History of the Hindu Code Bill

Talks about a Hindu Code Bill had emerged since the 1920s itself. The AIWC (All India Women’s Conference) demanded a revision of the Hindu Code to overcome deficits in women’s rights. This was the crucial difference between the reforms of the 19th century which were piloted from above and these, which were reforms actively sought by the women themselves. The AIWC declared a Women’s Legal Disabilities Day in 1934 at the instance of Renuka Ray. The Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act was then tabled by its author G.V. Deshmukh in the Central Legislature.

The same year, the Shariat Application Bill tabled by H.M. Abdullah was passed which gave the daughter a share in property. However, in both the Hindu and Muslim case agricultural land was exempted from the application of the respective bills. This was because agricultural property fell under the ‘jurisdiction of provincial legislation’ while these two Acts of 1937 were Central legislations. (Chitra Sinha, Debating Patriarchy:The Hindu Code Bill Controversy in India 1941–1956, 2012). Why was this the case? Probably, the vote-influencing elite class couldn’t be touched or angered!

However, the demand for codification of Hindu personal law driven by Hindu women did gain legitimacy with the 1937 “Deshmukh Act.” A Hindu Law Committee was appointed on January 25, 1941 headed by B.N. Rao (who went on to become the constitutional advisor of the Constitution’s drafting committee). Other members were- Shri Dwarakanath Mitter, ex-Judge of the Calcutta High Court, Shri R. Gharpure, Principal, Law College, Poona and Rajratna Vasudev Vinayak Joshi, a lawyer from Baroda. The committee appreciated the role of Women’s Associations across the country. The committee suggested two measures in its final report submitted in June 1941. These were largely related to an enlargement of the terms of reference and the need for provincial legislative changes to apply to the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act in agricultural landed property.

With these suggestions in mind two draft bills on the law of marriage and inheritance were prepared and presented before a joint committee of both the houses. The two bills together came to be known as the draft Hindu Code Bill and were presented before the Legislature to be debated in 1943-44. The Committee was invoked again and began working from 1945 onwards. Dwarkanath Mitter presented a dissenting opinion stating that of the total number of people interviewed for the bill, only 33.4% supported the codification drive [the percentage being even smaller in the “Hindu Heartland” (coined by Gyanesh Kudasia)]. The figures are from the Report of the Hindu Law Committee, 1947.

Maharashtra offered the greatest support in favour of the Code Bill. Dharma Nirnay Mandal (formed at Lonavala in 1936) which was at the forefront went to many places in Maharashtra raising awareness on the codification issue. It brought out several publications including Why Hindu Code, co-authored by T.K. Tope and H.S. Ursekar. The Hindu Code Bill was thereafter referred to the Select Committee in April 1948. The ball was now in Ambedkar’s court.

Views of Ambedkar and Nehru on the Bill

Ambedkar believed the Code Bill to be a vehicle towards reforming Hindu society. He therefore considered the Hindu Code Bill as historic as the Constitution making process. He spoke of the aims and objectives of the bill in the simplest of terms to make it accessible to all. He stated that – “in order to reduce the confusions surrounding Hindu laws and also to make these more equitable and relevant to contemporary Indian society, the Bill seeks to codify the law relating to certain aspects covering marriage, property, succession etc.”

With these essential points in mind, let us now move to see the people who opposed the Bill who have been grouped into categories by Reba Som in her article ‘Jawaharlal Nehru And The Hindu Code: A Victory Of Symbol Over Substance?’(Modern Asian Studies, February 1994).  We shall simultaneously accentuate the contradictions and paradoxes of these people on the issue which exposes their hesitance for reforms and their unwavering commitment to not want women being treated at par with men. These were-

One. Those stalwarts within the Congress who had been arrayed against the likes of Nehru from 1930s onwards. These were represented by Rajendra Prasad who had been unhappy over the issue since the start. Prasad believed that the progressive idea of introducing basic changes in personal law was only the view of a microscopic minority and its imposition on the Hindu community as a whole would have disastrous consequences. When frustrated by Prasad and others in the assembly over the issue of the bill, Nehru told them that the passing of the bill had become a matter of prestige for him. Prasad had drafted a letter in response to this on which he consulted (luckily for him), Vallabhbhai Patel before sending it. Patel counselled him on the benefits of remaining quiet as this would brighten his chances of being elected the first President of India. Prasad thus, kept quiet and got elected the first President. However, once he assumed this constitutional role, his obduracy over the bill continued, sometimes citing procedural lapses on Nehru’s part (for which there was no provision but only convention) and sometimes by terming the efforts at getting the bill passed as anti-democratic. He in fact, even threatened to withhold Presidential assent to the Bill even if it was passed from both the houses. Surprisingly, Prasad was the President when, later, in five parts the Hindu Code Bill was largely passed by Indian Parliament.

Along with the likes of Prasad were Hindu fundamentalists within the Congress like the Deputy Speaker, Ananthasayanam Aiyyangar who was convinced of the soundness of polygamy. This group never made an earnest effort to carry through the reformist agenda Congress propagated. Some among those who were not so opposed to the contents of the Bill were at sixes and sevens because of the fact that the Bill was piloted by Ambedkar, an untouchable. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, a liberal member of the Congress too criticised Ambedkar for his “professional, pedagogic and pontifical attitudes” which will “only alienate attitudes that have almost been reconciled,” records Reba Som.

Two. The Hindu Mahasabha with people like N.C. Chatterjee and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee who opposed the Bill based on the fact that it threatened the very foundation of Hindu religion. The Mahasabha tried to argue that the “Hindu” Code Bill was a communal legislation (only for the Hindus) and instead that a Uniform Civil Code should be introduced in its place. Thus, it becomes clear that it was not out of a progressive reformist zeal that the Mahasabha wanted a Uniform Civil Code but only so that the state power interferes in Muslim affairs as well. Mukherjee argued that the Hindu Code be made optional, an argument similar to what Jinnah made during the passage of the Shariat Application Bill 1937. Mukherjee had been in Nehru’s cabinet and wholeheartedly supported the Code which he was now opposing and therefore, Ambedkar dismissed his remarks as non-worthy of consideration.

