 |
||
|
||
|
||
In the 50th year of Independence, we should be aware of what the
founding fathers thought of basic issues and how far the thoughts
are relevant to us. Jawaharlal Nehru was among the most important
of those who laid the intellectual foundation of our nationhood and
secularism was the most important of the values.
While Gandhiji and Azad spoke of secularism from their religious
perspectives, Nehru was the first to accept the Western notion of
secularism and he advocated the separation of religion from
politics. His ideas of secularism found great approval among the
intellectuals. Besides, it was acceptable to the minorities as
well, particularly Muslims. Nehru was always looked upon by the
Muslim, orthodox and the modern, as the hampion of their cause. No
wonder that in post-Independent India, they generally voted for the
Congress led by Nehru despite its poor record of governance and
even of protecting the minorities.
Though Nehru was an agnostic and thus indifferent to religion, he
was fully aware of the contribution of religion to society and its
grip over the minds and hearts of the people. It is in this light
that his reply to a query on secularism by a student at Oxford in
the mid-Fifties should be seen. When the Indian student asked him
how he would define secularism, Nehru said it was "equal protection
by the State to all religions." Quite an insightful answer. keeping
in view the Indian conditions. It was for this reason that even
those who had a profound faith in religion were attracted to his
concept of secularism. However, in his personal views Nehru was
not only indifferent to religion but also hostile to organised
religion.
Thus he observed in his writeup, "Religion, Man and Society," in An
Autobiography (Allied Publishers, 1962, pp-374-80) "...organised
religion, whatever its past may have been, today is very largely an
empty form devoid of real content. Mr. G. K. Chesterton has
compared it... to a fossil which is the form of an animal or
organism from which all its own organic substance has entirely
disappeared, but which has kept its shape, because it has been
filled up by some totally different substance. And even where
something of value still remains, it is enveloped by other and
harmful contents." Thus it will be seen that Nehru was strongly
opposed to organised religion, if not to the personal lief. He was
anything but dogmatic though he was fully aware of the hold of
religion on the minds of the people.
Nehru clarified his ideas on religion when he said, "Nor am I
greatly interested in the after life, in what happens after death.
I find the problems of this life sufficiently absorbing to fill my
mind. The traditional Chinese outlook, fundamentally ethical and
yet irreligious or tinged with religious scepticism, has an appeal
for me, though in its application to life I may not agree. It is
the Tao, the path to be followed and the way of life that interests
me; how to understand life, not to reject it but to accept it, to
confirm it and to improve it."
If anything can describe Nehru's attitude towards religion, it is
the phrase used by him - religious scepticism. He was greatly drawn
towards Buddhism as the Buddha, rather than indulging in debates on
metaphysical questions, concerned himself more with the question of
removing dukkha, i.e., suffering in a spiritual and material sense.
Passionately committed to democracy, secularism and freedom of
thought, Nehru fought for these ideals with all his might. These
were the guiding principles of his life, like religion is to the
faithful. He fought passionately to uphold the ideals at the cost
of his own personal loss. It is this kind of secularism which is
still relevant to India. It promotes life-affirming values and
accepts change and progress. He quoted the French author Remain
Rolland who saw true religiosity in the "search for truth at all
costs with single-minded sincerity prepared for any sacrifice".
Nehru condemned the unyielding religious orthodoxy and communalism
in all communities. He did not spare Muslim communalism though he
maintained that minority communalism was, by and large, defensive'
communalism while majority communalism, besides being aggressive,
was politically reactionary in character. Thus he criticised Sir
Muhammad Iqbal and Aga Khan in his An Autobiography (op.cit,
p-294-95). He also severely criticised both the Muslim and Hindu
orthodoxy when they jointly opposed the Sarda Act which prohibited
the marriage of minor girls. Thus, he wrote satirically, "This was
a joint protest by the orthodox of both religions against the Sarda
Act... which prohibited marriages of girls under fourteen. The
pious and the holy of both faiths had joined ranks and hands to
declare that they would not submit to this outrage on their deepest
convictions and most cherished rights. Were they going to be
bullied by the threats of so-called reformers into giving up their
right to marry child-wives? Never!"
He also wrote "...those Hindus and Muslims who are always looking
backward, always clutching the things which are slipping away from
their grasp, are a singularly pathetic sight. I do not wish to
damn the past or to reject it, for there is so much which is
singularly beautiful in our past, that will endure I have no doubt.
But it is not the beautiful that these people clutch at, but
something that is seldom worthwhile and is often harmful."
Criticising the Muslim communalists, Nehru said, "The British
Government... gave every encouragement to the Muslim communal
leaders who were politically thoroughly reactionary." But he also
rightly pointed out that "even so, a very strong group of Muslim
leaders remained throughout with the Congress." About the Hindu
Mahasabha, he said "Noting the success of these (Muslim)
reactionaries, the Hindu Mahasabha began to compete with them in
reaction, thereby hoping to win the goodwill of the Government.
Many of the progressive elements in the Mahasabha were driven out
or left of their own accord, and it inclined more and more towards
the upper middle classes and especially the creditors and banker
class."
He also tried to explain that the majority communalism wore the
cloak of nationalism while the minority communalism appeared to be
separatist. "The Hindu Mahasabha" he wrote. "is always laying
stress on its own irreproachable nationalism when it criticises
Muslim communalism. That the Muslim organisations have shown
themselves to be quite extraordinarily communal has been patent to
everybody. The Mahasabha's communalism has not been so obvious, as
it masquerades under a nationalist cloak. The test comes when a
national and democratic solution happens to injure upper class
Hindu interests, and in this test the Mahasabha has repeatedly
failed."
Nehru demolished the claims of communal organisations to be
religious and cultural in nature. He says, "What are communal
organisations', They are not religious although they confine
themselves to religious groups and exploit the name of religion.
They are not cultural and have done nothing for culture although
they talk bravely of a past culture. They are not ethical or moral
groups for their teachings are singularly devoid of all ethics and
morality. They are certainly not economic groupings for there is no
economic link binding their members and they have no shadow of an
economic programme. Some of them claim not to be political even."
But, he pointed out, "As a matter of fact they function politically
and their demands are political, but calling themselves
non-political, they avoid the real issues and only succeed in
obstructing the path of others."
Nehru was quite balanced in his condemnation of Hindu and Muslim
communalism. But in post-Independent India, he was more critical
of Hindu communalism as it was more offensive and aggressive. That
does not mean that he in any way approved of Muslim communalism.
Communalism, be it Hindu or Muslim, he firmly believed was
dangerous to democracy and must be weeded out to maintain and
strengthen its secular character. He had an analytical insight into
communal problems unlike his opponents. However, his analysis of
communal problems had its own limitations. He often tended to be
reductionist. Moreover, many dimensions of communalism unfolded
when democracy deepened in independent India. Nehru died before he
could witness these aspects. He wrote on communalism more from his
pre-Independence experiences. Also, his view that secularism would
become stronger with the spread of education, science and
technology was too mechanical to be true.
|
||
|
||
|
||