Madina
Education
&
Welfare
Society
Hyderabad
Sunday, 25th March, 2001
Secularism, Democracy and Political Morality
I consider it an honour and a privilege to deliver this Dr. Zakir Husain Memorial Lecture. The relevance of Dr. Zakir ‘s life and work appear more enlarged in the troubled times in which we live today.
Dr.
Zakir
Husain
represented
the
mainstream
vision
of
India’s
freedom
movement
which
saw
the
future
of
independent
India
as
being
secured
only
on
the
foundations
of
secular
democracy
and
economic
and
intellectual
self-reliance.
In
his
Pledge
to
the
Nation
on
assuming
office
as
the
President
of
India,
he
encapsulates
this
vision.
India,
he
says,
is
a
“young
state
of
an
ancient
people
who,
through
the
long
millennia
and
through
the
cooperation
of
diverse
ethnic
elements,
have
striven
to
realise
timeless,
absolute
values
in
their
own
peculiar
way……I,
therefore,
pledge
myself
to
the
totality
of
our
past
culture
from
wheresoever
it
may
have
come
and
by
whomsoever
it
may
have
been
contributed.
I
pledge
myself,
to
the
service
of
the
totality
of
my
country’s
culture,
I
pledge
my
loyalty
to
my
country,
irrespective
of
region
or
language;
I
pledge
myself
to
work
for
its
strength
and
progress
and
for
the
welfare
of
its
people
without
distinction
of
caste,
colour
or
creed.
The
whole
of
Bharat
is
my
Home
and
its
people
are
my
family.
The
people
have
chosen
to
make
me
the
Head
of
this
family
for
a
certain
time.
It
shall
be
my
earnest
endeavour
to
seek
to
make
this
Home
strong
and
beautiful,
a
worthy
Home
for
a
great
people
engaged
in
the
fascinating
tasks
of
building
up
a
just
and
prosperous
and
graceful
life………..The
situation
demands
of
us
work,
work
and
more
work,
silent
and
sincere
work,
solid
and
steady
reconstruction
of
the
whole
material
and
cultural
life
of
our
people.
“This work, as I see it, has two aspects: work on one’s self and work for the society around. They are mutually fruitful aspects of work. The work on one’s self is to follow the urge towards moral development as free persons under self-imposed discipline, which alone can render that development possible. Its end-product is a free moral personality. We can neglect this end-product only at our peril.”
It is with great pain that we must realise that over this half century since independence, it is this `end-product’ that has not only been neglected but has seen a steady degeneration. The recent Tehelka exposures have shocked the country baring the depths to which moral degeneration has sunk. We shall return to this later.
Dr. Zakir Husain had quoted Rabindranath Tagore to buttress his vision. I would only like to recollect what Firaq Gorakhpuri had once said:
“Haasil-e-Husn-o-Ishq
Bas
Itna,
Admi
Admi
Ko
Pahechane”
(The ultimate objective of beauty and love is merely that man should understand man).
Alas! In the society all around us, it is precisely this which appears missing! The most unfortunate aspect is that this is happening in the name of religion!
This
vision
represented
by
Dr.
Zakir
Husain
was,
in
fact,
an
integral
part
of
the
ideological
battle
that
continued
through
the
freedom
struggle
and,
in
a
way,
continues
even
today
between
three
distinct
vision
of
what
should
constitute
the
character
of
independent
India.
Opposed
to
the
mainstream
vision
of
the
freedom
movement
which
created
the
Indian
Republic
on
the
foundations
of
secular
democracy
was
the
myopic
inward
looking
vision
of
converting
independent
India
into
a
rabidly
intolerant
“Hindu
Rashtra”.
This
vision
originates
with
the
formation
of
the
RSS
in
1925.
This
was
best
articulated
by
M.S.
Golwalkar,
RSS
Sarsanghchalak,
in
1939;
in
his,
by
now
infamous
book,
“We
or
our
Nationhood
defined”.
“The
conclusion
is
unquestionably
forced
upon
us
that…..in
Hindusthan
exists
and
must
needs
exist
the
ancient
Hindu
nation
and
nought
else
but
the
Hindu
Nation.
All
those
not
belonging
to
the
national,
ie,
Hindu
Race,
Religion,
Culture
and
Language
naturally
fall
out
of
the
pale
of
real
`National’
life.