Within this category let us add a subcategory of Hindu reactionaries outside the Parliament represented by the RSS. In March 1949 the All-India Anti-Hindu-Code Bill Committee with Swami Karpatriji Maharaj at its head was formed which opposed the Constituent Assembly’s interference in personal laws of Hindus based on Dharma Shastras. (Ramchandra Guha, India after Gandhi, 2008) Alongside this Committee was also a battery of lawyers from various Bar Councils across the country who absolutely condemned the Code Bill. The Committee held several hundred meetings throughout the country opposing the Bill. The All India Hindu Code Bill Virodha Samiti even published a book, Hindu Code Bill: Praman Ki Kasauti Par in Hindi by Swami Karpatriji Maharaj, condemning the government propaganda about the Bill and presenting the Bill in complete opposition to the ideology of Sanatan Dharma. (Chitra Sinha, 2012) This Committee even marched on to the Parliament raising derogatory slogans like “Down with the Code Bill” and “May Nehru Perish.”

Three. The Sikh group represented by men like Sardar Mann and Sardar Hukum Singh inside the Parliament and Master Tara Singh outside it, who resented being clubbed with the Hindus in the broad framework of reform. Tara Singh denounced the introduction of the Hindu Code Bill in the Parliament. This can be found dated 13th December in G. Parthasarathi edited Letters to Chief Ministers Vol.2 1950-1952. Interestingly, after Ambedkar had resigned and not much alteration had been made to the Bill, Sardar Hukum Singh stated that the Bill could now be passed as the objectionable parts had been removed.

Four. Muslims represented by Naziruddin Ahmad from Bengal who argued that the Hindu Code Bill was a bid to end the Mitakshara joint family. This would lead to division of families and property issues. The most baffling part is that despite hailing from Bengal which was the epicentre of Dayabhaga School, Naziruddin Ahmad chose to speak about Mitakshara. Even more fascinating is the fact that provincialism, evoked by Jinnah during the debate on Shariat Application Bill 1937, was ensured among Bengali legislators by the very same Naziruddin Ahmad. Of the scant information on him over the Internet, his appointment as the chief whip by A.K. Fazlul Haq, then Bengal chief minister is surely significant. The same provincialism is found wanting in Naziruddin Ahmad while speaking on the Hindu Code Bill. When he remarked that Hindu families would suffer the same fate as Muslims, he was given a shut up call by Renuka Ray who asked why he was not ready to let the Hindus enjoy the same advantages that the Muslim society enjoys.

Six. Women Parliamentarians, largely the ones who were consistent in their approach and most fully committed to get the Code Bill passed. Even their criticism, expressed through Sucheta Kriplani and Hansa Mehta, was sound and logical based on the fact that the reforms did not go as far as they should have and that they were half-hearted.

Ambedkar’s resignation and his assessment of Nehru

Correspondence between Ambedkar and Nehru on the topic brings out the differences in views as well as approach to the Hindu Code Bill. On August 10, 1951, Ambedkar wrote to Nehru-

“My health is causing a great deal of anxiety to me and to my doctors. They have been pressing that I must allow them a longer period of about a month for continuous treatment and that such treatment cannot now be postponed without giving rise to further complications. I am most anxious that the Hindu Code Bill should be disposed of before I put myself in the hands of my doctors. I would, therefore, like to give the Hindu Code Bill a higher priority by taking it up for debate and consideration on August 16 and finish the matter of by September 1, if the opponents do not practice obstructive tactics. You know I attach the greatest importance to this measure and would be prepared to undergo any strain on my health to get the Bill through.” (Selected Writings of Ambedkar)

Nehru however, knew that the conservatives were too many and quite vehement in their opposition to the Hindu Code Bill. There was now no Patel to ensure the whip in support of the measure. However, Ambedkar did not pay attention to this view and he felt extremely frustrated that Nehru wasn’t able to get the Bill passed.  The fact remains that with the active support of the then President, many members including the chief whip were all firm in their disapproval of the Hindu Code Bill. Nehru could not hurry it through since elections were also round the corner. As Ambedkar sarcastically put it, ‘I have never seen a case of chief whip so disloyal to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister so loyal to a disloyal whip.’(Reba Som, 1994) Ambedkar was, however, convinced of Nehru’s sincerity, it was only his lack of determination that he criticised.

There were a few more issues (not connected to Nehru directly) over which he resigned. Nehru’s sincerity is reflected in a letter he wrote to the Chief Ministers on October 4, 1951. He stated- “it was obviously a controversial measure and it was not our desire to suppress debate or even to treat this as a strictly party measure necessitating a Whip.” He cites this as the reason for failure to get even parts of the Bill through. He goes on to say, “I have no doubt that a considerable majority in Parliament desired the passage of this bill with minor alterations. But that majority was helpless before a determined minority and we had to confess defeat.  For the moment at least I do not think, however, that all this time on the Hindu code bill has been wasted. It has kept this important subject before the public and made people think about it. It had made it one of the major issues in India and I have little doubt that it will have to be taken up and passed sometime or the other. For my part I am convinced that progress in India must be on all fronts- political, economic and social. Unless this happens we shall get held up.” 

Nehru’s reaction to Ambedkar’s resignation

Frustrated and flabbergasted over the stoicism of conservative elements within the Congress, Dr. Ambedkar rendered his resignation on September 25, 1951. On his resignation, Nehru spoke in the Parliament with a sense of loss. “It is a matter of regret for me, if for no other reason, for the fact that an old colleague should part company in the way he has done today.”

Moreover, Nehru wrote to Ambedkar on September 27, 1951 with mixed feelings of appreciation for Ambedkar’s efforts and determination on his part to get the Bill through sooner or later. He wrote,- “I can quite understand your great disappointment at the fact that the Hindu Code Bill could not be passed in this session and that even the marriage and divorce part of it had ultimately to be postponed. I know very well how hard you have laboured at it and how keenly you have felt about it.” Nehru goes on to state that “I tried my utmost, but the fates and the rules of Parliament were against us.” He promised to keep fighting stoutly, “personally, I shall not give up this fight because I think it is intimately connected with any progress on any front that we desire to make.” 

Conclusion

Eventually, when the Hindu Code Bill was passed in various parts in 1956, Nehru offered his tribute to Ambedkar. He stated that Ambedkar would be remembered above all ‘as a symbol of the revolt against all the oppressive features of Hindu society’. But he “will be remembered also for the great interest he took and the trouble he took over the question of Hindu law reform. I am happy that he saw that reform in a very large measure carried out, perhaps not in the form of that monumental tome that he had himself drafted, but in separate bits.” (Ramchandra Guha, 2008)

The glowing tribute by Nehru to Ambedkar and Ambedkar’s admission of Nehru’s sincerity of efforts says it all. It was not these two but rather “the orthodox of all religions united” (from the title of Jawaharlal Nehru’s Essay) who were pitted against them on the issue of Hindu Code Bill. What’s more concerning is the remark heard from certain quarters of the Parliament after the passage of the Hindu Code Bill. During 1955 and 1956, when the Hindu Code Bill was enacted in fragments, Ambedkar’s absence was cited as a reason for the smooth passage of the Bill. (Chitra Sinha, 2012) Throughout the trajectory of the Hindu Code Bill, Nehru and Ambedkar remained consistent in pushing for reforms. Therefore, this struggle for the Hindu Code Bill and those who opposed it and actually disrespected Ambedkar should be clearly identified. Lest History Forget!

