PEACE IN PLURAL SOCIETIES
Reflections
AFTER a long struggle, in August 1947 the Indian subcontinent
won independence from the British. This independence came
along with the Partition, which was on the basis of the so-called
‘two nation theory’. It led to the partition, not just of territory, but of
entire communities as well. Far from solving the problem of communal
conflict between Hindus and Muslims, it only further exacerbated it.
Prior to the Partition, the conflict was between two communities that
lacked political power. With the Partition, it now became a conflict
between two sovereign countries.
No matter what name it is called by, the result of the
effort to manufacture and impose a single culture
on people remains the same — useless.
Mahatma Gandhi had, from the very first day, perceived how sensitive
this situation was. And so, he stressed that Hindus and Muslims should
learn to live together in peace and harmony. He said that he would
give up his life in order that this should happen. However, shortly after
India became independent, he was shot dead. This was undoubtedly a
very big tragedy. Because of this, India lost its tallest leader who was
committed to peace and unity.
The Partition was accompanied by horrific communal violence on both
sides of the newly-created border. This violence continued unabated
for many years thereafter. In order to address the issue, the first Indian
Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, called a national-level conference
in New Delhi in October 1961. At this conference, it was unanimously
decided to set up the National Integration Council to deal with matters
related to communal harmony.
The second conference of this Council was held in June 1962. Speakers
delivered their speeches on the occasion, suggesting various measures
to promote communal harmony. Yet, no action was taken on their
suggestions. Moreover, no more meetings of the Council were held
during the rest of Jawaharlal Nehru’s life.
The third meeting of the Council was called by Indira Gandhi in Srinagar in 1968. It called for making it a cognizable offence on the
grounds of promoting hatred between communities. Some other steps
were also mooted. A few laws and rules were also passed. But still,
nothing practical came out of this. And so, even today, the situation in
the country is about the same as it was in 1947 as far as the issue of
communalism is concerned.
The fact is that religion in itself is not a problem. Religion
is an important part of human life. It is the political
exploitation of religion by some opportunist
people that is the problem.
What was the reason for this failure? The basic reason is that this
issue of communal conflict has been treated simply as a law and order
problem. However, the nature of the issue is actually quite different.
It is not essentially a law and order problem. Rather, it has essentially
to do with the lack of intellectual development and social awareness.
To solve the problem, what is basically required is to properly educate
people and promote proper thinking and discernment. People should
know what to do and what to abstain from. They should learn to
think before acting. Only this sort of an 'aware' society is one where
communal harmony can flourish.
Religious Differences
Some basic issues that relate to the vital question of properly educating
people about the issue of communalism need to be clarified. One of
these relates to the issue of religious differences. There are, in fact,
obvious and clear differences between the different religions. For
instance, some religions believe in Monism, and others in Monotheism.
Some religions preach the discovery of truth by oneself, while others
believe that such truth is revealed by God through messengers.
Some people think that these religious differences are themselves the
root cause for communal conflict. They believe that communal harmony
can exist only when these differences are somehow destroyed. ‘Bulldoze
them all!’ they demand, but of course this is so completely impractical
that it is not even worth talking about.
Faced with the reality of religious differences, some people seek to
somehow or the other try to ‘prove’ that all religions are, actually, one and the same. One such person was the late Dr. Bhagwan Das (1869–
1958). After a detailed study of all the major religions, he wrote a book,
running into almost 1000 pages, titled Essential Unity of All Religions.
He claimed that all religions teach the same things and so are one and
the same.
But to seek to prove that all religions are one by extracting portions
from different scriptures is like culling out portions from the
Constitutions of different countries and publishing them together in
a single book and then claiming that all the Constitutions of the world
are the same and have the same rules and clauses and provisions! This
sort of imaginary universal Constitution may greatly please the author
of such a compendium, but it will not be acceptable to even a single
country. The same holds true in the case of those who have compiled
books like Dr. Bhagwan Das’ about religion. Books of this sort may give
their compilers great pleasure, but they cannot be acceptable to the
followers of different religions.
The fact is that just as there is diversity in everything
else in the world, so also are there differences
between one religion and another.
A detailed study of this issue will show that the claim that all religions
are one does not correspond to reality. In actual fact, the different
religions differ so greatly from each other that it is impossible to
practically prove them to be one. For instance, one religion says that
God is one. Another religion talks of two gods. A third religion says
there are three gods. Yet another religion claims that there are 33
or 330 million gods. Some religions insist that the number of gods is
simply beyond counting.
