- Acharya JB Kripalani -
What has been happening during the last few days in some
cities of Utter Pradesh, in connection with the agitation against the passage
of the A14.tarh Muslim University Reorganization Bill, is not only cruel but
irrational. Even communal policies cannot afford to be altogether irrational.
It is clear that in this case a section of the Muslim community, the young by
themselves or instigated by some perverse politicians, began the riots. These
have resulted in loss of life and property of generally innocent people, who
perhaps had not the remotest idea about the Bill or about its passage through
the Parliament or how it adversely affected the Muslim community. One can-not
say how many Hindus and Muslims have lost their lives in these riots. The
Government gives no comparative figures for laudable reasons. There is no doubt
that innocent blood has been shed whether of the Hindus or the mischief makers
as a general rule escape. However, there is no doubt that much of the property
looted destroyed belonged to the Hindus.
The question arises: Were the Hindus responsible for the
passage of the Bill through the Parliament! It is well known that in the
present Parliament the Congress (R) commands an overwhelming majority. It can
pass without difficulty any legislation it favours; it can change ever our
Constitution, including our Fundamental Rights, as often as it pleases. One
would have understood if the rioters had destroyed the life and property of
those who were responsible for the passing or the Bill, though that too would
have been a. cruel stupidity, born of blind fury and fanaticism. But it is
difficult to understand the perversity of those who destroyed the lives and
property of the innocent people who had nothing to do with the passing of the
Bill. However, the fact is that just as in Pakistan so with a section of
Muslims in India, whatever Government may be in power here, it is considered a
Hindu Government, notwithstanding the high positions the Muslims occupy in it.
If the Government brings any measure, which a section of the Muslim community
feels that it adversely affects its religious susceptibilities, the
responsibility does not lie with the Government of the day, but with the Hindu
community! Did not Pakistan consider that its quarrel was not with Bangla Desh
but with Hindu India? It is, therefore, that they declared `Jihad'--holy
war—against India! One may not talk of the opinion of a community as a whole.
But one is entitled to note the predominant attitude of a community. The
general opinion in India is that the attitude of the large section of Muslims
was against the defeat of Pakistan in the last war, notwithstanding the
unparalleled brutalities committed by its armed forces in Bangla Desh. The
victims of these brutalities were not only non-Muslims, they included Muslims.
The brethren in faith of Pakistani Muslims.
I am sure by writing this I shall be considered a communalist.
The analysis of a political situation by a public man of long standing will be
considered as communal, because, it is not liked by a section of the Muslims.
Is it not made by a person who was born a Hindu, and who has not yet thought it
proper to change his religion! If any section of the Muslims dubs a person as a
Hindu communalist, the present Government must also think that way. That is how
the votes of the Muslim community are secured. However, it will not be the
first time when I shall be accused of communalism. When, once long ago, some
Muslim friends complained to Jawaharlal that I was communal in my outlook, he
laughed and said, "Kripalani views all the Indian problems from the political
viewpoint. His politics may be right or wrong but he is not communal. I often
differ from him in politics but I do not consider him communal on that
account" In spite of this, I may be considered communal for what I have
written here. However, what "I have said, I consider as the truth. Long
before Gandhiji's advent in Indian political life, I had learnt to stand alone.
So have I stood alone for many years after independence. It does not bother me
what others think of me, provided I am not false to what I consider to be the
truth. It is also too late at my age to care about what others think of me.
Let us analyse the facts in these riots. Who were instrumental
in bringing the disputed Bill before the Parliament and who were responsible
for its passage? Were they the members of the Hindu community? Were they even
the Members of the Jan Sangh? The Bill, whatever its merits or demerits, was
passed by the majority of the members of Parliament. The present Parliament had
the overwhelming support of the Muslim community. I remember a Hindu lady, very
popular in her constituency and having well known Muslims as her friends, when
she approached the Muslims for vote, she was told that they were sorry but it
was a matter of ‘Jihad’, a holy war, with them against the candidates who stood
in opposition to the Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi! If even democratic
elections become a matter of Jihad, a religious crusade, for a large section of
the Muslim community, they should be the last to complain, if a measure
offending their religious susceptibilities is passed by the Government, which
they have helped to bring in power. Why should in this protest any other person
or community be blamed? Why should anybody else lose his life and property?
