THE CONTENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
What exactly is social welfare? The well-being of society, I take it. If so, it includes almost everything that one can think of-spiritual, cultural, political, economic, social. It covers thus the entire field of human activity and relationships. And yet, this wide and all-embracing sense is seldom applied to it, and we use the words in a far more restricted sense. The social worker, often enough, considers himself or herself as working in a field which is strictly separated from political action or economic theory. He or she will try to bring relief to suffering humanity, will fight disease and slum conditions, deal with unemployment, prostitution and the like. He may also seek to bring about some changes in the law in order to remedy present-day injustice. But he will seldom go down to the root of the problem, for he accepts the general structure of society as it is, and seeks only to tone down its glaring injustices.
The lady who
visits the slums occasionally to relieve her conscience by the performance of
good and charitable deeds is a type we need not consider. The less we have of this patronising and
condescending approach to the problem the better. But there are large number of earnest men and women who devotee
themselves to the service of their fellow creatures in the somewhat narrow way
conceived above. They do good work, and
to whatever extent they may benefit others, they certainly benefit themselves
by the discipline and training that this service gives them.
Yet, it seems
to me, that all this good work is largely wasted, because it deals with the
surface of the problem only. Social
evils have a history and a background, roots in our past, and intimate
connection with the economic structure under which we live. Many of them are indeed the direct products
of that economic system, just as many others are of religious superstition and
harmful custom. Any scientific
consideration of the problem of social welfare must therefore inevitably go
down to these roots and seek out the causes.
It must have the courage to look deep down into the well of truth and to
proclaim fearlessly what it finds there.
If it avoids politics and economics, and all that goes by the name of
religion, for fear of treading on dangerous ground, then it moves on the
surface only and can neither command much respect, nor achieve results.
For nearly
two years now I have been associated with the National Planning Committee, and
the conviction has grown upon me that it is not possible to solve any major
problem separately by itself; they all hang together and they depend greatly on
the economic structure. To social
problem, in the limited sense, this applies with equal force. Recently, the planning committee considered
the report of their Sub-Committee, on the Woman’s Role in Planned Economy. This Sub-Committee, more than any other, had
to deal with social problems, and it tackled them in all earnestness and with
great ability. In doing so it was all
the time coming up against political conditions and even more so economic
aspects and religious injunctions, or just prejudices with the force of custom.
It is not
easy to say which is more difficult to deal with-economic vested interests or
religious vested interests. Both these
series of vested interests want to maintain the status quo and are
opponents of change. The path of the
real reformer is thus a difficult one.
Before we
seek any particular reform, we must be clear what our general objective is and
what kind of society we are aiming at.
It is obvious that, if we have a social structure which assures work and
security to all adults, proper education for the young, a widespread
distribution of the necessities and amenities of life, and a measure of
individual freedom for self-development, this in itself will solve our social
problems. Crime will decrease rapidly
and crime will become an extreme rarity, prostitution will be infinitely less,
and there will be far better adjustment of human relations. If this background and basis are not
provided, then the roots of evil remain.
The problem
therefore has to be attacked on all fronts and possibly the greatest difficulty
will be along the so-called religious front.
Religion as such need not be touched, but there are so many rules and
regulations which are presumed to have religious sanctions that any attempt to
vary them likely to meet with the solid and passionate opposition of the
votaries of organised religion. Inheritance,
marriage, divorce are all supposed to be parts of the personal law of various
communities, and this personal law is supposed to be part of religion. It is obvious that no change can be imposed
from top. It will thus become the duty
of the government of the day to try to educate public opinion so as to make it
accept the changes proposed. It should
be clearly laid down, in order to avoid suspicion, that any change of this type
will only apply to a community when that community itself will accept it. This will give rise to difficulties and to
lack of uniformity, but any other course will lead to greater difficulty and
ill-will, and laws passed may become dead letters so far as their application
is concerned.
It seems to
me that a uniform Civil Code for the whole of India is essential. Yet I realise that this cannot be imposed on
unwilling people. It should, therefore,
be made optional to begin with, and individuals and group may voluntarily
accept it and come within its scope.
The State should meanwhile carry on propaganda in its favour.
One urgent
need is the extension of Civil Marriage Act to cover marriages between any two
persons, to whatever religion they may belong, without any renunciation of
religion as at present. This will of
necessity be optional.
Another
desirable step is to have records kept of all marriages. This will be useful in many ways and it will
gradually make people think in terms of civil marriages. The sacramental forms of marriage should
certainly continue for all who want them, but it will be desirable later to
have a civil registration also which the State will recognise.
Divorce laws, especially for
the Hindus, are a crying need, and so indeed are so many other changes. We want changes which apply to both men and
women, we want changes also especially applicable to women who have suffered
for ages past under a double burden.
Let us accept the democratic principle of equal rights and equal
obligations as between man and man and woman, and frame our laws and social structure
accordingly.
Triveni, Oct-Nov -1940