Two-Sided Difficulty

Two-Sided Difficulty

1991 5-6 May-June 4-6 Two-Sided Difficulty (997) A Symposium organized on August 15, 1990, in New Delhi under the auspices of the Deen Dayal Institute was attended by well-known Hindu intellectuals. One of the speakers at this symposium was Giri Lal Jain, former editor of the Times of India. The following is an excerpt from his speech:

“Contrary to the popular perception, the central issue before the country, as I see it, is not, and has not been, the Hindu-Muslim problem. The central issue has been, and is going to remain for the foreseeable future, the Hindu-Hindu problem. The Hindu society, it is a commonplace, is deeply fragmented along caste lines, and since independence, every ‘care’ has been taken by many of those in charge of the country’s affairs to see to it that those conflicts get aggravated. Finally, under the ‘great’ leadership of Vishwanath Pratap Singh, we face conditions of near civil war.

“I view the future of India – I am sorry to say on Independence Day – with deep misgivings. Independence itself, you will recall, was born in bloodshed. Independence has since then been bathed in blood again and again. I have the terrible feeling that what we have seen in the past will pale into insignificance in comparison with what awaits us in the future. I do not believe that anything like sensible political order is likely to emerge in this country in the near future, or indeed, foreseeable future. The Muslim problem is only one expression of this failure of the Hindus to create and sustain a political order which conforms to their genius and needs.”

The point made by Mr. Jain deserves serious consideration. It is a fact that Hindu society is based on the caste system; the caste system is, indeed, the sine qua non of Hinduism. It would only be by negating Hinduism itself that this caste structure could be abandoned. But if one believes in Hinduism, one cannot deny such a major underlying principle, set forth as it is in the holy books of Hinduism. In the Rigveda, for instance, society has been divided into four classes according to high or low birth. The Rigveda hymn, 10:90, declares that the Brahmin (priest), the Rajaya, or Kshatriya (warrior-ruler) the Vaisya (commoner) and the Sudra (seft) issued forth at the moment of creation from the mouth, arms, thighs and feet of the primeval being. The sudras live in servitude to the other three. The Vaisyas, in turn – the common people, the grazers and cultivators – are in contrast with the governing classes, i.e. the secular Kshatriyas, or warrior-rulers, and the sacerdotal Brahmins. The Brahmins and Kashatriyas are in contrast to each other, the former undertaking priestly duties, while the latter have the actual dominion.

The system of the four classes is fundamental to the views the traditional law-givers held of society. They specified a different set of obligations for each: the task of Brahmin is to study and advise, the warrior-ruler to protect, the Vaisya to cultivate and the serf to serve (EncyclopaediaBritannica-X/361).

How deeply ingrained this concept is in Hindu society can be gauged by the violence of the demonstrations against the implementation of the MandaI Commission’s recommendations to reserve 27 per cent of the government posts for the lower castes. The anti-MandaI campaign was launched on a massive scale and reached such a pitch of intensity that about 100 Hindu youths attempted self-immolation as a form of protest. The upper caste Hindus could not bear the idea of the backward .castes becoming their equals in government posts. Indeed, they launched their campaign with such gusto that the V.P. Singh government was shaken and Mr. Singh finally had to resign on November 7, 1990. Since it was at his instance that the decision was taken to implement the MandaI Commission report.

The caste system is a permanent obstacle to the unity of the Hindu community. So long as this system is extant, its disparate elements will be unable to unite. And where there is no unity, there is no power.

Then what means could there be of uniting the Hindu community? Mr. Jain who, we must remember, is a top-rated Hindu journalist maintains that there is no positive ground on which unity may be achieved in the Hindu community. It is only on a negative basis that it will unite. And what more negative a basis can there be in present times than anti-Muslim feeling? Arouse anti-Muslim feeling, and you will unite the Hindus. But it should be borne in mind that unity arising from such negativism can never yield positive benefits. Unity achieved in this way could only have destructive results. It could never be constructive in its achievements.

Mr. Jain has dealt with this difficulty of Hindu society in an article in the Times of India (July’ 4, 1987) in which he maintains· that the problem has two sides to it, because “what is possible is not desirable, and what is desirable is not possible.”

This shows to what extent Hindu society is in a state of helplessness, having no firm ground on which to stand. It requires, perforce, and external prop. In the absence ‘of such a support, the walls of Hinduism will collapse on their own without anyone having to demolish them.

By blowing the Babari Masjid issue out of all proportion and by the very act of launching a movement in the name, of the Babari Masjid, our misguided Muslim leaders have provided that very support to the Hindus of which they were in such sore need. This war of words by over-zealous Muslim leaders has naturally been exploited to the full by extremist Hindu leaders, thereby stirring up anti-Muslim feelings in their community on an unprecedented scale. What is called the ‘Hindu Wave’ or Hindu unity stems entirely from this blind, anti-Muslim feeling. The saddest part of it is that the stimulus for this ‘unity’ has arisen out of the shallowness of the activities of our own foolish leaders between 1986 and 1990.