APRIL 24
The National Agenda
Former Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru once observed: ‘Freedom is in peril, defend it with all your might.’ Today one can rightly say: everything including freedom, is in peril. Save it with all your might.
Prior to 1947 we believed that there was only one obstacle in the path of a prosperous India, and that was political subjugation by the British. Once we gained political freedom, we were going to wipe the tears from all eyes.
Partition, no doubt, was an evil. In fact, I would call it one of the greatest blunders of the entire human history. However, I do not agree with those who say that partition is to blame for the state of affairs in the subcontinent.
The issue is somewhat different. As far as the present sad situation of our nation is concerned, there is absolutely no justification for our failures. It is our leadership alone which is responsible for this malady.
The reason I hold that the partition of the country cannot be responsible for the national tragedy, is because after second world war several countries (Germany, for instance) were partitioned, yet developed later into advanced countries. Similarly, India too, in spite of partition, could have secured a position at the top of the list of advanced nations. Why did this not happen? This requires serious thought.
After the second world war, India, just like other Asian countries, had every opportunity to reconstruct itself. In the ensuing fifty year period, many countries, notably Korea, Singapore and Japan, transformed themselves into up-to-date, highly developed countries. Today, the citizens of these countries have access to all kinds of modern facilities, while Indians are still just dreaming about them. Given the very great reserves of human and physical resources possessed by India, isn’t there something very strange about this?
But this failure to parallel development elsewhere is not as significant, or indeed as serious as the fact that after half a century of stormy politics, no acceptable concept of nationhood has evolved in our country. India still remains a nation in the making.
Men of vision predicted this state of affairs long ago. But the results of the general elections in April-May have made it even more apparent that India is, if anything, even further from the goal of nationhood than it has ever been, no party having gained the absolute majority essential to stability and longevity of governance.
Instability is, indeed, an alarming state of affairs. The question arises as to why the country, after so many years of independence, is now faced with this problem. This can be answered only in terms of the forces at work in the country. In this recent election, there were two big contenders, one upholding secularism, the other Hindutva. Both staked a claim to being the true representatives of the Indian public. But neither actually gained public support, because a third force—a combination of regionalism and casteism—swallowed up more than half of the votes.
Even after fifty years of freedom, regional and caste loyalties stand in the way of arriving at a consensus which would bind all our countrymen with the one cord. We are still very far from the land-based concept of nationality, the idea of a homeland for all, regardless of caste, creed or ethnicity.
Secularism and Hindutva, which, in different ways, identify with and support the concept of nationhood, were opined to be sufficiently all-encompassing in their separate theories and to have sufficient mass appeal to guarantee a thumping majority to their respective upholders. They were also seen as powerful, emotive binding forces among the mass of potential voters. But the election results soon gave the lie to such optimistic views.
As I see it, the reason for public neglect of parties whose envisaged sphere of influence and functioning is the nation as a whole is simply intellectual backwardness. Whatever concepts an under-educated society is in possession of are derived from common daily experience of a very limited nature relating, for instance, to language, style of living, personal relations, immediate economic interests, racial bias, etc. Among these, one seldom, if ever, finds the concepts of oneness, cohesiveness or homogeneity as applicable to the entire nation. Local experience in such a society can bring into being human islands, but not oceans of humanity.
In any society where education is not widespread people’s thinking tends to be narrow and immature, so that social cohesion remains a local matter, confined to small groups.
The well-known 19th century educator and reformer, Horace Mann, aptly observed: “A human being is not, in any proper sense, a human being till he is educated.” Mann also observes: “Education is our only political safety. Outside of this ark, all is deluge.”
There is no element of exaggeration in this. Man can become an aware person only through education. It enables him to come abreast of broader realities, to understand matters in depth and arrive at appropriate and realistic decisions. It pulls him out of his emotional shell so that he can see things in the light of pure reason. In short, the human creature becomes a man only with education. Without it he is nothing.
The great virtue of education—scientific education in particular—is that it acquaints the beneficiaries with higher, universal realities; it raises the general level of their awareness; it instills in them the importance of taking a global view of humanity. In an educated society, thinking is on a higher plane; people are encouraged to rise above their own limited spheres and to start thinking along more humane and rational lines. Instead of immediate concerns, all-embracing interests become the foci of their attention.
India, still obviously beset by backwardness and a lack of public awareness, must come to grips with the fact that it is largely educational shortcomings which are to blame for its failure to crystallize as a nation. Now the question arises as to what the solution should be. What plan of action will help us to emerge from this impasse? It is my firm belief that the time has come for concerted efforts to be made by all parties at all levels to remedy this state of affairs. But this is not something which can happen overnight, so that we shall have to content ourselves with a preparatory stage of comparatively slow progress until long term, comprehensive plans can be drawn up and implemented throughout the length and breadth of the country. This may require two phases of organization, the first to cover the initial period of transition, and the second more highly geared, to establish an improved pattern of education at all levels.
In the present situation, it is almost certain that if another general election is precipitated by fissiparous elements, regional forces will once again come to the fore in the overall voting pattern. It would again be impossible for a single party to form a stable government. Therefore, for the time being, the greater interests of the nation will be served by giving continuing and unconditional support to the system of coalition government. If such a system can function successfully in European countries and also in Malaysia, why cannot it be equally effective in India? At all events, this is not the time to indulge in the kind of self-serving politicking which will undermine the powers that be.
If, up to the present, we have not given due emphasis to education, it is because we have a long history of failing to get our priorities right. Prior to 1947 we gave top priority to gaining our independence, whereas, even in that difficult period, we should have concentrated on making education accessible to people in all walks of life. Gaining our freedom before having attained the necessary level of maturity in our thinking has resulted in the present lack of cohesiveness and absence of national spirit which are plain for all to see. The price we have paid for this neglect is our still being—even after fifty years of independence—very far from our most cherished goals, while within half that time tiny countries such as Singapore and Korea have emerged as commercial and industrial giants.
Subsequent to 1947, we gave top priority to socialism. This was again ill-judged. The better course would have been to maintain, more or less, the existing economic structure of the country, and to direct all our attention to the educational front. It is unfortunate that nothing of the sort happened. And if we are suffering today, it is the direct result of our wrong sense of priority.
If we are facing instability as a nation today, it is because the common man thinks in terms neither of secularism, Hindutva, or any other national-spirited philosophy. He thinks purely in terms of his immediate relations, contacts and interests. This situation will be remedied only when we implement nationwide educational programmes which will broaden the intellectual horizons of the masses.
Whenever someone falls into error, he himself, by rights, should atone for it. No one else should be expected to stand in for him. By the same token, the primary condition for a beneficial change of national course should be our admission at the outset of error, and our prompt and willing atonement for it. We must first admit that all along we have been setting ourselves wrong targets. The next step should be to get our priorities straight. Having done so, we should not cease in our efforts until the literacy rate is one hundred per cent. If we fail in this most important arena at the present time, India will continue to have the rather dubious distinction of being a nation still in the making.
