Al-Risala (English), April 1991

Acceptance of Reality

1991 4 April 9-14 Acceptance of Reality An Analysis of National Disunity (2001) During a three-week tour of Japan and the USA, in December 1990, I happened to meet a Kuwaiti refugee who launched into a sorry tale of all the hardships he had encountered before reaching a place of safety. He said very pointedly what an advantage he thought it to be an Indian citizen. “The very size of your country rules out such tragic events as have taken place in my country. You are safe from the grave injustice of a neighbouring country suddenly, and without warning, usurping Indian rule. Kuwait, being a small country, cannot ever have that degree of security.” He was, of course, referring to that fateful moment on the second of August, 1990, when President Saddam Hussein of Iraq sent his 200,000 strong army into Kuwait where, encountering no resistance, they took over the government of the country. Overnight, the Kuwaitis found that their comfortable lives, their wealth, their property, their honour were all in jeopardy. With this desperate feeling of insecurity, there was nothing for it but to flee Kuwait, leaving behind all their possessions.

My new acquaintance reiterated how important it was to be a citizen of a big country. He pointed out that if Iraq had waged a war against Iran for eight years without, ultimately, doing it any great harm, it was because Iran was a big country. And if Saddam Hussain had been able to take over Kuwait on the strength of a single all-out military operation, it was because Kuwait was a small country.

The Nature of the Problem

If the Kuwaiti’s analysis of the situation appeared simplistic in the case of his own country, I had nevertheless to agree with it in principle. It struck me, indeed, that if the smaller nations suffered from this sense of insecurity, would not the border states of India – Punjab, Kashmir, Assam – be similarly afflicted, if they ever managed to secede from the Indian Union? If the campaigns they launched to become separate states ever fructified. Would they not be weaker and more vulnerable even than Kuwait? What, in reality, did they hope to gain from independence?

I came to the conclusion that if they made such demands, without realizing their imprudence, it was because of the kind of discontent which arises from an underestimation of what is available coupled with an overestimation of what is not. Assam, Punjab and Kashmir are ranked among the more affluent states of India. Yet their citizens seem permanently disgruntled. This is because they set no proper value on what is available to them and keep their sights resolutely fixed on those they imagine to be better situated. They do not realize that in the process of trying to achieve further gains, they are likely to lose what they already possess.

In case of Kashmir, the notion of independence arose from Sheikh Abdullah’s not being content with the Chief Ministership which went with Kashmir’s affiliation to India, and his eagerness to move up to the Prime Ministership which would go with Kashmiri independence. Such thinking developed and supported the concept of an Independent Kashmir, finally giving a strong impetus to the present movement, which has done little but deluge Kashmir in blood.

It is golden dreams such as these that have prompted the leaders of such diverse states as Kashmir, Punjab and Assam to demand the status of separate countries.

Such thinking is utterly naive. Even supposing these states succeed in freeing themselves from India, and their leaders then become the Prime Ministers of small, independent countries, their problems, instead of being solved, will merely become exacerbated. The first problem which will come to the fore human nature being what it is! – will be the jockeying for position which will take place, there being room for only one Prime Minister (or President) at the top of the political hierarchy. There will always be unrest because would be leaders cannot remain content in subordinate positions. The struggle which is now on between the state and the centre will simply repeat itself on a smaller scale, but with increased ferocity, within the framework of the newly formed country.

As a result, various kinds of evils will appear. The “free country”, instead of heading towards progress, will become entangled in innumerable problems arising .from internal strife. One example of this today can be seen in Bangladesh.

Ideally, politics should be result-oriented. They should function on the principle that energy should never be wasted on attempts to reach unattainable goals. All efforts should be directed towards that which can in practice be achieved. Politics should be seen as the art of the possible.

The ideal state, unfortunately, is not a possibility in this world. Here one has to be content with considerably less than the ideal. It is a wise man who grasps this reality. Through willingness to accept, one is at least left with the energy and resources to achieve what is possible. Attempting the impossible should simply not be contemplated, because, in the process, precious time is wasted, human strength is burnt up and material resources are squandered.

In a similar way, during another journey, I happened to meet a Bangladeshi Muslim who was on his way to Karachi to find a job. I said to him, “You fought Pakistan to have an independent country. And you used to call Bangladesh ‘golden’ BangIa. Then how is it that you are seeking your future in Pakistan?” He replied, “Those were all slogans shouted by the leaders. The truth is that, before the emergence of Bangladesh, we were in a far better position.”

Let us take a closer look at why the movement for an independent Bangladesh was launched, leading to its separation from Pakistan in 1971. The actual cause was the envy aroused by the Punjabis holding sway in the army and having a monopoly of the lucrative government posts at the time of partition. This was a continuing state of affairs and, as such, became a source of anger and resentment to the Bengalis. They felt that they had freed themselves from the British only to enter instead into the servitude of the Punjabis. This was what led them to launch yet another campaign for freedom.

