ACHIEVING HARMONY IN
PLURALISTIC SOCIETIES
When different people live together in modern pluralistic societies, one inevitably receives discomfort from others. To achieve harmony one should avoid or ignore the discomfort caused by others.
On January 12, 1993, when I was in Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh, for a program, I met Mr. Madhu Mehta. He was the Chairman of the well-known ‘Hindustani Andolan’ movement, whose headquarters were in Bombay. It was my first meeting with him. He was impressed with my thoughts when we discussed the current national situation. After returning to Delhi, I received several phone calls from him. He wanted to organize some programs in Bombay for me. At his insistence, I made a trip to Bombay. On the morning of January 31, 1993, I left for Bombay and returned to Delhi on the evening of February 5.
On the evening of January 31, 1993, at 5 O’clock, a meeting was held at the Governor’s House with the Governor of Maharashtra, P. C. Alexander. Apart from me, Acharya Sushil Kumar, Swami Chidanand, Madhu Mehta, Justice Dharmadhikari, Anna Hazare, and several other people were present. The Governor said he had read some of my English articles and seen the Shanti Yatra video. He was quite impressed by it. He said that political figures cannot resolve this serious issue in the country; only religious and spiritual personalities can solve it.
The report of this meeting was published in the Bombay edition of the ‘Times of India’ (February 1, 1993). It also explicitly stated that this meeting was held at the Governor’s request.
On the evening of February 1, 1993, a meeting was held at Mr. Madhu Mehta’s place. Many educated people from Bombay participated in it in large numbers. I addressed the gathering.
A Question-Answer session was also conducted. A young man named Rahul Sharma said that Muslims identify themselves with Pakistan. What is your opinion on this? I said that according to my information, this was not correct. Perhaps there is no Muslim here who identifies himself with Pakistan. Some Muslim boys make childish moves during cricket matches between the two countries. I find such actions absurd. However, they should be ignored. Forming an opinion about Indian Muslims based on this is not correct.
The special correspondent of ‘The Times of India’, Mr. Allwyn Fernandes conducted a detailed interview. This interview was recorded in Room No. 305 of the Regency Hotel. It was published in The Times of India on February 2, 1993.
Most of the questions were about Muslim issues. I said one thing that Hindus and Muslims should clearly understand is that when different people live together in a society, it is inevitable that one may cause discomfort to the other. This always happens. And it happens in every society, whether in India or any other country.
What to do in such a situation? The only thing to do in such a situation is to learn to avoid the discomfort caused by others, which is inevitable in pluralistic societies.
On February 2, I met General S. K. Sinha and S. Ramakrishnan at Mr. Madhu Mehta’s residence. Mr. Ramakrishnan said that after listening to my speech yesterday, he felt like someone was speaking from the heart, not the lips.
Mr. Harender Dubey is the editor of a Gujarati newspaper, “Janm Bhoomi” (established in 1934). He conducted a detailed interview with me for his newspaper. Mr. Harendrade is of a spiritual disposition. He said that when he prays, he asks God to do whatever good is intended for him.
On the evening of February 4, my speech was at Khilafat House at 5 o’clock. Dr. Rafiq Zakaria was presiding over it. The hall was filled. There were also quite a few people standing outside. Starting my speech, I asked the question, “Why did I come to Bombay?” Continuing my speech, I said, “I came because the story you tried to write repeatedly with the ink of blood could not be written. Now, let us try to write that story with tears. Maybe God will accept our heartfelt plea. The story that couldn’t be written with the ink of blood might be written with tears.”
As I was saying these words, tears were flowing from my eyes. In the meantime, a young man stood up and started shouting, “We won’t listen. You go back.” I remained silent and sat back in my chair. Many people from the audience told him that they wanted to listen to me and asked him to leave. There was noise for a while. Finally, that boy went outside. After that, I spoke for an hour and a half, and the entire assembly listened silently, and attentively.
