SECULAR EDUCATION

- 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'.