(The author is a PhD Candidate at the department of history, AMU)

[1] Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh formed in 1925

Related:

Dr BR Ambedkar: How the ongoing tussle between the BJP and Congress is both limited & superficial

What Nehru Flagged as ‘Most Dangerous’ Modi Now Invokes for Votes

Nehru’s Prescient Words During 1st General Elections Resonate Today

Iconoclast: Path breaking biography of BR Ambedkar projects his human essence

The post A principled PM, a determined law minister: Nehru, Ambedkar & Opposition in Indian Politics appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Stanford scholar Vibhav Mariwala’s tweet sharing a link to an article on Jawaharlal Nehru, was marked as ‘sensitive’ content. All that tweet had was a link to a December 2020 Opinion  titled Nehruvianism: Revisiting Visions of India in 1947, that Mariwala had authored for The Quint.

A click would have taken the reader to the article by Mariwala who studies History and Anthropology at Stanford University. According to his author bio at the end of that article, his most recent research was on the Origins and Implementation of India’s Planned Economy from 1947-64.

Perhaps he decided to share it on May 27, the death anniversary of Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, as a reminder of Nehru’s vision of Modern India, and how India and Indian leadership dealt with the many challenges a young nation faced. 

There is nothing objectionable, or ‘sensitive’ in the opinion, which reads like a well researched almost academic paper that explains “Jawaharlal Nehru’s vision of India helped guide the country through the crises of 1947.”  Makes one wonder what made Twitter mark his tweet with a link to an opinion written last year, out. 

Mariwala had opined in the article that reading works and speeches of Nehru can “give insight into how to respond to the challenges of 2020.” However, his tweet did not say anything else. The opinion piece on Nehruvianism, Mariwala added that “it is important to not only know of his vision for the country, but the extent to which his vision has eroded this year – a tumultuous year, with riots, protests, national lockdowns, a pandemic that has killed lakhs, wildfires, and cyclones. In 2020, communal and caste tensions have increased, the notion of Federalism has severely been undermined, and democratic institutions have further retrenched, from Parliament, to the Supreme Court. When compounded with the economic crisis, which was further accelerated by Covid-19, India needs a new vision to guide it through the 2020s to overcome its problems.” Is that what triggered this “censorship”?

Related:

Whatsapp moves Delhi HC challenging GoI’s traceability clause
Facebook, Twitter could face legal action in India
Why did Twitter CEO give millions to RSS-affiliated Sewa International?

The post Why did Twitter censor a basic tweet on Nehru? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In remembrance of Nehru on his 56th death anniversary his role as a democrat with scientific temper which has made immense contribution to India has to be highlighted. Nehru conceptualised the term ‘scientific temper’ in 1946 and defined it as an attitude of logical and rational thinking.The term ‘scientific temper’ is contemporary, but appeals to rational enquiry are not new to Indian ethos. 

We are proud land of Sushruta,physician in 8th century BC and of Aryabhatt ,mathematician in 5th century but tragedy is today we still have prejudices for ‘scientific temper’ as envisaged by Nehru.His vision of scientific temper should be seen in the context of his understanding of science and religion for a better appreciation. For Nehru science was not merely an individual’s search for truth but it should be an integral part of one’s thinking and action. He was more interested in social consequences of science which has made it possible to view traditional beliefs in a new light based on facts. One should not accept tradition simply because it is tradition as our sages of yesteryears were exploring too. 

In The Discovery Of India, Nehru writes, “The scientific approach, the adventurous and yet critical temper of science, the search for truth and new knowledge, the refusal to accept anything without testing and trial, the capacity to change previous conclusions in the face of new evidence, the reliance on observed fact and not on pre-conceived theory, the hard discipline of the mind, all this is necessary, not merely for the application of science but for life itself and the solution of its many problems.”

His concern in giving priority to Science was the reason that he was elected the first non-Scientist as Chairman of Indian Science Congress in 1937 (British India) there in the meeting he said “It is science alone that can solve the problems of hunger and poverty, of insanitation and illiteracy, of superstition and deadening custom and tradition, of vast resources running to waste, of a rich country inhabited by starving people.”

Nehru’s legacy of scientific temper got reflected when our Constitution adopted it as a fundamental duty of every citizen. The importance of spreading scientific temper in the country was highlighted in various science and technology policy statements adopted by him as Prime Minister.

At Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in 1954 he said “Lots of people may not know, why such an emphasis is being put on science. Why so much money is being spent Why did I take the trouble to come from Delhi? The big countries have more power while our country has remained poor….If we wish to empower our country, which is now independent, we have to create a strong base–so we can learn the basics…This may not show immediate results but finally result in the uplift of the country.”

History of modern India since Independence is marked by immense contribution of Nehru as PM in establishing centres of scientific learning with the start of establishing Atomic Energy Commission with Bhabha and several Institutes of Research to make India self reliant in science and technology which is a must for any vibrant democracy.Today we have privilege to be a leading Science power in the world only because of Pandit Nehru’s legacy.

Earlier this year Nobel Laureate Venki Ramakrishnan at a programme in Bengaluru highlighted the need for both a spirit of inquiry and for science to spread through large and small collaborations. “I think science flourishes when there is real freedom of thought and opinion and minimum ideological interference,” he said. 

The above statement is the soul of Nehru’s core belief where democracy and science together can only solve socially relevant issues, like poverty and hunger.So it is imperative for India’s democracy and it’s Government both at the Centre and the States that they should remove the obstacles that undermine scientific temper for inclusive and peaceful development of Indian society.

(Picture is of Nehru and Einstein taken on Nehru’s visit to Princeton University,US)

*The author is Director Centre for Objective Research and Development (CORD)

The post Nehru and the culture of ‘Scientific Temper’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Happy Children’s Day to all! Every year, as a tribute to the first Prime Minister of India – Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, India celebrates Children’s Day or Bal Diwas on November 14. Celebrations date back to 1956 and the day is observed to increase awareness about child rights and the education of children. Jawaharlal Nehru or ‘Chacha Nehru’ as he was fondly called is remembered for having said, “The children of today will make the India of tomorrow. The way we bring them up will determine the future of the country.”