I think it is time
that the Muslim leaders, not those in the Government, took stock of the
existing situation. Are they to rely, for the protection of their religious or
other rights, on the Government of the day or are they to cultivate the
friendship and good relations with their neighbours, including the Hindus? The
Congressmen, whether old or new, they are the chips of the same block, consider
themselves like the foreign imperialists, the protectors of the minorities! Does
the Muslim community consider them so? In my humble opinion the lasting good of
any community consist in cultivating the friendship and the goodwill of other
communities rather than rely on shifting Governments. Religious differences are
facts of life and we must learn to tolerate them as we do other differences.
However, apart from these considerations, important as
they are, the question to decide today is: can a Government, which claims to be
secular, democratic and socialist, in any way provide for and help from public
funds the religious instructions of any community, because these form part of
an educational institution? Some of our educational institutions have not only
communal names but they declare in no uncertain terms that they are concerned
in these institutions with the religious education of a particular
denomination. They were organised for that purpose. That is their distinctive
character. Why should the common taxpayer in a secular and socialist democracy
be obliged to pay for the religious education of any faith, whether it be of
the majority or minority community? It may be that some citizens do not believe
in any religion. It may be that others consider religion as the opiate of the
masses. The common taxpayer can be asked to pay only for the mundane and
secular part of the education of the citizens. It is, therefore, necessary that
the religious names given to educational institutions must change, if they
claim Government grants. If we have 'abolished Hindu, Muslim and Parsi water,
we must also abolish Muslim, Hindu and Christian educational institutions. If
some educational institutions yet persist in imparting religious instruction,
let the particular community which wants it, pay for it. To perform religious
acts with the money of others, who are obliged to pay whether they like it or
not, is scarcely consistent with spirituality. No merit can accrue to a person
or community from performing such religious acts. It is a fact that religious
educational institutions maintain at public expense temples, mosques, churches
in their precincts and campuses. They also engage Pandits, Priests, Maulvis,
Mullas, Clergymen to impart religious instructions. These religious instructors
are assigned to every hostel in the institution. It is not fair for a
democratic socialist and secular Government to pay the expenses that are
involved in maintaining all their religious paraphernalia. Government grants
must pay exclusively for secular and mundane studies. Also educational
institutions must be open to students of all communities. There should be no
percentages in this respect. There should be no educational institution bearing
the names Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Parsi, Buddhist, or the name of any other
religion or community. These days knowledge is and should be free, and
universal. Even the scriptures of the great religions of the world are today
the common inheritance of all mankind. the Quran, the Bible, the Geeta, the
Upanishads, the sacred books of the Buddhist, Zoroastrians, and other
religions. He will be a poor scholar these days who confines his knowledge to
the scriptures of his particular faith. He can understand even his religion
better if he has made a comparative study of the scriptures of other religions.
This will not only expand his spiritual horizon but also his intellectual
horizon. It is gross ignorance to think that religion has nothing to do with
the intellectual knowledge. The cultivation of one's intellect helps one's
spiritual awareness. After all man is distinguished from the animals by his
intellect, not by his religion! A Persian proverb rightly says that “A person
devoid of knowledge, Ilm, cannot know God—Be Ilm Na Khuda ra Shanakht."
If the Government in this matter of communal educational
institutions fails the country, out of fear of losing the votes of one
community or the other, it will be doing a great injury to the nation. It will
then make itself responsible for all the rioting that takes place in this
connection. A Government which works through fear or through its desire to
retain power, loses its claim of working for the welfare of the people even for
‘Garibi Hatao'.
