?The book entitled Gandhi & Churchill–The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age, by best selling author and former professor of history, Arthur Herman, is a riveting account of the lives of two great warriors, one an exponent of non-violence and the other a proponent for the continuation and consolidation of the British Empire. Gandhi-ji won independence for India which precipitated the demise of the British Empire. Throughout the struggle to rid the subcontinent of the oppressive colonial yoke, the British were confident that such a multitude of different races and languages spread over so large a geographic area (over one million square miles) could never come together to from one nation for no such country existed in the past.
So what was the underlying concept upon which this idea of nationhood stood?
Mother India! And where did this notion came from? Hindustan, the land of the Hindus! A place of great and ancient civilisations inhabited by a people of profound religious tolerance who not only had deep faith and conviction in their own beliefs but were also prepared to allow a difference of views without resorting to violence to spread their own or to suppress and convert others. The Lord Buddha was invited by Hindus to preach his first sermon at Sarnath, in the Hindu holy city of Varanasi (called Benares by the colonists). The great Buddhist Emperor Ashoka forswore violence as does the Jains. There is a great deal of overlap among these three religions of India (Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism).
It should not be a source of surprise to anyone then that Gandhi-ji utilised these two concepts in formulating his strategy for winning the War of Independence. Furthermore, what gave him the credibility he needed for mobilising the masses was the fact that he was a leader who walked the talk. He was deeply religious. He studied the Shrimad Bhagwad Gita and held true to the teachings of Lord Krishna. He was also particularly fond of listening to a particular bhajan of Lord Rama. His religious faith gave him the strength and courage to make the enormous personal sacrifices for his nation and people. In fact, at the time of his death, the name of Lord Ram was on his lips. Gandhi-ji, steeped as he was in his religion, was a firm believer in the right of others to pursue their religious beliefs, an old Hindu custom practised by Hindus but not always practised on them.
In spite of this, the Hindu majority in India choose to have a secular constitution to allow minorities, religious and otherwise, to live in freedom and peace. The intent was and is noble and laudable but was the implementation effective? One is deeply troubled by the post independence events. Whilst it remains fashionable to blame the colonists and the Americans (these days), this approach cannot withstand the test of objective scrutiny. Post-independence India has seen continuous disrespect and intolerance heaped upon Hindus. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence to indicate that "secular" has a distinctly anti-Hindu side to it. A sense of dismay and downright anger swept through the Hindus of the Diaspora and of India too, when they read the case made out by the Congress Government in which it was stated that Lord Ram was a "myth."
One twittering minister, and a junior one at that, also made it. But, to use a Trini phrase, "what really took the cake" and pierced my heart was when the same assertion was made by an ambassador, purportedly spreading Gandhian values, right here in the capital city of my country. The Hindu genetic disposition towards politeness only allowed me to express (in a gentle manner of course) my view that my deepest religious convictions were being traumatised and I did not appreciate it one bit. The apology proffered sounded very casual and off-handed. I did raise the point that it is amazing how, in "secular" India, the feeling, rights and sensitivities of minorities are uppermost in the mind of the State while those of the majority are trampled upon in such a cavalier manner.
No one is seeking for minorities to be treated badly but surely in a truly secular country, all citizens are equal in the eyes of the highest law and thus equality of treatment is a necessity. One wonders how the Mahatma would have responded to the assertion that the God in whom he believed and to whom he prayed was labelled as a myth. If he was buried, he would be turning in his grave. It would appear that the values, concepts and notions that were applied to the formation of the nation of India have been cast aside. Doing that constitutes, minimally, a great betrayal to the father of the nation. Jettisoning, particularly for political expediency, the core values upon which a nation was founded invariably leads to chaos.
Common sense would indicate that alienating the majority cannot constitute a sensible policy nor does alienating the Hindu Diaspora, who are keen on improving relations with the land of their ancestors. The land that gave the world the saying "unity in diversity" must practise "equality in diversity" for without equality there can be no unity. And yes... no unity... no sustained prosperity.
Ongoing:
Gandhi-ji, steeped as he was in his religion, was a firm believer in the right of others to pursue their religious beliefs, an old Hindu custom practised by Hindus but not always practised on them. In spite of this, the Hindu majority in India choose to have a secular constitution to allow minorities, and otherwise, to live in freedom and peace. The land that gave the world the saying "unity in diversity" must practise "equality in diversity" for without equality there can be no unity.
Prakash Persad is the director of Swaha Inc