Worldwide, Children’s Day is celebrated on November 20 in keeping with the date set by the United Nations. In India, the day is a commemoration to Nehru who advocated for child rights and the right to education, overseeing the set-up of India’s publicly funded government school system and the Indian Institutes of Management. He also established the Children’s Film Society India in 1955 to create indigenous cinema solely for kids.

Nehru had pushed for a Special Act through which the first IIT was set up in Kharagpur, West Bengal, in May, 1950. Addressing the first convocation ceremony of the institution, Nehru had said, “Here in the place of that Hijli Detention Camp stands the fine monument of India, representing India’s urges, India’s future in the making. This picture seems to me symbolical of the changes that are coming to India.”

Image Credits – dailyo.in

Nehru’s affection for children could be witnessed by one and all. At public gatherings, he would throw his marigold garlands to them. He would sit cross-legged on the floor to listen to happenings at their school or tales their grandmothers had told them. Jawaharlal often wore a red rose on his jacket. Some people say he began to do so from the day that a child pinned one on him.

Nehru wrote many books that still hold popularity worldwide. Among these, Letters from a Father to his Daughter and Glimpses of World History have become popular children’s classics because any child can respond to their warm, affectionate tone and spontaneous style. When ten-year-old Indira was at Mussoorie in the Himalayas, he began to write her a series of letters from Allahabad in 1928. In Letters from a Father to his Daughter, he wrote of when there were no men or women on an earth that was too hot for human life, of the rocks and fossils that reveal these times. Before the written word, rocks and mountains, seas, stars, rivers and deserts were the book of nature.

Glimpses of World History is a compilation of letters written in different circumstances, begun while he was in Central Prison, Naini in 1930. It is a vast tome of 1155 pages, not really a book to be read in one sitting but to be taken a few chapters at a time. While Letters… is more impersonal, with the focus on sharing information, in Glimpses… an intimate note creeps in with accounts of life in jail, his hopes and aspirations for the country he loves, his political philosophy and most poignant, his anxieties about his family.

Image Credits –  e-pao.net

How child rights have fostered in India since 1956

The Constitution of India has several provisions to secure and safeguard a child’s rights. India still has many underprivileged children who lack basic means to food and education, India has come a long way in protecting their rights but still has a long way to go to ensure that the benefits of India’s development reaches every child who dreams of a better tomorrow.

Constitutional Guarantees that are meant specifically for children include:

• Right to free and compulsory elementary education for all children in the 6-14 year age group   (Article 21 A)
• Right to be protected from any hazardous employment till the age of 14 years (Article 24)
• Right to be protected from being abused and forced by economic necessity to enter occupations unsuited to their age or strength (Article 39(e))
• Right to equal opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and guaranteed protection of childhood and youth against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment (Article 39 (f))
• Right to early childhood care and education to all children until they complete the age of six years (Article 45)

Nehru’s first five year plan, which he presented as the Prime Minister of Independent India addressed issues of children’s health and reducing infant mortality. Today, keeping in mind his Nehruvian philosophy, we hope that the dignity of the future of the country, the children of India who are embattling the problems of child labour and violence is restored and that they are empowered with education to bloom and achieve their full potential.

Related:

Will English help bring the margins into the mainstream?
Death Penalty In POCSO Act Imperils Child Victims Of Sexual Offences
Boycotting products only band-aid solution to child labour problem, which is deep-rooted in society
Children with disabilities: India’s partial progress in harmonizing national laws with UN requirements

The post Children’s Day – Remembering Chacha Nehru and his indispensable legacy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Somnath before the construction of the new temple began

It is normal for heroes in India to be painted as villains. The neighbouring Pakistan boasts of having a 5000-year old civilization! And, villains in India like Mahmud Ghazni are considered heroes in Pakistan!

Few know that Panini, born nearly ten centuries before the birth of Islam in the seventh century, on the border of present-day Afghanistan, wrote Sanskrit grammar, was a Pathan. Yet, ironically, he may not be considered a Pathan today, since terms such as Pathans and Arabs are commonly used only for Muslims.

One would have heard scholars in TV debates branding Chinggis Khan (also known as Genghis Khan), the 13th century Mongol ruler as “Muslim”. But the fact is, he called Jews and Muslims as “slaves”. Worse, he forbad Islamic tradition of slaughtering animals. The first person to embrace Islam in his family was his grandson, Berke Khan, in Bukhara. Qutlug Nigar Khanum, mother of the founder of Mughal Empire, Babur, was the descendent of the founder of Mongol Empire, Chinggis Khan.
 

Chingiss Khan

Panini

Mahmud Ghazni

A newspaper correspondent, who followed them, reported that Nehru performed Sandhya (evening prayer) and washed his Janoi (a sacred thread)! Munshi quotes the “will of Nehru” and his approach of “scientific temperament”, where his love and devotion for people, Ganga and Jamuna rivers can be seen. In the historic document dated June 21, 1954 (a decade prior to his death), Nehru expressed his desire, “I do not want any religious ceremony performed for me after my death”, adding:

“My body to be cremated… my ashes (be) sent to Allahabad… A small handful of these ashes should be thrown into the Ganga… The Ganga, especially, is the river of India, beloved of her people, round which are intertwined her racial memories, her hopes and fears, her songs of triumph, her victories and her defeats. She has been a symbol of India’s age long culture and civilization, ever changing, ever-flowing, and yet ever the same Ganga… The Ganga has been to me a symbol and a memory of the past of India, running into the present and flowing on to the great ocean of the future… a handful of my ashes be thrown into the Ganga at Allahabad to be carried to the great ocean that washes India’s shore.”

First published in counterview.net
 

The post Sardar Patel, not Nehru, dropped proposal to reconstruct Somnath with govt funds on Gandhiji’s suggestion appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Lok Sabha constituency of Phulpur in the Allahabad district and Lower Doab region of Uttar Pradesh saw India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru into Parliament for three consecutive terms since Indepedence (1952, 1957 and 1962). Following Nehru’s death in 1962 his sister Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit represented the seat for two terms. Former Prime Minister VP Singh was also elected from Phulpur on a Congress ticket in 1971.

Image: Reuters

Today’s result saw the Samajwadi Patel’s Nagendra Pratap Singh Patel leading by over 40,000 votes.

