NATIONAL INTEGRATION

P. KODANDA RAO

National consciousness is of recent origin in India. It took organised form with the founding of the Indian National Congress in 1885, when eminent individuals, hailing from different regions of India and professing different religions but all educated in the English language, English literature and EngLish history, and inspired by an Englishman, Alan Octavian Hume, come together, conscious of their common Indian nationalism. Though they were a small minority in the vast Indian population, they constituted the brain of the community. In 1905 Gopal Krishna Gokhale was able to record with satisfaction that the growth of the feeling of common, nationality, based on common traditions and ties, common hopes and aspirations, and on common disabilities, was striking. “The fact that we are Indians first, and Hindus and Muhammadans, Parsees or Christians, afterwards, is being realised in a steadily increasing measure, and the idea of a united India, marching onwards to a place among the nations of the world, worthy of her great past, is no longer a mere idle dream of a few imaginative minds, but is the definitely accepted creed of those who form the brain of the community–the educated classes of the country.” By ‘educated’ he meant educated in the English language, literature and history. Today, over fifty years after Gokhale expressed his satisfaction, and about fifteen years after India attained Independence, Indian nationalism is very much in retreat. The feeling that we are “Indians first” has given place to the feeling that we are “Indians last”! With rare and noble exceptions, the citizens of India have become intensely and lamentably conscious of divisive sentiments based on region, race, religion and language, caste and out-caste. Instead of nationalism blossoming into internationalism it has shrivelled into tribalism, marred further by too frequent acts of violence–the very negation of non-violence preached as first principle and policy for over a quarter of a century by its great and unique apostle, Mahatma Gandhi.

The first serious blow to Indian nationalism was struck in 1905 when Lord Curzon, the British Viceroy of India, vivisected Bengal, professedly on administrative grounds, but really on a communal basis, and carved out the Muslim Province of East Bengal, and drove a wedge between Hindus and Muslims in the interest of British imperialism. While Indian nationalism strove to undo the mischief by the anti-Partition agitation, Lord Minto, who succeeded Lord Curzon, dealt a more deadly blow to it by conceding separate electorates and excessive representation to Muslims as Muslims. Indian nationalism made a great effort to restore Hindu-Muslim unity for constitutional advance at the Lucknow session of the Indian National Congress in 1916, but had to concede separate electorates which Minto gave the Muslims, and hoped it would be temporary. But the hope was not realised. On the other hand, the Lucknow compromise stood in the way of eliminating communalism in the Montagu Constitution of 1919. Finally, it led to the Partition of India in 1947 and the creation of the Islamic State of Pakistan.

The Indian Constitution of 1935, enacted by the British, distinguished the Depressed Classes from the rest of the Hindu community and gave them separate representation. Mahatma Gandhi protested against it on the ground that, while Muslims might be proud of Islam and its survival, the Depressed Classes might not be proud of their untouchability and its survival. But, ultimately, even he admitted separate representation of the Depressed Classes, though somewhat indirectly. After attaining Independence, India made a heroic attempt to build up nationalism by abolishing separate electorates and outlawing untouchability. But, unfortunately, the Indian Constitution recognized the separate identity, for certain privileges, of the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, the Backward Classes and the Anglo-Indians, but limited it to ten years. The exceptional status has since been extended to another ten years and threatens to be permanent.

What are the problems peculiar to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes to which reservations in schools, services and legislatures are the appropriate solution? Caste and tribe, like race and sex, are biological inheritances, fixed at the birth of the individual and immutable during his lifetime, whereas political, educational and other attainments are cultural factors, acquired after the birth of the individual and mutable during his lifetime. No citizen can change his caste, even as he cannot change his race or sex. Since the days of British rule, and more so since Indian Independence, the Scheduled Castes and Tribes suffered from no disabilities which the Constitution imposed and which it can remedy. Their disabilities were, and still are, social in the limited sense of eating and marrying. Members of a caste or sub-caste generally eat with and marry members of their own caste or sub-caste, and not across. In this respect the Scheduled Castes and Tribes are not a homogeneous caste; they are divided and sub-divided to numerous sub-castes. The Census of India (Paper 2 of 1960) enumerated 405 Scheduled Castes and 255 Scheduled Tribes! The immiscibility in dining and marriage is not, however, special to them, but prevails in the other and very numerous castes in Hindu society.

