The Rediff Special/K R Narayanan
'The real threats to our unity come from internal developments, from dangers that are political, economic, social cultural and psychological'
Eighteen years ago, K R Narayanan, then vice-chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, delivered the convocation address at Bombay's Tata Institute of Social Sciences. The theme of his lecture: Some Reflections on Indian Unity. To mark his ascension to the Presidency, we retrieved a copy of that long-forgotten speech from the TISS archives and are proud to bring you an assessment of this nation's future by the man who is today its President.
I must confess that as I stand here this afternoon I am moved by a feeling of nostalgia. I came to Bombay first in 1945 at the
summons of the late Mrs Piroja Vesugar, the dynamic and compassionate
secretary of the J N Tata Endowment for the Higher Education of
Indians. I was to proceed to London as a Tata scholar; but I arrived
a little too late to catch the boat and was literally stranded
in Bombay.
Through the initiative of Mrs Vesugar and the courtesy
of Dr J M Kumarappa I took shelter in the Hostel of the Tata
Institute, then located in Nagpada, enjoyed the hospitality of
the Institute and made the friendship of many of the distinguished
social scientists of India, who were then students of the Institute,
like Dr M S Gore, Mrs Phyllis Gore and Professor P D Kulkarni.
I must
have developed in those days, almost unknowingly, a fundamental
psychological bias for social work for I happened later on to
marry someone who was Dr Gore's student in the Delhi School of
Social Work.
I have chosen as the theme of my address 'Some Reflections on Indian
Unity'. You may ask why at this stage one should talk about a
topic which ought to be taken for granted rather than discussed.
Before Independence we had heard a lot about the myth of Indian
unity. A representative British view expressed by John Strachey
in 1888 held that 'there is not and never was an India... possessing,
according to European ideas any sort of unity, physical, political,
social or religious'. We had also heard the strident arguments
of Mohammed Ali Jinnah for his two nation theory, though ironically
the Partition of India and the creation of Pakistan did not solve,
even after the emergence of Bangladesh, the problem of unity of
Pakistan.
The nationalist leaders of India, while they affirmed passionately
the unity of India, had not denied the existence of innumerable
differences which divided and distracted the country. They emphasised
the fundamental unity of India and strove to promote and consolidate
it in a welter of differences. For Jawaharlal Nehru. India had
been throughout her history, haunted by a dream, the dream of unity,
and he called ceaselessly upon all Indians to have that dream
realised in practice.
Dr Ambedkar put the matter more bluntly
in the Constituent Assembly. While asserting that 'the country
is one integral whole', he warned: 'I am of the opinion that in believing
that we are a nation we are cherishing a great delusion. How can
people divided into several thousands of castes be a nation?
The sooner we realise that we are not yet a nation in the social
and psychological sense of the word the better for us. For then
only we shall realise the necessity of becoming a nation and seriously
think of the ways and means of realising the goal.'
Thus for both Nehru and Ambedkar, indeed for all thinking Indians,
India was, and will be, one; at the same time they held that it
was necessary to work hard to make it one and to maintain it as
one. Six general elections, five five year plans and four wars
during 32 years have demonstrated that India's unity is
a fundamental reality, particularly in times of crisis and threats
to national security. But there is also a quivering uncertainty
surrounding this reality, produced by the reckless play of fissiparous
forces abounding in our society and politics.
We must also recognise
the fact that during 32 years this sub-continent has been
divided twice and that it is today a system of a sovereign States
consisting of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan. Lurking
expectations exist in the minds of several outside powers that
the subcontinent thus divided is perhaps further divisible. When
Dacca fell to the Indian liberation forces in 1971, Premier Chou
en Lai issued a warning that the fall of Dacca was not a victory
for India, but the beginning of a conflagration which will
ultimately consume the sub-continent.
Such dismal prognostications
are certainly wrong, but it is possible that most great powers
of the world, while recognising the impressive progress made by
this country in many fields, have put for the long term a question
mark against the unity and stability of India.
In 1974, Milovan Djilas, in a futuristic study of the world of
2024 AD, wrote as follows: 'Despite my sympathy for India, I
am not convinced that it can remain united in the long run. The
present linguistic units will gradually become independent and
the south-western, southern and the south-eastern parts of India
will, most probably, separate into independent states'. Djilas
also forecast that China will annex outer Mongolia, occupy Siberia,
east of Lake Baikal, and the Soviet Union will disintegrate.
In a companion piece, Emmet John Hughes, a former assistant to the
late President Eisenhower, made a similar futuristic projection:
'The avowedly-democratic society of India may reasonably be counted
upon, not to unify, but to fragment -- possibly into as many parts
as Western Europe. All the while, the People's Republic of China,
after rather quickly digesting Taiwan, and the fable of Nationalist
China, may be counted on to push southward where it will extend
effective but nameless sovereignty, discreetly but stubbornly,
over most other feigned sovereignties in the area.'