Today, there are 19,61,472 voters in the constituency of which 10,78,173 are male, 8,83,101 female and 198 others. In the by-polls held on March 11, 2018, Phulpur registered a voter turnout of 64%. 22 candidates are in the fray including BJP’s Kaushalendra Singh Patel and SP’s Nagendra Pratap Singh Patel. The by-elections in the seat was necessitated because of the resignation of Keshav Prasad Maurya as a Member of Parliament, following him being chosen as the Deputy Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. BJP’s Keshav Prasad Maurya won the seat in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections defeating Samajwadi Party’s (SP) Dharam Raj Singh Patel by a margin of over 3 lakh votes.

This time round, at the last count the BJP’s Kaushalendra Singh Patel was trailing with 2,41,465 votes behind Nagendra Pratap Singh Patel ho has obtained 2,81,445. INC’s Manish Mishra was a poor player in this election but Atiq Ahmed with dubious background (fielded to ‘cut’ the minority vote) drew 43,468 votes. The other player with such a background often brought in to muddy poll waters is notorious Brijesh Mishra who’s writ runs beyond the jail where he is lodged. So any discourse on criminal actions and corruptions cuts across all parties including the nationally dominant BJP.

In 1962, Nehru defeated Ram Manohar Lohia in Phulpur with a margin of more than 50,000 votes. After Jawaharlal Nehru’s death, Phulpur was represented by Nehru’s sister Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit from 1964 to 1968.

In 1969, Janeshwar Mishra, then a leader of the Samyukta Socialist Party, won the bypoll in Phulpur, defeating the Congress’ K D Malviya with a margin of more than 20,000 votes. For the first time, Phulpur voted for a non-Congress party.

Besides Nehru, Phulpur has been represented by another Prime Minister–VP Singh. In 1971 Lok Sabha elections, VP Singh, a Congress candidate, won the seat by defeating BD Singh of the Bharatiya Kranti Dal.

Phulpur was then represented by the Janata Dal from 1989 to 1996. Ram Pujan Patel, who first won Phulpur on a Congress ticket in 1984 subsequently retained the seat as a Janata Dal lawmaker from 1989 to 1996.

Member of a Patel subcaste of Uttar Pradesh has won Phulpur from 1980 to 2004. It started with BD Singh’s win in 1980, followed by Ram Pujan Patel winning Phulpur thrice and then Jang Bahadur Patel of the Samajwadi Party defeating Kanshi Ram of the Bahujan Samaj Party in 1996.

Jang Bahadur Patel retained Phulpur in 1998 Lok Sabha elections. In the Lok Sabha elections next year, Dharmraj Patel of the Samajwadi Party defeated Beni Madhav Bind of the BJP.In the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, then Samajwadi Party candidate Atiq Ahmed won Phulpur. The historysheeter is in fray this time too, but as an Independent candidate.

In 2009, Bahujan Samaj Party’s Kapil Muni Kanwariya defeated the Samajwadi Party candidate Shyama Charan Gupta with a margin of less than 15,000 votes.

The post Secular Stalwart Nehru Once Dominated the Phulpur Seat (Allahabad District) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Catching them young: RSS shakha. Photo credit: India Today

“Turfatar yeh hai, ki apna bhi
Na jaana, aur yun hee
Apna, apna kehke humko
Sabse beygaana kiya”
 -Saeed Naqvi

When Jawaharlal Nehru unquestioningly adopted the Euro-centric version of secularism for India he introduced the entire populace to public platforms of participation where religious identities were dismissed and disregarded. Nehru ignored the Indian reality which is deeply subsumed in religious experiences and refused to bring this discussion within the felt contours of public debates. He failed to create a healthy tradition of democratic engagement through public platforms wherein people from diverse socio-cultural and religious backgrounds could immerse in meaningful conversations.

Rabindranath Tagore had warned against uncritically enforcing a distinct separation between the state and religion; he emphasized that public life in India was invested with religious experiences and creating a political milieu where expression of religious affiliations is considered as “undemocratic” and “non-progressive” would engender negative feelings towards the ‘other’ who was unknown and inaccessible.

In this social realm where religious identities were formally dismissed and believers were mocked at, interactions between different communities could never materialize through safe channels of communication. As the “other” was always a distant entity within the larger social structure — never influencing the life outcomes of the ‘self’– it was fairly easy for radical ideologues to use this ‘fear’ as a site for fostering feelings of antagonism. As a consequence of this, we have been witnessing an increase in waves of communal clashes and violence as communities are compelled to share the same territory, resources and environment without ever trying to understand each other.

RSS has many ‘shakhas’ in the country to indoctrinate young minds with violent ways to combat the imagined enemy, the “religious other”. Similarly, many ‘madarasas’ encourage young students to criticize lifestyle practices which are different from theirs as necessarily un-Islamic and thus abominable.

This can be averted if the state recognizes that each human being is dealing with fear, longing and hope — the need to come to terms with the limitations of desire, and requires a material site through which this can be expressed. The nation needs poetry and religion so that un-assumed identities arbitrarily imposed on individuals do not convert them into religious monoliths with no other social identities to draw from.   

Catching them young: Madrasa students. Photo credit: Wilson

The lacunae created in public life because of the absence of a discussion on religion was filled by far right religious organizations who believe in consolidating their communities by annihilating others. Often times, these organizations fight for positions within the political structures of the society and use religion as a means to increase their presence in the public sphere and consequently the public mind. Threatened by violent narratives from various partisan groups the religious self rushes to his/her community for safety and a sense of belonging.

As individuals limit their life experiences to what happens within their respective communities, religious organizations premised on a discriminatory ideology find it easier to radicalize young individuals through the use of a single narrative embedded in ideas of aggression, purity and superiority. This project of socializing individuals into enacting discrimination through the use of violence requires a host of collective capillaries of public life to permeate the lived realities of individuals. In the case of Indian politics, educational institutions and media have been identified as the two most important capillaries of collective life.

Educational institutions, for instance, have been recognized as fertile grounds to train young children in practices of discrimination. RSS has many ‘shakhas’ in the country to indoctrinate young minds with violent ways to combat the imagined enemy, the “religious other”. Similarly, many ‘madarasas’ encourage young students to criticize lifestyle practices which are different from theirs as necessarily un-Islamic and thus abominable.

