BY 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 roots 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 codescending approach to the problem the better. But there are large numbers of earnest men and women who devote 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 connections 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 problems, in the limited sense, this applies with equal force. Recently, the Planning Committee considered the report of their Sub-Committee, on Woman’s Role in Planned Economy. This Sub-Commitee, more than any other, had to deal with social problems, and it tackled them in an 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.

It is indeed not easy to say which is more difficult to deal with–economic vested interests or religious vested interests.

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 many of our social problems. Crime will decrease rapidly and the criminal type will become an extreme rarity, prostitution will be infinitely less, and there will be far better adjustments 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 an 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 is 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 the 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 accepts it. This will give rise to difficulties and to a 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 groups 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 the 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 man and woman, and frame our laws and social structure accordingly.

BACK