“We repeat: in Hindusthan, the land of the Hindus, lives and should live the Hindu Nation – satisfying all the five essential requirements of the scientific nation concept of the modern world. Consequently only those movements are truly `National’ as aim at re-building, re-vitalising and emancipating from its present stupor, the Hindu Nation. Those only are nationalist patriots, who, with the aspiration to glorify the Hindu race and nation next to their heart, are prompted into activity and strive to achieve that goal. All others are either traitors and enemies to the National cause, or, to take a charitable view, idiots” (Golwalkar, 1939, pp. 43-44). He continues: “We must bear in mind that so far as `nation’ is concerned, all those, who fall outside the five-fold limits of that idea, can have no place in the national life, unless they abandon their differences, adopt the religion, culture and language of the Nation and completely merge themselves in the National Race. So long, however, as they maintain their racial, religious and cultural differences, they cannot but be only foreigners”(Golwalkar, 1939, p. 45).
And further: “There are only two courses open to the foreign elements, either to merge themselves in the national race and adopt its culture, or to live at its mercy so long as the national race may allow them to do so and to quit the country at the sweet will of the national race …..From this standpoint, sanctioned by the experience of shrewd old nations, the foreign races in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, ie, of the Hindu nation and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment – not even citizen’s rights. There is, at least should be, no other course for them to adopt. We are an old nation; let us deal, as old nations ought to and do deal, with the foreign races, who have chosen to live in our country.” (Golwalkar, 1939, pp. 47-48)
In contrast to the mainstream vision and uncompromisingly opposed to the vision of “Hindu Rashtra” was the Left vision which sought to build on the mainstream vision and transform the political content of the Republic into the economic empowerment of the Indian people. The socialist vision, therefore, while not opposing the mainstream vision was critical of its limitations and continues till today to convert the political independence of our country into the economic independence of our people.
The conflicts that we see in present-day politics is essentially an expression of this battle of ideas in contemporary conditions.
In pursuance of its narrow exclusivist intolerant communal agenda, the proponents of “Hindu Rashtra” had not only distanced themselves from the united struggle of the Indian people (belonging to all religions and nationalities), but objectively acted as agents of the British rule.
What is little known is the fact that the uncontested hero of the Saffron brigade today, V.D. Savarkar, known as “Veer” Savarkar in RSS folklore, gave a mercy petition to the British on November 14, 1913 seeking his release from the cellular jail in the Andamans. This surrender made him a public ally of the British policy of divide and rule. It must be recalled that the term `Hindutva’ was coined by Savarkar.
In
his
petition,
he
assures
the
British:
``Now
no
man
having
the
good
of
India
and
humanity
at
heart
will
blindly
step
on
the
thorny
paths
which
in
the
excited
and
hopeless
situation
of
India
in
1906-1907
beguiled
us
from
the
path
of
peace
and
progress.
Therefore
if
the
Government
in
their
manifold
beneficence
and
mercy,
release
me
I
for
one
cannot
but
be
the
staunchest
advocate
of
constitutional
progress
and
loyalty
to
the
English
government
which
is
the
foremost
condition
of
that
progress.”
(R.C.Majumdar,
`Penal
Settlement
in
Andamans’,
pp
211-213)
Further in a letter to British authorities, he wrote: "I hereby acknowledge that I had a fair trial and just sentence. I heartily abhor methods of violence resorted to in days gone by and I feel myself duty bound to uphold law and constitution to the best of my powers and am willing to make the reform a success insofar as I may be allowed to do so in future". (A facsimile of this letter was published in Frontline, April 7, 1995, p. 94)
He
proudly
subscribed
to
the
two-nation
theory
in
its
fullest
sense.
In
his
presidential
address
to
the
Hindu
Mahasabha
in
December
1939,
Savarkar
declared:
"We
Hindus
are
a
nation
by
ourselves
...
we
Hindus
are
marked
out
as
an
abiding
Nation
by
ourselves''
(see
Indian
Annual
Register,
1939,
Vol
II).
Again
later
he
reiterated,
“I
have
no
quarrel
with
Mr
Jinnah's
two-nation
theory.
We,
Hindus,
are
a
nation
by
ourselves
and
it
is
a
historical
fact
that
Hindus
and
Muslims
are
two
nations''
(Indian
Annual
Register,
1943,
Vol
II).
For the major portion of his life after making peace with the British his politics was oppositional to the Congress and the Left led movements rather than the British. As leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, he made sure that movements like the Quit India movement of 1942 passed without any participation from members of the Hindu Mahasabha or the Sanghathanists. He categorically called on the Hindus to give no support to the movement' (see Amba Prasad, The Indian Revolt of 1942).
