Gandhiji's religious background was the popular Vaishnava tradition which provided him with an intimate knowledge of the legends and symbolism of the religious folk heroes of India. Until his advent on the political scene, the national movement, as represented by the Congress was restricted to the western-educated elite who had no mass base.
Gandhi was quick to realise that political movement could not succeed without mass support, and he directed his energies to carrying the ideas and ideals of freedom to the masses. His modus operandi was to take the masses as groups and try to enlist their support for the national movement separately, making an appeal to each group on an issue which was likely to emotionally move it.
As Jawaharlal Nehru put it Gandhi appealed to the heart rather than to the mind. This can be seen clearly in his political strategy. He made a directly emotional and religious appeal to the Hindu masses from the beginning; Satyagraha, Ram Raj, Fast etc. were strongly evoca- tive of the Hindu tradition. And when the occasion presented itself, he did not hesitate to enlist the support of the Muslims on the Khilafat issue. In any case, to carry the political movement to the countryside, Gandhi expressed himself in a Hindu idiom.
Gandhi's approach to politics brought him in direct conflict with the secular (in Western sense) leaders, who were vexed by the increasing part played by religion in politics. While Nehru thought that "no country or people who are slaves to dogma can progress, and unhappily our country and people have become extraordinarily dogmatic and like-minded," Gandhi declared that "those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means."
In fact men like Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose found Gandhi's political tactics somewhat ideologically frustrating, though they were unable to make a clear break with him for various reasons. Bose of course parted company with Gandhi subsequently but the reason. was not just the difference of approach to religion but on the entire character of the movement.
Nehru who agreed with Gandhi's general approach also came to realise that political activity undertaken in the spirit of religion did not conflict with his new and modernist ideas. It is also significant to note that Gandhi also, despite Nehru's agnosticism, considered the latter a more kindred spirit than any other Congress leader. "After I am gone he will speak my language", said Gandhi.
Mahatma Gandhi's religious faith was different from that of the earlier extremists like Tilak. Although his approach to politics was basically 'semi-revivalist' yet he did not narrow down the concept of nationalism; rather he took several steps to create confidence in the minorities and thus laid the foundations for genuine Hindu-Muslim unity.
He said: "If you dissect my heart, you would find that prayer and spiritual striving for the attainment of Hindu-Muslim unity goes on there unceasingly all the twenty four hours without even a moment's interruption, whether I am awake or asleep..." For Gandhi Hindu-Muslim Unity was a precondition for complete independence and he was prepared to go to any extent to achieve it. Because of this the communalist Hindus even accused him of adopting a policy of appeasement.
Referring to the separatist tendency manifesting itself in the demand for separate electorate, Mr. Sadiq Ali writes: "The Congress was not slow to foresee the dangerous and vicious consequences...but was powerless... I accepted the principle (of separate electorate) later." Even in the later period "The Congress, as a matter of principle was opposed to any communal representation (in 1945) but it agreed to it... The Congress went as far as to accommodate League but such were its demands that no compromise was possible."
But as Mr. Sadiq Ali himself concludes, "there was in all probability a lack of firmness here and a lack of generosity or foresight there... But there can be no questioning of the earnest desire of the Congress to solve the communal problem both for the sake of communal harmony and the freedom of India. It should be remembered that the Congress has had to carry on its effort in an atmosphere which the presence of foreign power had poisoned. The atmosphere became still less favourable when Jinnah and the Muslim League through their demand of Pakistan and the two-nation theory, endeavoured to turn every Indian either into a fanatical Muslim or a fanatical Hindu."
IV
1947 marks a new phase in the Congress attitude towards Hindu-Muslim unity. We witness a vigorous assertion of secularism despite the adverse circumstances created by partition and the violence that attended it. There are various reasons for it. For one thing, the leadership of the Congress and the country had passed by this time, into the hands of leaders who were intellectually and emotionally committed to the idea.