In such circumstances, to consider the teachings of all the religions as
one and the same is simply wishful thinking that has no basis in logic
and reality. And then, even if, by some means or the other, it could
be argued that the scriptures of the different religions are indeed the
same, the problem of differences will still remain unresolved because
there are multiple and conflicting interpretations of each of these
scriptures, as a result of which each religion is further divided into
numerous sects.
The fact is that such difference or diversity is not just a religious phenomenon. The entire world is based on the principle of difference
and diversity. These differences are so pervasive that no two things or
people are wholly identical, without some difference or the other. As
someone has very rightly said, ‘Nature abhors uniformity’.
When differences are themselves a law of Nature, how can religion be
an exception to this rule? The fact is that just as there is diversity in
everything else in the world, so also are there differences between one
religion and another. We have not thought it necessary to do away with
differences in other matters, but, instead, have agreed to disagree.
We should adopt this very same practical approach and principle in
matters of religion as well.
Here, too, we should accept diversity and differences and seek to
promote unity despite them, instead of searching for an imaginary
unity by trying to do away with them. There is only one way to solve the
issue of religious differences, and that is: ‘Follow one, and respect all’.
Cultural Differences
The issue of cultural difference is also a vexed one. Social groups
are characterised by cultural differences. Some people regard these
differences as the root of conflict. They argue that to end conflict, these
differences should be wiped off and a single, common culture should be
imposed on everyone, so that ‘cultural unity’ can thereby be promoted.
This proposal, too, is impractical. Culture cannot be made or destroyed
by individuals at will in this way. It cannot be prepared by someone
sitting in an office. Rather, it is a product of a long, historical process.
In the wake of the Second World War, numerous ideologues in
different parts of the world began calling for the establishment of a
mono-cultural society in order to promote national unity. This monocultural
approach was promoted, for instance, in Canada, but it proved
impractical and was soon abandoned. Now, Canada has abandoned
mono-culturalism and has officially adopted multiculturalism as
its policy.
The same happened in the USA as well. After the Second World War,
a movement to promote what was called ‘Americanisation’ emerged,
which sought to impose a single culture on all Americans. But this failed,
because people realized it was impractical. And so, it was abandoned,
and now in America, too, multiculturalism is the recognised policy.
The fact is that cultural differences are not a matter of differences only
between two communities. Such differences are to be found among,
and between, different sub-groups in each and every community, too.
It is impractical, indeed impossible, to do away with these differences.
That is why it is not necessary to change religious teachings in order to
promote unity and harmony between different religions. For this, the
only necessary thing is to promote among the followers of different
religions the understanding of ‘Live and Let Live’.
Some people still advocate an experiment that has already proven to be
a failure: what they call ‘Social Engineering’. Through this, they seek to
respond to the fact of cultural diversity among different communities
by calling for the restructuring of the communities’ cultures so that the
wider society is free from cultural differences and all citizens of the
state have one and the same culture.
There is only one way to solve the issue of religious
differences, and that is: ‘Follow one, and respect all’.
No matter what name it is called by, the result of the effort to
manufacture and impose a single culture on people remains the
same — utterly useless. It is tantamount to nothing less than what
could be called ‘cultural bulldozing’. No matter what it is termed —
‘social engineering’ or ‘cultural nationalism’ or whatever — it remains
thoroughly impractical and unrealistic. And to pursue anything
impractical from the point of view of natural laws is simply a waste
of time.
In this regard, my difference with the ‘cultural nationalists’ or ‘social
engineers’ is not on an ideological, but, rather, practical basis. I do not
say that their aim is wrong, but, rather, that what they want to bring
about is simply impractical and impossible to achieve. Supposing it
becomes possible for everyone in the country to start speaking one
language, to follow one culture and to have the same traditions and
way of life, I would say, ‘Yes, it should certainly be so.’ But the fact
remains that in line with the laws of nature and history, this sort of
uniformity is simply impossible. It has never been possible in the past,
and nor will it be possible in the future. Cultures develop according
to their own logic. It is simply not possible to sit in a cabin and invent
a culture of your liking and then go about imposing it on every community
in the country.
So, in this regard, we should do exactly what we generally do with
regard to all other divisive issues — that is, to solve the problem
on the basis of the principle of tolerance. One should deal with the
matter with methods that accord with reality, rather than through
confrontation. Using confrontation and violence in this matter will only
further exacerbate the problem, rather than solve it.
In this context, there is an important issue that needs to be clarified.
