Last week, speaking at the convocation of Techno India University in Kolkata, Infosys co-founder NR Narayana Murthy said something central to national integration: “Democracy in India will prosper only if we create a mindset that highlights the commonality of our beliefs rather than differences.” Sadly, even though basic human values like patriotism, gender equality, and commitment to sustainability are common to all belief systems, some sections of our society have been rejecting these. By doing so, many of them have sown the seeds of separatism, threatening the very unity of India.
Indian culture has always celebrated diversity. But if India has to remain India, we cannot allow this diversity to be used to create a ground for divisiveness. Sadly, the political history of India throughout the last century is replete with examples of committing this mistake. As we observed Partition Horrors Remembrance Day on August 14, it is pertinent to understand how this diversity was sharpened and used to create divisions in the nation.
Prior to the Gandhi era in the Indian National Congress (INC), Lokmanya Tilak had taken a thoughtfully cultivated approach. On the one hand, he was engaging with the Muslims, and on the other, he was joining hands with integrationist icons for uniting Indians culturally. However, after Tilak, this approach was abandoned by the Congress leadership and the party allowed itself to be arm-twisted by Muslim leaders, helping Muslims enhance their bargaining power.
Pre-Independence, just for the sake of taking minority Muslims along, we kept aside Vande Mataram when it came to choosing a national anthem, and accepted a truncated Vande Mataram as the national song instead. The same approach continued to guide our national policies even after Independence. Disregarding the guiding principles of the Constitution, we ignored the need for having a common civil code and banning cow slaughter. All this has resulted in the unofficial adoption of a policy which mollycoddles monitories at the cost of national integration.
To start with, let’s recall how immediately after Independence, the national leadership handled the subject of choosing the national anthem callously. As per factual records, the Constituent Assembly devoted less than 30 minutes to deliberate on the decision. On August 25, 1948—although the then home minister was supposed to respond to a discussion on the national anthem—Jawaharlal Nehru intervened to explain, saying: “In regard to the national anthem tune, it was felt that the tune was more important than the words, and this tune should be such as to represent the Indian musical genius as well as to some extent the Western, so that it might be equally adaptable to orchestra and band music, and to being played abroad.”
Earlier, in 1937, the Congress Working Committee (CWC) had adopted a statement at its meeting in Calcutta, clearly saying: “The Committee recognises the validity of the objection raised by Muslim friends to certain parts of the song.” The statement further said, “Taking all things into consideration, therefore, the Committee recommend that, wherever Bande Mataram is sung at national gatherings, only the first two stanzas should be sung, with perfect freedom to the organisers to sing any other song of an unobjectionable character, in addition to, or in the place of, the Bande Mataram song.” This statement raised more questions than answers. Basically, what is “unobjectionable character”? And who decides that? And if minorities are hurt by certain stanzas, won’t the majority also get hurt if these are deleted? This clearly was an example of minority appeasement for vote bank politics. Recently, an AIMIM MLA from Maharashtra refused to sing Vande Mataram in the State Assembly, claiming that his belief system disallows the same.
In a way, CWC’s refusal to stand firmly against the demands to ban Vande Mataram had cascading effects. After compelling INC leaders to abandon a few stanzas, emboldened separatists later demanded partition. More importantly, this also triggered a chain of issues where the minority Muslim community could exert veto power. From cow slaughter to a common civil code, many critical issues became hot potatoes simply because the powers that be didn’t want to “displease the minorities”.
Insofar as banning cow slaughter is concerned, the Directive Principles, as enunciated in Article 48, have clearly said that all the states administered by the Government of India shall take steps for preserving and improving the breed (of cows/bulls). It further says, and that too in unambiguous terms, that “The State shall endeavour to … prohibit the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.” Despite such a clear position taken by the makers of the Constitution, a nationwide ban on cow slaughter couldn’t become a reality even after 76 years. This again was primarily to take care of the feelings of minorities, especially the Muslim community.
The same is the case of the much-talked-about Uniform Civil Code (UCC). Ironically, while the makers of our Constitution have emphasised on equality of all, certain provisions in the Constitution they finally drafted give every religious denomination the power to manage their own personal affairs in matters of religion. As a result of this, a few personal laws framed by some communities based on their respective belief systems have caused denial of justice to individuals within these communities.
To ensure genuine equality of all, adopting the Uniform Civil Code is the way to go. The UCC, as envisioned by the makers of our Constitution, provides for the uniformity of justice. Again, personal laws framed by the British rulers are undoubtedly a legacy of colonialism and are worth throwing into the dustbin—lock, stock and barrel. As mentioned by Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan, a strong votary for banning triple talaq, post the triple talaq being made a punishable offence in 2019, there has been a 96% reduction in divorce cases among Muslims. And yet, the so-called progressives are seen opposing the UCC.
From Vande Mataram to UCC—although the issues are different—the lesson is common and is loud and clear. Make no mistake, diversity is not a passport to divisiveness, and pluralism can’t be a licence for Partition.
(Views are personal)
Vinay Sahasrabuddhe
President, ICCR, and senior BJP leader