In addition to horizontal and impassable social stratification, the caste system constitutes a vertical hierarchy of “superior” and “inferior” castes and “out-castes”, involving humiliations and indignities in social relations. These, however, are extra-constitutional and cannot be remedied by reservations in educational institutions, Government services and legislatures, but only by social remedies like inter-caste marriages. The law has removed barriers to such marriages; but cannot compel them. Government can, however, encourage voluntary action by offering prizes and subsidies in the interest of national integration.

The plan for reservations for Scheduled Castes, etc., is often urged on the presumption that these castes are unable to compete with the “higher” castes in open competition. If the disability of biological origin, reservations in schools, services and legislatures, cannot cure it, but will only result in government by the less fit. It can be modified only in succeeding generations by cross-breeding, as in the case of plants and animals. But there is no justification for the presumption. Intelligence, character and competence vary with individuals and not castes or races or sexes.

The Government of India amended the Electoral Law of India to penalise appeals to caste sympathies and ‘antipathies for winning elections. They also proposed to withdraw exemption from income-tax donations to communal charities. While these are very wise steps, Government may not overlook the fact that casteism is rampant in administration allover India and is the avowed policy in several States. In the interest of national integration, casteism should be penalised in all public affairs. Government grants should be denied to caste and communal institutions.

The Constitution also recognised “Backward Classes “ for special treatment. It did not define the term. The President’s Commission, appointed under Art. 340 of the Constitution, failed to arrive at an acceptable definition, and fell back on caste and enumerated over 1700 of them! The Government of India rejected its Report and favoured the economic criterion. Caste has no correlation with educational attainments and economic status. Individuals, in every caste, vary considerably in these respects, and at different times. Everybody, irrespective of caste, is born illiterate. Some of them achieve high educational attainments in later life. Some are born of comparatively poor parents but may later amass considerable wealth. It is a universal phenomenon, not confined to India. The best solution in the interest of national integration is to universalise free and compulsory primary education and offer scholarships to the poor students for further education, irrespective of caste or race or sex.

Linguism received legal recognition since, Independence, and Indian politicians have been solely responsible for its tremendous mischief. It took three forms: the re-drawing of the provincial boundaries, to create uni-lingual units, the elimination of the English language as the medium of higher education and administration, and the adoption of Hindi in its place. The attempt to reorganise the multi-lingual Provinces in India into uni-lingual Provinces has failed utterly, since no reorganised unit is uni-lingual, but continues to be multi-lingual. The only result has been that the language of the new majority in each Province has been encouraged to impose its linguistic imperialism over the languages of the minorities, resulting in bitterness and even violence. The argument in favour of uni-lingual Provinces was that there should be a common language between the Government and the people for the efficient operation of parliamentary democracy which India had adopted. If the argument be valid, there should be a common language between the Government of India and all the peoples of India. In which case, the whole of India will be uni-lingual, and the case for uni-lingual Provinces would disappear. It is, therefore, desirable that the so-called linguistic States should be abolished in favour of a Unitary Government for the whole of India.

The attempt to displace English by Hindi as the medium of higher education and administration is fatal to Indian nationalism, not only because of the merits of English but also because of the demerits of Hindi. It is a matter for some satisfaction that the Government of India, led by Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, has categorically affirmed that English would continue indefinitely, and would not be displaced by Hindi unless non-Hindi people requested it. But the proposed legislation does not implement the assurance. On the other hand, the action of the Government of India in forcing Hindi on the Defence and the civil services has created deep suspicion regarding its bona fides.