It is significant that in the above futurological predictions
not only is India seen as a disintegrating entity, but China is
seen emerging as a colossal and united superpower absorbing vast
areas of the Soviet Union and imposing its hegemony over the nations
of south-east Asia, the so-called 'feigned sovereignties in the
area.' Perhaps some of the independent States supposed to rise
out of the dissolution of India will be included by these political
astrologers among 'the feigned sovereignties' in the area.
While no one in power in the major countries of the world will dare
to voice or act upon these dire prophecies, such doubting and
question marks may well exist in the inner recesses of their policy
thinking. It is also possible that our smaller neighbours, while
wishing for a stable though not a very powerful India, are watching
with anxiety internal developments in our country as well as our
evolving equations with the great powers.
If one examines China's border claims against India, it will be
found that they impinge directly upon the geographical and strategic
unity of India. The claim to Arunachal Pradesh, which may or may
not be a mere bargaining claim, will, if realised, have the effect
of detaching a vast chunk of territory from India and crippling
India politically and strategically. And the Chinese occupation
of parts of Ladakh, seen against the political background of Peking's
support for self-determination for the people of Kashmir implies
a threat to India's unity and security in its strategic north-western
border region.
Added to these is the unrest that prevails in the entire north-eastern
region of India with potentialities for political mischief from
outside. It is in the light of these harsh facts that we in India
should interpret Vice-Chairman Deng Xiao-Ping's remark in Peking
that the Sino-Indian border question be left to the next generation
for settlement as the present generation in both China and India
are stupid.
To my mind there is a method in this 'stupidity'
which probably conceals a Machiavellian calculation. It is not
unlikely that they reckon that by the end of the century when
China reaches its goal of becoming a powerful modern socialist
State, India might well be weakened with its north-eastern regions
moving away from its fold through a process of disintegrating
unrest. I am confident that the futurologists of China's politbureau
are as mistaken about India as their counterparts elsewhere.
It is, however, important that we in India grasp this essential element of realpolitik
while pursuing seriously and sincerely our undoubtedly correct
policy of seeking friendly relations with China.
Foreign policy must be at once a manifestation of and a support
to national interests and national unity. In the past it was national
disunity and the penchant of opposing factions for relying upon
foreign powers which led to the many invasions and conquests of
India. It seems we have not yet fully overcome this besetting
historical weakness and we find in India political groups and
factions not only quarrelling bitterly with one another but espousing
passionately the ideologies or viewpoints of outside powers.
It is, therefore, necessary at this juncture to employ foreign policy
not as a divisive factor but as a demonstrably unifying instrument
of national policy.
I have been hitherto talking about external threats to Indian
unity. However, the real threats to our unity come from internal
developments, from dangers that are political, economic, social
cultural and psychological. One of the major developments in this
context is the break-up of the Indian National Congress.
As early as 1948 Jawaharlal Nehru had foreseen this possibility
and said: 'The preservation of the unity and stability of India
largely depends upon the functioning of the Congress organisation
which has brought a sense of unity. If that organisation weakens
or splits up, the one major cementing factor is removed and popular
energy is diverted to quarrels of rival factions.' That prophecy
has now come true. Both among the splinter parties of the Congress
and under the impressive facade of Janata's majority, the energies
of the people and of the leaders are diverted to constant and
complex factional quarrels eating into the vitals of India's national
unity and stability.
A country like India will always have, under the parliamentary
democratic system, a proliferation of local and regional political
parties. But out of the welter of interests and opinions prevalent
in our free and variegated society, it should be possible to pick
out the leading interests and trends around which can be organised
minor interests and trends in simple, clear and coherent party programmes
which are intelligible and appealing to the people as a whole.
The political scene,
instead of being fragmented into a thousand groups and parties,
can then be consolidated along the lines of major national parties.
That can happen only when the leaders of the major parties abandon
the politics of narrow groups, castes, cabals and personalities
and resort to the politics of ideas, policies and practically
worked out programmes for the benefit of the people.
The party system in India is today shrouded in the twilight
of change. From the state of coalition on the ruling front and
from the state of fragmentation in the Opposition, there will
either emerge consolidation of the system into two or three major
parties or the fragmentation will proceed further until a monolithic
party or force is thrown up to impose mastery over political chaos.
Ultimately, national unity is bound to assert itself; the great
question is whether it will be democratic unity or the unity of
dictatorship, ideological or military.
Tell us what you think of this opinion
|