"I issue this definite instruction that all Hindu Sanghathanists in general holding any post or position of vantage in the government services should stick to them and continue to perform their regular duties" (Quoted in Noorani, Frontline, December 1, 1995).
Overcoming the assault of such forces, the Indian people at the time of independence embraced secular democracy as the foundations of the new Indian Republic. It was for this very reason that the tallest of Indian leaders, Mahatma Gandhi, was assassinated by these elements.
Secular democracy is the only political basis for keeping a country of such diversity and plurality united. This was accepted once as a statement of fact. Today it is coming under severe attack. In that sense, the battle of visions that took place during the freedom struggle continues even today.
Secularism is not a western concept, as alleged by the RSS, embraced by independent India. Its foundations can be traced back to the Ashokan inscriptions on his famous pillars that continue to exist all over the country. In fact, in one of them, it is precisely stated that it shall be State’s responsibility to protect the choice of faith of every individual. This was in third century B.C. Tolerance as State policy was necessary in India not only because of religious diversity. It is necessary also because of the vast array of diversity that exists in terms of language, cultures, traditions etc. A definition of secularism, which is the most appropriate in the Indian context, is, thus, not confined only to the issue of separation of religion from the State and politics. While this is important in itself, secularism in the Indian context also should mean the right of equality and opportunity to all languages, cultures, traditions to co-exist and thrive without the fear of domination of any one by the other.
Looking at the issue in this manner would immediately suggest that secularism and democracy in India are inseparable. The protection of the rights of minorities of all variety (religious, linguistic etc) is an integral part of democracy. Religious or linguistic intolerance impinges, therefore, upon not only secularism but also democracy.
Hence, any attack on secularism in India is also simultaneously an attack on democracy and democratic institutions. It is, therefore, no coincidence that rabid Hindu communalism that today, albeit temporarily, controls the reins of power, targets not only the secular foundations by spreading the hatred of religious intolerance but also attacks democratic institutions. The efforts to re-write the Indian Constitution, the strident cries for a presidential form of government – all are part of the larger jigsaw puzzle to facilitate the establishment of a “Hindu Rashtra”.
The attempts to re-write Indian history and to doctor the educational system on communal lines must also be seen in the same light. Much of Dr. Zakir Husain’s life and work related to this field. He would have been aghast at the travesty of history that is currently being undertaken by the communal forces.
It is, indeed, unfortunate that this assault on India’s secular democracy comes in the name of religion. By now, it is clear that religious fundamentalism of all variety, Taliban or Saffron, has very little to do with religion or religiosity. It is purely an attempt to consolidate political power by misusing religion.
Seeking your indulgence, I think it necessary to digress and put at rest a great deal of controversy that has always existed regarding the Marxist understanding of religion. The popular perception is the normally out of context quotation that “religion is the opium of the people”. In fact, deliberately, the passage in which this statement finds place is never quoted in the full. Marx had stated: “Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of the heartless world, just as it is the spirit of the spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.”(Introduction to the critique of Hegel’s philosophy of Right, 1844).
Religion, is the opium in the sense that it is as potent as opium is in creating an illusory world. For a human being who is oppressed, religion provides the escape for relief, it provides a “heart in a heartless world, a spirit in a spiritless situation.” For this precise reason, it is the opium that the people require, to lull themselves into submission so long as they continue to remain in conditions which appear outside of both their comprehension and control.
The Marxist understanding of religion is essentially integrated with its entire philosophic foundations. In pursuit of the simple question of what constitutes the real freedom of a human being and his consequent liberation, Marx proceeded to reject the Hegelian idea of the revolution of the mind as represented by Feuerbach, during his time, to come to a conclusion of seminal importance. That was: consciousness of a human being is determined by the social conditions and not vice a versa. “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary their social being that determines their consciousness”(Introduction to the critique of Political economy). The recent discoveries and conclusions of the “Genome Project” resoundingly vindicate this understanding.
Religion, therefore, for Marx and Marxists is a product of the social conditions in which man existed and continues to exist. The history of religion, in one sense, is also a reflection of the history of human evolution. Hence, religion, like any other form of consciousness is not a thing in itself but a reflection of the real world. In so far as human beings are unable to comprehend the forces of nature or of society that appear to determine their day to day existence and guide their destinies, the need for creating a extraterrestrial supernatural force remains. Religion therefore, provides for the human being a sense of comfort, beauty and solace that he cannot find in the real life. At the same time, religion, also being the dominant form of ideology, is an expression of the class struggle that is taking place in society at a point of time.