The retention of English will facilitate free movement of Indian citizens from one region to another for higher education and all-India services, which will also contribute to national integration. As many higher services as possible, including the executive, the Judicial and the technical, should be on an all-India cadre, and officers should be transferred periodically from one State to another and shuttle between the States and the Centre. Certain officers like the Chief Justice, the Chief Secretary and the Inspector-General of Police in a State should normally be from another State in the interest of national integration.

National solidarity is undermined by the formation of political parties and groups within parties. Curiously enough, it has been accepted as an axiom that political parties are essential for democracy, though there are innumerable organisations like municipalities, universities, scientific and cultural associations and business concerns, which are democratic without the party system and where the party system is considered a weakness and a curse! If freedom of speech and vote are essential for democracy, the party system denies them in the duly constituted legislatures, whose decisions bind not only the party but also the nation. If a member is in a minority in his party, he is not free to speak and vote according to his conscience in the legislature but has to toe the majority-line. Party system, is thus not only undemocratic but also anti-democratic. It is majority tyranny within the party and between the parties. The Opposition is tempted to wage an unrelenting cold war against the Government Party with a view to discrediting it, dethroning it and taking its place. The nation asks, “all for the nation and none for a party”; the party system responds, “each for his party and none for the nation”. Only Independents, not tied by party mandates, can be democratic and national.

It is noteworthy that no Constitution, however democratic, has recognised the party system, which it would have done if it were essential to democracy. No instrument of the Constitution, like the Election Commission, should therefore recognise political parties, give them symbols at elections, much less prescribe arbitrary criteria for such recognition, such as the voting strength at the last election. Political parties are extra-constitutional organisations, which are sometimes formed after the last general election.

The struggle of individuals and parties is largely for political power and for the patronage and perquisites it carries, and only incidentally for service to the nation. It is, therefore, desirable to minimise, if not eliminate, party and personal politics. The Parliamentary system should be replaced by the Presidential system, or a variant of it. The executive Government should be elected by the legislature by proportional representation and hold office during the normal term of the legislature. It should be “responsive”, but not “responsible”, to the legislature. The Swiss Constitution seems best for India. It was recommended by the late Rt Hon. V. S. Srinivasa Sastri. Prof. V. A. Dicey described it as government by a “Board of Directors appointed to manage the concern of the Federation in accordance with the wishes of the Federal Assembly”. Prof. R. C. Ghose of the Calcutta University said that the Swiss Government was remarkably free from bitter party rivalry or monopoly of power, and gave no opportunity for professionalism and demagogy in politics, and that the administration was highly businesslike and efficient.

It is obvious that, though India inherited some divisive factors from the days of the British, she added some more since Independence, owing to the weaknesses of her leaders. Among the weaknesses is the toleration of corruption, particularly financial, among politicians. While it is some consolation that, according to the American expert, Dr Appelby, India is not the worst in this respect, it is generally and regretably admitted that corruption in absolute terms has increased to huge proportions. Government of India promulgated rules to check corruption in officials by obligating them to send annual returns of their immovable properties and to seek permission for acquisition of properties worth Rs. 1,000 and more and for the employment of their near relations in firms, etc. Such rules should be applied first and foremost to legislators and politicians generally.

In the case of financial corruption, it is not easy to prove it to the satisfaction of the courts and then punish those found guilty. Even if a person be acquitted, the humiliation of having been accused in the first instance cannot be entirely wiped out; it will be said that the charge was not proved but not that it was not true. Prevention is better than punishment. It is, therefore, highly desirable that all those in authority, particularly ministers and legislators, should be obliged to submit their annual statements of assets for publication. If a person failed to disclose a debt due to him, he should not be able to recover it by legal action. Publication is the best single deterrent to financial corruption. Publication of tax assessments is in vogue in Sweden and France, and was proposed in America; it was supported by Mr C. Rajagopalachari, Mr A. D. Shroff and by the Indian Direct Taxes Inquiry Committee, presided over by Mr Mahabir Tyagi. Such publication should begin with the ministers and legislators. If they are deterred from corruption, they are likely to deter it in the officials, and all along the line. Personal integrity is essential for national integration.

Back