On the other hand, the state is making repetitive attempts to re-write history in order to reinforce a singular narrative and worldview against the very many which define the character of a pluralistic country such as India. Such efforts denigrate the search for true facts and use educational institutions as foot soldiers to implement the massive project of insinuating students with a social obligation to reify the normative categories and habitual modes of thoughts and actions.
Media is not free from the blame either. It is an inseparable part of the system and often operates from within the folds of institutional obligations. It acts as a material channel through which the dominant ideology permeates the lived experiences of young children and translates into practices of micro-aggression. The entire gamut of biased media narratives use politics of exclusion to articulate “what it means to be an Indian nationalist” to produce a definition which supports the rhetoric of majoritarianism.

For instance, respecting religious sentiments of one community by curbing lifestyle choices of others through a series of legal sanctions illustrate how the practice of tolerance is selectively imposed on members of particular communities while others unethically continue to work as vigilantes of the great Indian culture! Though media organizations try to report objectively, they cannot withdraw from the dynamics of a market driven economy where the government advertisements are the most lucrative source of revenue.

The influence on media, however, is not absolute and uninterrupted. Audience engages in negotiated reading with the text and often supplant their interpretation with borrowing from their family belief systems, lived experiences and community networks. Media is one of the many important social institutions which shape people’s reality and influence the way they think and act. It is a powerful channel through which a selected slice of reality is validated and presented as ‘the ultimate truth’ of the society.

It is, therefore, important to encourage young individuals to critically analyze media narratives and actively participate in the meaning-making process. They must be equipped with the necessary critical skills that allow them to divest their world view of the normative categories of classification and the normalized patterns of discriminatory behaviour.

What we need, today, are open platforms for public debate where individuals can voice their concerns about the use/abuse of religion for personal and political gains. The need of the hour is to go back to the Tagorian philosophy of bringing every issue within the purview of a disinterested rational inquiry so that it is rendered accessible to diverse voices.

We need to initiate a project of promoting religious literacy i.e. engagement practices which create an experience of ‘critical distance’ between the text and the reader, believer and the religious experience, and individual and the immediate socio-political world. We need to focus on expanding the expressive and communicative repertoires of individuals and allow them to explore alternate realities.

The communal voices can be challenged only with a rational mind which is critical of the ‘self’ just as much as it is critical of the ‘other’. Religious literacy is a political endeavour of creating a dialectical field where opposing forces can interact and engage with one another. It begins with acknowledging that differences are inevitable to human existence and that one must learn to negotiate with them instead of dismissing them as something ‘blasphemous’.

As Gandhi explained, “For humans to coexist with all their complexities and differences, channels of communication must always be open. A refusal to deliberate with others only because they have a different worldview marks the end of a democratic society.”

The current political landscape in India makes it unimaginable for educators to appeal to government sanctioned educational institutions to promote these ideas in classrooms and playgrounds. Our only hope remains with not-for-profit organizations and individual members of the society to infuse young minds with critical learning skills and enabling them to question social hierarchies. This project, thus, is a call for people who self identify as ‘civically engaged’ to honour their moral obligation towards upholding principles of social justice and equality in whatever little way possible.    

The writer is a PhD Scholar, Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad
 

The post Religious literacy: An educational project to counter the politics of ‘othering’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Freedom is In Peril, Defend It With All Your Might: Jawaharlal Nehru, is the strapline quote below the masthead of the e-newspaper.
 
A press release of the Associated Journals Limited, a company founded in 1937 by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru says:

“In keeping with the changing times, the newspaper group resumes phased publication as a multi-media outlet with a strong digital presence.  The digital website will follow the same editorial vision and principles as that of our Founder, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.  It remains committed to furthering the values it has always cherished and the best values of the Freedom Movement – that of building a modern, democratic, just, equitable, liberal and socially harmonious nation, free of sectarian strife.

 Launched in 1938 as a daily newspaper in the vanguard of the Indian Freedom Movement by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the National Herald proudly proclaimed its commitment on its masthead inscribed in Pandit Nehru's hand: 'Freedom is in Peril, Defend it with All Your Might'.  During its halcyon days even in decades after independence, the National Herald group of newspapers, including also Navjivan in Hindi and Quami Awaz in Urdu, lent its influential voice to the efforts of building such a nation striving for world peace and imbued with rationality and scientific temper that its Founder had inculcated.”

The lead story, Mr Jaitley, a few questions for you [Was the disruption of the economy caused by scrapping Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 denomination notes motivated by sound economic reasons, or prompted by extraneous considerations?] has an interesting tidbit:

“Rumours of demonetisation have been circulating in banking circles since April this year, when the State Bank of India chairman Arundhati Bhattacharya publicly blamed the rumours for an unprecedented surge in cash withdrawals. In an interview to The Economic Times, she had, in fact, stated that for the first time ever deposits in SBI had lagged behind advances…..
 
Some of these questions, posed by experts and the common man alike, are the following:
                    

• Who are the Indians who transferred Rs 30,000 crore abroad between June 2015 and May 2016?
• Is it true that the Government was influenced by Pune-based NGO Arthakranti Pratishthan, believed to be close to the RSS, and ignored expert advice? The NGO has been advocating demonetisation of currency notes of high value denomination, abolition of income tax, restricting cash transactions to Rs 2,000 and promoting all transactions through banks. Experts however had dismissed the proposals, pointing out that the country has a long way to go before it could hope to become a cashless economy. The NGO’s claim that it motivated the PMO to take the decision has not been denied yet. Does it mean that the PMO and the Finance Ministry plan to act on the other proposals also made by the NGO?
• The rest of the story may be read here

 The RSS-BJP’s hatchet man Subramaniam Swamy had trained his eye on the newspaper and in 2014, the court in Delhi, took up the issue of where the assets of Associated Journals (AJPL) who published The National Herald were distributed after the closure of the paper. Earlier in 2012, Rahul Gandhi had said that he would sue over allegations that his company, 'Young Indian', acquired Associated Journals (AJPL) improperly. On August 17, 2015 it was reported that the Enforcement Directorate had decided to close the case citing "technical reasons". Subsequently on September 18, 2015 the Enforcement Directorate decided to reopen the case.

The post  Is the Re-Birth of the National Herald a Call to Arms by the Congress ? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On January 13, 1948 Gandhiji began his last fast to protest the brutal killings that had bloodied the streets of Delhi and other parts of India and Pakistan following the Partition of the sub-continent. His speech that day at the Prayer Meeting is worth recalling given the Goebellian propaganda around his motives propagated by the votaries of a Hindu nation

Brothers and Sisters,
Today I may not finish my speech in 15 minutes as usual, as I have much to say.