Jawaharlal Nehru was the most outstanding advocate of the secular state in India. Secularism was an important element in his total social philosophy, not just an empty political slogan. Our politics", he said in 1936, "must either be those of magic or of science. The former of course requires no argument of logic; the latter in theory at least is based on clarity of thought and reasoning, and has no room for vague, idealistic or religious or sentimental process which confuse and befog the mind."
In India, he thought, the mode of thinking was dominated by religion because it has missed the industrial revolution and its people had been unable to imbibe the scientific spirit. Communalism was mainly a reflection of India's backward economic organisation and stagnant social system. Declaring communalism as the "Indian version of fascism", Nehru said: "The bulwark of communalism today is political reaction...Groups of upper class people try to cover up their own class interests by making it appear that they stand for the communal demands of religious minorities or majorities."
But there existed another class of opinion: the body of orthodox and traditionalist Hindu opinion. Opposed to most of the programmes and policies advocated by Nehru, this group disliked the whole concept of a secu lar state. Actually, during this time the principal opposition to Nehru's liberal programmes came from within the Congress organisation.
It is well known that one of Nehru's most outstanding opponent in the Congress was Sardar Patel who "represented militant...Hindu feelings of solidarity, rather than Secular nationalism." While he took vigorous action against the RSS after the assassination of Gandhi, he did not hesitate to press for some recognition of Hinduism in India's national life and vowed not to rest till the Somnath temple destroyed by Muslim invaders in the eleventh century was reconstructed and restored.
Interestingly, one of the arguments urged in the Hindu Mahasabha circles against resumption of political activities in 1949 was that it was no longer necessary because Patel was pursuing a strong Hindu policy. Sardar Patel was one with the Hindu Mahasabha in advocating exchange of population between India and Pakistan. This influenced his attitude towards communal riots also which was totally at variance with that of Gandhi and Nehru. How sharp clashes took place between the two is well known. No wonder Jana Sangh leaders call themselves Patelites.
As the Constituent Assembly began its task of drafting the Constitution of free India, Ramkrishna Dalmia launched a nationwide campaign for the inclusion of a clause forbidding cow-slaughter. K. M. Panikkar called for the revival of Sanskrit on the ground that "it is to the classics of that language that our traditions are to be traced." Sampurnanand made a strong plea for an educational system based on Dharma, Then, there was a heated discussion on the inclusion of the word, 'secular', particularly as to its concept.
V
After Sardar's death. Purushottam Das Tandon, Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava, Seth Govind Das and several other Congressmen continued the ideological tendency represented by him. Fanatics like Shyama Pd. Mookherjee left the Government in the early fiftees as it was dominated by Nehru who according to him was "more Muslim than Muslims". Exit of S.P. Mookerjee provides a clear proof that after the death of Patel the communal elements within Congress considered the fight for supremacy lost and decided to challenge the policies of Nehru from outside. The party that Mookerjee set up, Jana Sangh is carrying on that struggle.
The duality which had characterised the Indian National Congress during the freedom movement had become much more clear-cut. Despite its rationally proclaimed commitment to secularism, socialism and democracy, and despite the emergence of a communal focus outside Congress a strong orthodox and conservative opinion stuck on inside. This made for a constant struggle between the two schools of thought.
But thanks to his personal charisma, Nehru could never be outweighed by the revivalist forces and as Michael Breacher points out: "With each passing year of Nehru's tenure as Prime Minister the forces of communalism were weakened." The commitment to the basic ideals of the party among the state leaders was considerably diffused, varying in form, character and intensity.
Nehru himself chided them from time to time. He once pointed out that from his own inquiries it appeared that local Congress leaders made no attempt at all to calm the communal frenzy which seized Jabalpur and other cities and towns of Madhya Pradesh during the riots of February 1961. They simply sat in their houses like "purdah ladies" while the situation deteriorated. These elements were in the Congress because a place on the organisational ticket guaranteed them election to the legislatures or Congress membership assured them some post of profit.
Congress was not unmindful of its shortcomings. The Congress Parliamentary Party resolved in April, 1961: "Those Congressmen who by their acts or in action in an emergency support directly or indirectly communalistic activities were not worthy of remaining in the Congress".