This movement, however, with its heavily emotional overtones, turned out to be ill-founded. The actual cause of the Bangladeshis’ backwardness was not their having been forced into servitude, but their low level of educational achievement, for which their own shortcomings and negligence were to be blamed. The proper solution would have been self-adjustment within the Pakistani framework and hard work to compensate for their educational inadequacies. But, unfortunately, the leaders of Bangladesh, being shallow-minded, chose to make capital out of this public unrest. Laying all the blame in their own weaknesses at the door of Pakistan, they launched a fiery movement which strongly projected their hatred for their imagined oppressors. Bangladesh did, as a result, win political independence. But when no attempt has been made to remove the real cause of the people’s discontent, revolution has only amounted to further destruction, but in a new guise.

The common error of all the movements to have separate states in Punjab, Assam and Kashmir is that they result from the local people’s sense of grievance against the Centre. Now even if these grievances were genuine, their underlying causes should be sought elsewhere. The leaders of these states have nevertheless held New Delhi wholly responsible for this public discontent, and have presented this as reason enough to launch campaigns for independence. Supposing these movements succeed, the people they are meant to benefit will, on the contrary, find themselves ultimately in a worse predicament. If at all these states survive, it will only be as weak and impoverished countries which have no role to play in the Indian, Asian or international political scene. Each will have succeeded in creating just one more Bangladesh.

The Reality

It is common knowledge that our present world is a world of competition. And competition is an ever-present phenomenon. As a result, some forge ahead, while others are left behind. Some succeed in acquiring more of the material things of life, while others have to be satisfied with less. But this state of affairs does not have to be viewed as permanent. There are always opportunities for the laggards and the unfortunate to surpass the more immediately successful by dint of sheer hard work. Conversely, there is also the possibility that those who have once succeeded may stumble and fall back to their original positions, often simply by neglecting to keep on working hard or to remain on the lookout for fresh opportunities. They thus make way for those who are more determined about succeeding.

This being the present reality, the secret of success lies, not in .confrontational activities, but in the persistent exploitation of one’s own potential. Had the Bangladeshis applied themselves in the field of education and economy, they would one day have surpassed the Punjabis they envied so much. But, by engaging themselves in negative politics, they have merely contributed to their own destruction. Moreover if the people of Punjab, Assam and Kashmir were to exert themselves in constructive fields like education and commerce, they could set a shining example to the entire country. As it is, by embroiling themselves in negative movements, they are only frittering away their opportunities. Their campaign for independence, with its strong element of terrorism, is propelling them downwards on the path to destruction. And if this campaign ‘succeeds’, they will come into possession of a country that has been weakened to the point of utter ruination.

The best example for our Punjabi, Assamese and Kashmiri brothers is that of the Japanese who, by willingly remaining under American subjugation after World War II, freed themselves of the necessity to enter into either underground activities against, or open confrontations with a superior power. They were thus able to devote themselves single-mindedly to their own national reconstruction. In this they have been so successful that Japanese industry is now posing an economic challenge to the USA itself. Unfortunately, however, our brothers have chosen to model themselves upon the Bangladeshis, who have achieved independence, but have lost everything else in the process. What they have lost was, indeed, far more precious than what – after a bloodbath – they ‘gained’.

Conclusion

There are many people in this country who, having reached the nadir of despair, have no positive encouragement to offer. Aghast at the present deterioration in national affairs, they can only wait in trepidation to see how the uncertain future of this country will resolve itself. There is another group, however, which is full of optimism. It holds that the present situation should be perceived as ‘creative ferment’ or ‘transitional turmoil’. This is neither clearer nor more positive than what the first group has to say. If the former is marked by abysmal hopelessness, the latter is marked by unfounded hope.

The truth is that the present situation has grown out of a general failure to appreciate our national imperatives. This trend can be reversed only by countering the flow of misinformation and reestablishing current priorities. For this to be successful, conscious-raising is a sine qua non, and for all right-thinking leaders this should be a willingly undertaken and unremitting labour. It is a task which needs, in fact, to be undertaken on the same massive scale as in Japan and the USA, without which these countries could never have reached their present level of development.

In India, the work of consciousness-raising has never been adequately tackled, either before or after 1947. Over the last one hundred years, there has been hardly a single serious effort worthy of the name. This is what has made a mockery of any genuine aspirations we may have had towards national integration. We must first recognize the realities underlying our disunity, and then do our utmost to remedy these shortcomings, if we are ever to set our feet upon the path of national unity.