Today I have come to the prayer meeting because for the first twenty-four hours after beginning a fast, the body does not feel it or should not feel it. I began eating at half past nine this morning. People kept coming and talking to me. I finished eating a little before eleven. So I have been able to come to the meeting and this is not surprising. Today I can walk about and sit up and I have also done some work. From tomorrow there will be some change. Rather than coming here and not speaking, I might as well sit in my room and think. If I have to utter the name of God, I can do it there. I therefore feel that I shall not be coming to the prayer meeting from tomorrow. But if you do wish to join in the prayer you may come if you feel like it. The girls will come and sing the prayer. At least one of them will come. I have told you my programme in case you should feel disappointed at my not coming.

I had written down yesterday's speech and it has been pub­lished in the newspapers. Now that I have started my fast many people cannot understand what I am doing.

Who are the offend­ers- Hindus or Sikhs or Muslims? How long will the fast last? I say I do not blame anyone. Who am I to accuse others? I have said that we have all sinned. That does not mean that anyone particular man has sinned. Hindus in trying to drive out the Muslims are not following Hinduism. And today it is both Hindus and Sikhs who are trying to do so. But I do not accuse all the Hindus and Sikhs because not all of them are doing it.

People should under­stand this. If they do not, my purpose will not be realized and the fast too will not be terminated. If I do not survive the fast, no one is to be blamed. If I am proved unworthy, God will take me away. People ask me if my fast is intended for the cause of the Muslims. I admit that that is so. Why? Because Muslims here today have lost everything in the world. Formerly they could depend on the Government. There was also the Muslim League.

Today the Mus­lim League is no longer there. The League got the country partitioned and even after the Partition there are large numbers of Mus­lims here. I have always held that those who have been left behind in India should be given all help. It is only humanity.

Mine is a fast of self-purification. Everyone should purify himself. If not, the situation cannot be saved. If everyone is to pu­rify himself, Muslims will also purify themselves. Everyone should cleanse his heart. No one should find fault with the Muslims what­ever they may do. If I confess before someone that I have done wrong, then it is a kind of atonement.

I do not say this in order to appease the Muslims or anyone else. I want to appease myself which means that I want to appease God. I do not want to be a sinner against God. Muslims also must become pure and live peacefully in India. What happened was that for election purposes Hindus and Sikhs recognised the Muslim League. I shall not go into that history. Then followed the partition. But before partition became a fact the hearts had already become divided. Muslims were also at fault here, though we cannot say that they alone were at fault. Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims, all are to blame. Now all of them have to become friends again. Let them look to God, not to Satan. Among the Muslims too there are many who worship Satan. Among the Hindus and the Sikhs many worship not Nanak and other Gurus, but Satan. In the name of religion we have become irreligious.

Since I have undertaken the fast for the cause of the Mus­lims, a great responsibility has come to devolve on them. They must understand that if they are to live with the Hindus as brothers they must be loyal to the Indian Union, not to Pakistan. I shall not ask them whether they are loyal of not. I shall judge them by their conduct.

I shall terminate the fast only when peace has returned to Delhi. If peace is restored to Delhi it will have effect not only on the whole of India but also on Pakistan and when that happens, a Mus­lim can walk around in the city all by himself. I shall then terminate the fast

Then the name of the Sardar is being mentioned. The Mus­lims say that I am good, but the Sardar is not and he must be removed. They say that Jawaharlal too is good. They say if I join the Government it will be a good thing. They object only to the Sardar. I must tell the Muslims that their argument serves no pur­pose, because the Government is the whole Cabinet, neither the Sardar nor Jawahar by himself. They are your servants. You can remove them. Yes, Muslims alone cannot remove them. But at least they can bring to the Sardar's notice any mistakes which in their opinion he commits. It will not do merely to criticize him by quoting some statement or other he might have made. You must say what he has done. You must tell me. I meet him often and I shall bring it to his notice. Jawaharlal can dismiss him and if he does not, there must be some reason. He praises the Sardar. Then the Govern­ment IS responsible for whatever the Sardar does. You too are responsible for he is your representative. That is how things go in a democracy. Therefore I shall say that the Muslims must become brave and fearless. They should also become God-fearing. They must think that for them there is no League, no Congress, no Gan­dhi, no Jawaharlal but only God; that they are here in the name of God. Let them not take offence at whatever Hindus and Sikhs may do. I am with them, I want to live and die with them. If I cannot keep you united, my life is worthless. The Muslims thus carry a great responsibility. They must not forget this.

The Sardar is blunt of speech. What he says sometimes sounds bitter. The fault is in his tongue. I can testify that his heart is not like his tongue. He has said in Lucknow and in Calcutta that all Muslims should live here and can live here. He also told me that he could not trust those Muslims who till the other day followed the League and considered themselves enemies of Hindus and Sikhs and who could not have changed overnight and suddenly become friends. If the Leage is still there who will they obey, Pakistan or our Government? The League's persistence in its old attitude makes him suspect it, and rightly so. He says that he no longer has faith in the bona fides of the League Muslims and he cannot trust them. Let them prove that they can be trusted. Then I have the right to tell the Hindus and Sikhs what they should do.

The song these girls sang was composed by Gurudev. We sang it during our tours in Noakhali. A man walking alone calls others to come and join him. But if no one comes and it is dark, the Poet says, the man should walk alone because God is already with him. I asked the girls especially to sing this song which is in Bengali. Otherwise they would have sung only Hindustani songs. The Hin­dus and Sikhs should cultivate this attitude if they are true to their religions. They should not generate an atmosphere in which the Muslims should be compelled to flee to Pakistan. Hindus and Sikhs should become brave and show that even if all the Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan were to be killed there would be no retaliation in India. I do not want to live to see our people copy Pakistan. If I am to live I shall ask every Hindu and every Sikh not to touch a single Muslim. It is cowardice to kill Muslims and we must become brave and not cowards.

I shall terminate the fast only when peace has returned to Delhi. If peace is restored to Delhi it will have effect not only on the whole of India but also on Pakistan and when that happens, a Mus­lim can walk around in the city all by himself. I shall then terminate the fast. Delhi is the capital of India. It has always been the capital of India. So long as things do not return to normal in Delhi, they will not be normal either in India or in Pakistan. Today I cannot bring Suhrawardy here because I fear someone may insult him. Today he cannot walk about in the streets of Delhi. If he did he would be assaulted. What I want is that he should be able to move about here even in the dark. It is true that he made efforts in Calcutta only when Muslims became involved. Still, he could have made the situation worse, if he had wanted, but he did not want to make things worse. He made the Muslims evacuate the places they had forcibly occupied and said that he being the Premier could do so. Although the places occupied by the Muslims belonged to Hindus and Sikhs he did his duty. Even if it takes a whole month to have real peace established in Delhi it does not matter. People should not do anything merely to have me terminate the fast.