A circular letter issued by the AICC to the Presidents of all PCCs on April 15, 1957, warned: "During the early days of non-cooperation movement the work amongst the Muslims community was conducted through Khilafat Committees...(which) severed their connection with the Congress in 1928 and since then the Muslim Mohallas, by and large, remained untouched by the Congress organisation.... Other minorities were also not taken care of... Consequently, the Congress message does not reach them. Only approaching them on the occasion of the elections does not succeed in getting their support to the proportion to which the Congress is entitled to claim, because of its secular nature"
Apart from the communal minded Hindu elements within the organisation, the Congress got involved in communalism in another way: it had on occasions made electoral alliances, or had come to some kind of understanding, with communal parties representing the minority communities.
While spurning any association with the Hindu Mahasabha or Jana Sangh, and in fact opposing these groups as bitterly, the Congress had made special arrangements with Sikh and Muslim communal parties, which clothed them with a certain respectability. The biggest blunder was perhaps in joining hands with the Muslim League to dislodge the 28 months of Communist rule in Kerala on July 21, 1959,
Apart from political opportunism, the reason for such a phenomenon is also attributed to the ex- Muslim Leaguers who, in the wake of freedom, had come under the protective wings of Congress. No wonder people like Chawdhary Khaliquzzaman (ex- Leaguer) were also promoted as a gesture of goodwill and faith! In the elections, erstwhile Muslim Leaguers were often given nominations to run for elective offices. Such a policy was generally motived by considerations of electoral strategy and dogs the party even today. 21
While attempting to analyse Congress approach towards the Hindu-Muslim problem, one should not forget that the healthy section of the Congress-both at the level of workers and leaders-have always given a determined fight against the communalistic and obscurantist tendencies within the party. It was the weakness of Congress that provoked the intrepid fighter, Mrs. Subhadra Joshi, to launch a non-parties anti-communal movement after the Jabalpur riot.
VI
The set-back to Congress in the 1967 General Elections led to rethinking which once again showed the two trends pitted against each other. One was reflected in the discussion paper that Subramanyam presented wherein understanding with Leftist forces was advocated. The other trend was represented by S.K. Patil's view of like-minded parties' which meant Swatantra and Jana Sangh.
The latter group controlled the party machinery, organised factional politics and engineered the election through their henchmen at the grass root level. In view of their dominance over the party, even the presence of Indira Gandhi as the Prime Minister did not provide an adequate assurance to the minorities.
Then came the historic split. Mrs. Gandhi proved an ideological base to the organisation to reorganise the party which was considered by scholars as "responsible in the main for all sorts of communal hatred, communal prejudices, social demoralisation, spiritual blindness, psychological brood and devilish violence"
It was her leadership which made the Congress see Jana Sangh as the spearhead of communalism. The Congress, after the split, for the first time named Jana Sangh and laid responsibility of communal violence on it and appealed to the Congressmen to give a dauntless fight and a crushing defeat to the forces of communalism. It declared that "it is not enough to deal with the communal problem at the administrative level. Social, political, economic and administrative factors all tend to create an atmosphere in which mutual mistrust bet- ween the two communities tends to grow and affect wide sections of the population."
At Mrs. Gandhi's initiative, the AICC for the first time formed a Minority Cell with a view to understanding the mino- rities' mind and drawing them closer to the Congress fold. Freed from the clutches of the reactionary communal group the Congress party, particularly in Parliament, has shown sensitiveness to the needs for improving communal situation. The recent legisla- tions about communal propaganda and the adminis trative measures to quell communal violence shows a marked departure from the old lackadaisical approach.
Even after the split however, the Congress has not been fully purged of the hidden and not-so-hidden communal elements. It still suffers from duality; on the one hand a leadership, by and large, committed to the secular concept of Hindu-Muslim unity, and on the other there is an amorphous mass of provincial leaders and grass root workers, ignorant of the basic values of secularism. Added to it, political opportunism -- defections and unprincipled alliances -- makes the Congress what it was: an amalgam of inner contradictions plus unity of opposites.
Secular Democracy
August 1972
Comments
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment. It will be published shortly by the Editor.