گروگو لوالکر کے خیالات
آر ایس ایس کے سابق سرسنچالک گرو گولوالکر (1973-1906) نے 20 اگست 1972 کو دہلی میں دین دیال ریسرچ انسٹی ٹیوٹ کا افتتاح کیا۔ اس موقع پر تقریر کرتے ہوئے انھوں نے کہا کہ قومی اتحاد کے لیے یکساں سول کوڈ کوئی ضروری چیز نہیں۔ ان کی یہ تقریر مدرلینڈ (21 اگست 1972) میں چھپی تھی۔ اس کے بعد ہفت روزہ آرگنائزر (26 اگست 1972) میں اس موضوع پر ان کا ایک انٹرویو شائع ہوا۔ یہ رپورٹ انگریزی میں اگلے صفحات میں درج کی جا رہی ہے۔ انھوں نے جو کچھ کہا اس کا خلاصہ یہ تھا:
میں نہیں سمجھتا کہ نیشنلزم کا احساس پیدا کرنے کے لیے ہمیں یکساں سول کوڈ کی ضرورت ہے۔ اس قسم کی قانونی یکسانیت کا قومی اتحاد سے کوئی تعلق نہیں۔ انڈیا ہمیشہ تنوع کا مالک رہا ہے۔ اس کے باوجود لمبی مدت سے ہم ایک طاقتور اور متحد قوم بنے رہے۔ اتحاد کے لیے ہمیں ہم آہنگی کی ضرورت ہے نہ کہ یکسانیت کی۔ میرا احساس یہ ہے کہ فطرت زیادہ یکسانیت کو پسند نہیں کرتی۔ ہمارے پاس زندگی کا بہت لمبا تجربہ ہے اور ہمارا تجربہ یہ ہے کہ تنوع اور اتحاد دونوں ایک ساتھ رہ سکتے ہیں۔ یہ صحیح ہے کہ دستور ہند میں ایک دفعہ یکساں سول کوڈ کے حق میں موجود ہے۔ مگر ایک چیز محض اس لیے پسندیدہ نہیں ہو جاتی کہ وہ کسی دستور میں لکھی ہوئی ہے۔ بہرحال ہمارا دستور کچھ بیرونی دستوروں کا ملغوبہ ہے۔ اس کو ہندوستانی تجربات کی روشنی میں نہیں بنایا گیا ہے۔ کہا جاتا ہے کہ مسلمان یکساں سول کوڈ کے مخالف ہیں ، کیوں کہ وہ اپنا علیحدہ تشخص باقی رکھنا چاہتے ہیں۔ مگر کوئی بھی طبقہ یا فرقہ جو اپنا الگ تشخص چاہتا ہو اس سے میرا کوئی جھگڑا نہیں، جب تک یہ تشخص حب وطن کے جذبات کو گھٹانے والا نہ ہو۔ اصل مسئلہ یہ ہے کہ ہندوؤں اور مسلمانوں کے درمیان برادرانہ احساسات ہوں۔ میرے نزدیک مسلمانوں کو اپنے طریق زندگی پر رہنے کا پورا حق ہے، البتہ انہیں ملک سے اور اس کے کلچر سے محبت کرنا چاہیے۔ ہندوؤں کے لیے بھی یکساں سول قانون بنانا غیر ضروری ہے۔ آخر ہزاروں سال سے ہندو اس قسم کے فرق کے باوجود مل جل کر رہ رہے ہیں۔
کسی کو یہ بات فلسفیانہ معلوم ہو سکتی ہے۔ مگر میں سمجھتا ہوں کہ یکسانیت قوموں کے لیے موت کی نشانی ہے۔ فطرت یکسانیت کو پسند نہیں کرتی۔ میرے نزدیک ہر طریق زندگی کی حفاظت کی جانی چاہیے۔ البتہ ان تمام تنوعات کو قومی اتحاد میں مددد گار ہونا چاہیے۔
Q. Don't you think that Muslims are opposing a uniform civil code only because they want to maintain their separate identify?
A. I have no quarrel with any class, community or sect wanting to maintain its identity, so long as that identity does not detract from its patriotic feeling. I have a feeling that some people want a uniform civil code because they think that the right to marry four wives is causing a disproportionate increase in the Muslim population. I am afraid this is a negative approach to the problem.