So my wish is that Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Christians, and Muslims who are in India should continue to live in India and India should become a country where everyone's life and property are safe. Only then will India progress.
(Speech at the Prayer Meeting, New Delhi, January 13, 1948, Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi Vol-90, P. 413)

 … My fast, as I have stated in plain language, is undoubt­edly on behalf of the Muslim minority in the Union and, therefore, it is necessarily against the Hindus and Sikhs of the Union and the Muslims of Pakistan.
It is also on behalf of the minorities in Pakistan as in the case of the Muslim minority in the Union.
(Excerpt from the Speech at Prayer Meeting, New Delhi, January 15, 1948, Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi Vol-90, P. 428-429)

The post Stop the killings, Gandhi tells India and Pakistan appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Courtesy: virtualclassroom.org

For centuries Hinduism has been the most tolerant of all religions. It was from the ranks of the Brahmins that the first converts to Buddhism were recruited in the sixth Century BC. Two hundred years after Ashoka’s death Buddhism had replaced Hinduism in vast areas of the sub-continent, although the Buddhism that prevailed was not of the purity envisaged by the Enlightened One. But within two centuries after Buddha’s death, eighteen varieties of the Buddhist doctrine divided and confounded the converted faithful!

And then, at the beginning of the first millennium, the growth of monasticism left India open to easy conquest. When the Arabs came, they looked with scorn upon the Buddhist monks and destroyed their monasteries, making the new faith unpopular. The survivors, under the influence of the youthful Adi Shankara, were then reabsorbed into the Hinduism that had begotten them.

As the historian Will Durant records in an elegant sentence: “the ancient orthodoxy received the penitent heresy Brahmanism killed Buddhism by a fraternal embrace.” And all this because Brahmanism had always been so tolerant. The history of the rise and fall of Buddhism and of a hundred other sects in this subcontinent records much disputation, but no instances of persecution (except from foreign invaders). After five hundred years of gradual decay, Buddhism disappeared from India, not violently or with bloodshed, but quietly and peacefully. And throughout Hindustan, Hinduism (after centuries of decline and decadence) came back into its own: still tolerant, still accommodating.

But all this was in the past. During the last few years I have been a querulous spectator of a new phenomenon — on occasions almost a frightened one. The Hindu tradition of toleration is showing signs of strain – the strain of religious tension,
fanned by fanaticism. This “great orchestra of different languages praying to different Gods” that we proudly call “India” is now seen and heard playing out of tune.

Some kind of a dream of unity has occupied the mind of India since the dawn of civilisation. That unity was not conceived as something imposed from outside, a standardisation of externals or even of beliefs. It was something deeper and, within its fold, the widest tolerance of belief and customs was practiced and every variety acknowledged and even encouraged.

Is Hinduism then changing its face? I hope not — but I fear it is. It is as well to express this fear openly. Secular India versus militant Hinduism is reminiscent of ambassador George Keenan’s metaphor when contrasting democracy with a dinosaur. “You practically have to whack off his tail,” said Keenan of the dinosaur, “to make him aware that his interests are being disturbed: but once he grasps this, he lays about him with such blind determination that he may destroy his habitat with his adversary.” We must not let the dinosaur destroy our habitat.

Look back a little and reflect on what a great patriot of India had to say — a man whose birth centenary we ritualistically celebrate in November each year. He never regarded the varied peoples of India as the dinosaur looked at he Earth’s smaller inhabitants.

Writing in the quiet seclusion of a prison in 1944 (his ninth term of imprisonment for revolting against the British) Jawaharlal Nehru contemplated “the diversity and unity of India”:

“It is tremendous (he wrote): it is obvious; it lies on the surface and anybody can see it… It is fascinating to find out how the Bengalis, the Malayalis, the Sindhis, the Punjabis, the Pathans, the Kashmiri, the Rajputs and the great central block comprising of Hindustani–speaking people, have retained their particular characteristics of hundreds of years, have still more or less the same virtues and failing of which old traditions of record tell us, and yet have been throughout these ages distinctively Indian, with the same national heritage and the same set of moral and mental qualities.”

There was something living and dynamic about this heritage (says Nehru) which showed itself in ways of living and a philosophical attitude to life and its problems. Ancient India, like ancient China, was a world in itself, a culture and civilisation, which gave shape to all things. Foreign influences poured in and often influenced that culture, but they were absorbed. Disruptive tendencies gave rise immediately to an attempt to find synthesis. And (Nehru adds) almost lyrically: “some kind of a dream of unity has occupied the mind of India since the dawn of civilisation. That unity was not conceived as something imposed from outside, a standardisation of externals or even of beliefs. It was something deeper and, within its fold, the widest tolerance of belief and customs was practiced and every variety acknowledged and even encouraged.”

Many Hindus, many Sikhs, many Muslims, many Buddhists — in fact, most Indians — endorse and share this dream; Nehru’s vision of the diversity and unity of India.

But events in Gujarat and elsewhere show that  ‘Dinosaurs’ breed fast — on hatred. Dinosaurs in one religious camp give impetus to the breeding of them in another — as recent events in Pakistan bear testimony. Scientists tell us that it was a great meteorite that finally destroyed all the dinosaurs on this earth. If so, I like to think that the meteor was the symbolic wrath of God!

I belong to a minority community, a microscopic wholly insignificant minority, which spurned the offer made (at the time of the drafting of our Constitution) — to Anglo–Indians and Parsis alike to have, for at least a decade, our representative in Parliament. The Anglo–Indians accepted the offer — but most of them migrated to places abroad. We Parsis declined the offer — and most of us stayed in India.

In the Constituent Assembly, Sir Homi Mody said that we would rather join the mainstream of a free India. We did. And we have no regrets. I have never felt that I lived in this country at the sufferance of the majority. I have been brought up to think and feel that the minorities, together with the majority community, are integral parts of India.

I have lived and flourished in secular India. In the fullness of time, I would also like to die in secular India, when God wills.       

Archived from Communalism Combat, September 2002, Anniversary Issue (9th), Year 9  No. 80, Tolerant tradition 

The post Tolerant tradition appeared first on SabrangIndia.