Some people claim that India belongs to the Hindus, and that their
loyalty is to this country. They claim that this is different with the
Muslims of the country, whose centres of devotion — for instance,
Makkah and Madinah — are located outside India. That is why, they
allege, Muslims cannot be loyal to India.
I see this issue differently, however. Suppose a Hindu is devoted to the
temple of Somnath, this does not mean that he cannot be devoted to
a temple located elsewhere, too. If a person loves his mother, it surely
does not mean that he has no love for his father. Similarly, if an Indian
Muslim has an emotional bonding with Makkah and Madinah, it does
not mean that he has no such bonding with India. To think otherwise is
to underestimate his innate humanity.
Any person, be he or she Hindu or Muslim, is an expression of nature,
and nature has made every human being with enough inner
spaciousness to contain within him or her multiple loves and loyalties.
This is such a basic fact of life that every person can testify to it
personally. Every man and woman knows this from his or her own
experience. As a Western thinker very aptly put it, ‘I am large enough
to contain all these contradictions’.
Religion and Politics
Religion is very often invoked in communal conflicts. Repeatedly,
political and communal controversies are turned into so-called religious
controversies. And then, people’s passions are roused, leading to
confrontation and violence between communities. Because of this,
many people have turned against religion itself. They say that human
beings have no need for religion at all, and that, hence, religion must
be destroyed. Only then, they contend, is societal unity possible.
This, however, is an extremist response to an extremist stance, a
secular extremist reaction to religious extremism. It is neither possible
nor useful. The fact is that religion in itself is not a problem. Religion is an important part of human life. It is the political exploitation of
religion by some opportunist people that is the problem. Hence, it is
the exploitation of religion, rather than religion itself, that needs to
be eliminated.
Religion has two dimensions: personal and collective. The personal
dimension of religion denotes beliefs, worship, morality and spirituality.
The collective dimension of religion includes its political and social
rules. The right approach would, in general conditions, be to focus
on the personal dimension of religion and on promoting the spirit
of religion.
As far as the political and social rules of religion are concerned, they
should not be taken up until such time as the entire society is prepared
for them. These rules can be established only through the voluntary
and collective consent of the entire society. That is why no practical
steps should be taken as far as these rules are concerned as long as
the collective consent of the society is not in favour of this.
This can be termed a practical division between religion and politics.
That is to say, while considering, at the ideological level, politics to be
part of religion, in the face of reality, the practical enforcement of the
political rules of religion can be delayed or postponed. This is a wise
approach. In this way, the demands both of religion and of politics can
be met: those of religion, in the present, and of politics, in the future.
On the other hand, if this pragmatic policy is not adopted and both
aspects of religion are stressed, the result will be that the demands of
both religion and politics will be left unfulfilled.
With regard to communal harmony, there are some issues that
need to be looked at. Ordinarily, if a Muslim does something wrong,
Hindus speak and write against him. In the same way, if a Hindu does
something wrong, Muslims speak and write against him. This method
is, from the point of view of reform, completely useless. It only pleases
one particular community, but it has no positive impact whatsoever on
the other community.
Contrary to this, the beneficial approach is that if a Muslim does
something wrong, Muslim scholars and intellectuals should speak and
write against it. Likewise, if a Hindu does something wrong, Hindus
should speak and write against it. It is just as when a child does
something wrong, his parents are the first to scold him, if necessary.
His parents do not wait for their neighbours to come to their house
and scold their child. In any case, even if these people do come
and scold their child, it will not reform him, though a parent’s
admonishment might.
It is a psychological reality that one generally takes the critique or
admonishment of people whom one considers one’s own in a positive
way, and, accordingly, reforms oneself. On the other hand, one
generally takes the criticism of people one does not know or whom one
considers as the ‘other’ as an insult to one’s honour, and so it does not
have a positive impact. With regard to the issue of communal harmony,
it is very necessary to keep this bit of practical wisdom in mind.
No need to speak aloud
for God to hear
People asked the Prophet:
“Is our Lord close? Can we address Him softly?
Or is He distant? Should we address Him loudly?”
Then this verse of the Quran was revealed:
“When My servants question you about Me,
tell them that I am near.
I answer the prayer of the suppliant
when he calls to Me.”
Abu Musa says that when some people
raised their voices in prayer during a journey,
the Prophet said, “Control yourselves, for you are
not praying to one who is deaf or absent: you are
praying to one who hears and is close.
He is nearer to you than the
neck of your mount.”