This then is the Marxist materialist understanding and appreciation of religion. Its humanist content and at the same time its utilisation as a instrument of class rule have to be understood in its totality. A communist works to change the conditions that continues to give rise to the hold of religion and not attack religion per se because it is not and can never be a thing in itself independent of the social organisation of human civilisation.
Let us return to the main theme. The use or the misuse of religion and religious sentiments for consolidating the political rule was perfected by the British in the Indian sub-continent. Following the 1857 First War of independence, where Rani Lakshmi Bai and Begum Hazrat Mahal fought shoulder to shoulder with Maulavi Ahmadullah and Rao Tula Ram rattled the British. Bahadur Shah Zafar , the Mughal Monarch was the symbol of this struggle. The most important lesson that the British learned from this was that they could not continue to rule India allowing the Hindus, Muslims and feudal Princes to find common cause. As a contemporary chronicler, Thomas Lowe, exclaimed: “the infanticide Rajput, the begoted brahmin, the fanatic mussalman join together in the cause; cow killer and the cow worshiper, the pig-hater and the pig eater had revolted together”! Any recurrence of such an event had to be prevented. The British therefore forged their notorious policy of `divide and rule’. Thus began the fomenting of venomous hatred between the Hindus and Muslims, in which process, they were admirably aided by the communal forces on both sides. This policy made such inroads into the fabric of Indian society, so flamed the unity and amity among its people that till date, we continue to pay the price.
It is, therefore, clear that the struggle to safeguard secular democracy in India, the struggle against Hindu communalism cannot be met by other forms of minority religious fundamentalisms. In fact, fundamentalisms of all variety – Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Sikh – only feed each other. The only way to preserve and strengthen India’s secular democracy will have to be through forging strong common bonds amongst peoples cutting across religions and other diversities.
Such a common struggle is the only way in which the fascistic agenda of the RSS and its tentacles can be countered. Apart from adopting Goebbelsian propaganda techniques (Goebbels was Hitler’s propaganda minister, whose famous dictum was to tell a big enough lie, frequently enough to make it the truth). Such forces also invoke nationalism and morality as a potent weapon. In reality, however, their policies are precisely the opposite. While invoking national jingoism, at the drop of the hat, these forces have no compunction whatsoever in bartering our country’s security interests for personal profit. The depths of political immorality to which they can sink has been exposed by the tehelka scandal.
Georgi Dimitrov, the indomitable hero of the struggle against Nazi fascism, had noted: “Fascism puts the people at the mercy of the most corrupt and venal elements but comes before them with the demand for `an honest and incorruptible government'’ speculating on the profound disillusionment of the masses ...fascism adapts its demagogy to the peculiarities of each country. And the mass of petty bourgeois and even a section of the workers, reduced to despair by want, unemployment and insecurity of their existence fall victim to the social and chauvinist demagogy of fascism”. (Dimitrov, Selected Works, Vol. 2, 1972, p. 12). It is precisely this feature of fascism that defines the demagogy and campaigns of the Saffron Brigade today.
Hence, what we find today is a situation where fascistic communalism is mounting an unprecedented attack on secular democracy and, in the process, it is redefining the meaning of nationalism and political morality. Having mustered votes in the name of `swadeshi’ they are implementing `videshi’ economic policies. Their brand of nationalism mortgages India, on the one hand, and imposes unprecedented burdens on the people, on the other. They are acting as the best agents of US Imperialism, which seeks the economic recolonisation of India.
What is required is not an inward looking insulated exclusivist minority response to meet this challenge. What is required is the broad based unity of all forces willing to defend India’s secular democracy and economic sovereignty. This is the real meaning of patriotism in the present context.
It was Golwalkar who had once said that the three internal enemies of concept of “Hindu Rashtra” are the Muslims, Christians and the Communists. I would only like to add that it is the majority of the Indian people irrespective of being religious or atheist, who are opposed to the conversion of a secular democratic Indian Republic into the RSS version of “Hindu Rashtra”. India’s unity and integrity can only be maintained by strengthening the bonds of commonality that exists within our large diversity. Any attempt to impose a uniformity upon this diversity as communalism and fundamentalism seek today can only lead to the disintegration of the country. Let us unite to save India today so that we can change India for the better tomorrow.