up politically, even if it be at the cost of the nation’s downfall. Why else should they be so keen to kindle the fires of hatred, bias and violence? The events of October 1990 testify to these leaders having fulfilled their ambitions. Their short-sighted policies may have led the country to the brink of destruction, but they are nevertheless ready to celebrate their political victory.

In the destructive game of politics recently played out in the country in the name of religion, the leaders have won and the country has lost. The leaders have received more than their fair share in terms of their actual abilities. But whatever the country had before, it has lost even that.

What do the extremist Hindus have to say to this? They hark back to the Mughal period and say that since they were unjustly treated in those days they must now avenge themselves. Leaving aside the rights or wrongs of these allegations, we have to consider what exactly the Mughal rulers gained from their oppressive tactics. The ‘gain’ was only that their government weakened and finally saw its dissolution in 1857.

In like manner, the extremist Hindu leaders allege that the British were cruel oppressors. Whether true or false, this too begs the question of what they gained from their ‘cruelty.’ The only ‘gain’ they made was that their power was systematically uprooted from the country, their rule coming to an end in 1947.

In much the same way, extremist Hindu leaders accuse the post-independence Congress government of having treated Hindus unjustly throughout its entire rule. Leaving this allegation aside for the moment, we must again address ourselves to the question of What was actually gained from the execution of such a policy. The only ‘gain’ was that the party’s roots were progressively undermined to the point where it lost the elections in 1988.

Now the extremist Hindu leaders are adopting the policy of their predecessors: they are following the same path of cruelty. What exactly is it that they want for themselves? Do they want to ascend the same throne of destruction as had to be vacated by the Mughals, the British and the Congress Party? Having adopted the same course of action as their forerunners, have they forgotten that the law of nature is one and the same for everybody – that it does not discriminate between one group and another? Will the cruelty which caused past rulers to be consigned to oblivion bring any different a fate to the new rulers?

It is still possible that the extremist Hindu leaders might, through negative action, achieve political gain, that is, they could conceivably, in the eyes of a particular set of voters, assume the stature of national heroes; they might win at least the next election and might succeed in occupying the seat of power. But the greater possibility is that the law of nature will turn full circle against them on account of their destructive activities. They will then find themselves written off a just one more group of oppressors, and be removed from the seat of power.

The present world is a world of trial in which everyone must prove his mettle. It is also a world in which the corrupt and the oppressors must expect ultimately to be removed by historical forces and to be superseded by men of greater moral stature. This law of nature which regulates human leadership has endured throughout the annal of human history, and India is assuredly no exception to this law.

Battle of Prestige

Prior to 1947, India was ruled by the British. Not only was it considered by the people economically ruinous and socially unjust for the country to be ruled by a foreign power, but it was also thought to be extremely damaging to the Indian psyche. This being so, the movement for independence was launched against this domination. After enormous sacrifices, the country was finally set free on August 15, 1947.

Now it would have been proper and logical for all of the people of the subcontinent to work unitedly towards the progress of the country. But this did not happen. One reason was that independence also entailed the partition of the country. The people divided up into two big communities, one of which demanded partition, the other demanding ‘United India.’ The result of this antagonism in politics was that even after the exit of the British, the problems of the country were still very far from being solved; It became a question of ‘Hindu prestige’ versus ‘Muslim prestige’.

This undercurrent has persisted unabated since 1947 re-surfacing periodically to turn almost every national controversy into a prestige issue between the two communities. For instance, when a Hindu procession passes by a Muslim mohalla, the Muslims living there think in terms of their prestige being tarnished. So they demand a change of route for the procession. Now it becomes a matter of Hindu prestige. The Hindu thinks if the route of the procession is changed, his national prestige will be at stake. Both sides insist on their demands. Both sides suffer from the negative mentality which is termed in the Qur’an the ‘Bigotry of Jahiliya’ (pre-Islamic days of ignorance) (48:26).

The course of events has been no different in the case of the Babari Masjid-Ram Janam Bhumi controversy. When this controversy escalated after 1986, the Muslims maintained that for them this was not a matter of just one mosque: it was a matter of life and death for the whole community. They were not, therefore, going to remain silent, come what may. The Hindus, for their part, said that it was not a matter of just one temple, but assumed the proportions of a ‘second defeat.’ By accepting Partition in 1947, they had met their first defeat. Now, being the rulers, they were not going to suffer a second defeat. A simple matter was thereby transformed into a prestige issue for both the communities, and once an issue takes on this hue, its complexity increases one thousand fold.

This battle of prestige has been going on for the last fifty years, bringing the country’s progress to a state of impasse. Only when this battle comes to an end will the country’s journey towards progress be again set in motion.

It is a matter of historical record that such problems never end on a bilateral basis. The complexity of the problem calls for unilateral action. But which side is to take this unilateral step?

Judging from recent events, the Hindus will not be willing to do so. The Hindu psychology is such that they are still smarting from the ‘first defeat’. And, considering that in the affairs of the nation, it is they who have the upper hand, it seems unlikely that they would opt for any unilateral solution which would bring on a ‘second defeat.’

When a problem cannot be solved bilaterally, there is only one practical way to solve the problem –unilaterally. Given the present situation, I would earnestly urge my Muslim brethren to ready themselves for such a sacrifice. For the sake of the country’s progress, and, as a result their own progress, they should take it upon themselves, once and for all, to set aside prestige as a matter of overriding importance. In the words of the Qur’an, they should follow’ the word of piety’ rather than ‘the word of bigotry.’ (48:26). This is the only possible solution to the problem, given the present state of affairs.

Whenever any controversy arises between Hindus and Muslims, the latter must either ignore it, or attempt to seek a solution within the limitation of the sphere in which it first arose. That is, they should not make a national issue of it, thus involving the whole community, where again it will become a matter of prestige. This policy will no doubt mean the making of sacrifices solely on the part of the Muslims. But the day the Muslims reshape their psychology so as to be ready for such a sacrifice, the country will start out afresh on its journey towards progress. And once the journey is under way, the country will inevitably reach its destination.