The real trouble is that there is no feeling of brotherliness between Hindus and Muslims. Even the secularists treat the Muslims as a thing apart. Of course, their method is to flatter them for their bloc votes. Others also look upon them as a thing apart, but they would like to flatten out the Muslims by removing their separate identity. Basically there is no difference between the flatterers and the flatteners. They both look upon Muslim as separate and incompatible.
My approach is entirely different. The Muslim is welcome to his way of life so long as he loves this country and its culture. I must say the Muslim Leage in Kerala and thus caused the increase of Muslim communalism throughout the country.
Q. If we carry this argument backwards, even the codification of the Hindu law would be considered unnecessary and undesirable.
A. I certainly consider the codification of Hindu law as altogether unnecessary for national unity and national integration. Throughout the ages we had countless codes—and we were not any the worse for them. Till recently Kerala had the matriarchal system. what was wrong with that? All law-givers, ancient and modern, are agreed the custom does, and must, prevail over the law.
Custom is more effective than shastras, say the shastras And custom is the local or group code. All societies recognise the validity of the local custom or code.
Q. If a uniform civil law is not necessary, why is a uniform criminal law necessary?
A. There is a difference between the two. The civil concerns mainly the individual and his family. The criminal law deals with the law and order and thousand other things.
It concerns not only the individual but also the society at large.
Q. Would it really be correct to allow our Muslim sisters to remain in purdah and be subjected to polygamy?
A. If your objection to Muslim practices is on humanitarian grounds, then that becomes a valid objection. A reformist's attitude in these matters is allright. But a mechanical leveller's attitude would not be correct. Let the Muslims evolve their old laws. I will be happy when they arrive at the conclusion that polygamy is not good for them, but I would not like to force my view on them.
Q. This seems to be a deep philosophical question.
A. It very much is. I think uniformity is the death-knell of nations. Nature abhors uniformity. I am all for the protection of various ways of life. However, all this variety must supplement the unity of the nation and not range itself against it.
(Reproduced from Manthan Monthly, New Delhi, July 1986)
Golwalkwer on Uniform Civil Law
On August 20, 1972, Shri Gruuji, Sarsanghachalak, RSS, inaugurated the Deendayal Research Institute in Delhi. On this occasion he said that a uniform civil code was not necessary for national unity. The Motherland of New Delhi carried the following report on August 21,1970
News Delhi, August 20-Shri M.S. Golwalker, Sarasanghachalak of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, said here today that the present-day Indian politicians lacked original thinking on the problems of Indian society.
Shri Guruji was speaking at the inauguration of the Deendayal Research Institute and the celebration of Sri Aurobindo Centenary by the Institute. Shri R.R. Diwaker, President, Gandhi Peace Foundation, presided. A huge elite audience attended the function in front of the Institute building on Rani Jhansi Road, Jhandewala.
Citing the example of politicians, efforts to solve problems without thinking, he referred to the question of uniform civil code for all in the country, and said that such a uniformity was not necessary in itself; Indian culture permitted diversity in unity." The important thing is to infuse a spirit of intense patriotism and brotherhood among all citizens, Hindus and non-Hindu, and make them love this motherland according to their own religion.
In a special interview with Organiser, Shri Guruji reiterated his above view. Here is the Substance of the conversation, as published in that paper's issue of August 26, 1972
Q. You don’t think that a uniform civil code is necessary for promoting the feeling of Nationalism?
A. I don’t This might surprise you or many others. But this is my opinion. I must speak the truth as I see it.
Q. Don.t you think that uniformity within the nation would promote national unity?
A. Not necessarily. India has always had infinite variety. And yet, For long stretches of time, we were a very strong and united nation. For unity, we need harmony, not uniformity
Q. In the West the rise of nationalism has coincided with unification of laws and forging of other uniformities.
A. Don’t forget that Europe is a very young continent with a very young civilisation. It did not exist yesterday and it may not be there tomorrow. My feeling is that nature abhors excessive uniformity. It is too early to say what these uniformities will do to Western civilisation in times to come. Apart from the here and the now, we must look back in to the distant past and also look forward to the remote future, Many actions have long-delayed and indirect consequences. We in this country have millennia of experience. We have a tested way of life, And our experience is that variety and unity can, and do, go together.
Q. A Directive Principle of Sate Policy in our Constitution says that the Sate would Strive for a uniform civil code.
A. That is all right. Not that I have any objection to a uniform civil code but a thing does not becomes desirable just because it is a Constitution. In any case our Constitution is a hotch-potch of some foreign constitutions. It has not been conceived and drafted in the light of Indian experience.
