Rajiv Gandhi assumed the onerous responsibility of Indian premiership at a time when certain issues left unresolved by his predecessor had already defied peaceful solution and certain other issues were at the verge of explosion. What are these issues and how far has India’s young and inexperienced Prime Minister succeeded in resolving them by peaceful means?

CONTRADICTIONS

Most of India’s problems arise out of contradictions inherent in a vast plural society of many religions cultures languages and races Leaders of India’s movement for national freedom claimed that all people living in the subcontinent were sons of mother India and belonged to one nation. This claim although successfully challenged by the Muslims who carved out a homeland for they was accepted by the other religious ethnic and linguistic communities order to untidily struggle for independence. Although leaders of the Indian National Congress were conscious of India’s pluralism they were of the view that secularism federalism and democratic socialism would cement all kinds of differences and eventually weld India into a sold nation. However the gulf between ideals and reality has widened rather than narrowed during the 39 years of independence.

Mahatma Gandhi the undisputed leader of India’s freedom movement himself bad sown the seed of eroding secularism by introducing religion in politics After independence even atheist Nehru could not check performance of Hindu religion rituals at official inaugurations and other ceremonies. Such practices increased at central and state levels during the rule of Mr. Lal Bahadur Shastri and Mrs. Indira Gandhi and nobody dared raise the objection why Hindu religious rites were officially practiced in a secular polity. Either the Congress leaders were hypocrite secularists or the political exigency of catching votes of the Hindu majority forced them to outbid the Hindu communal parties. Whatever is the reason the accumulated effect of that Hindu chauvinism has eclipsed secularism and The Muslims who constitute Indus largest minority (12%) have been the main victims of Hindu chauvinism since independence. However the Sikhs although only 2 percent have offered a violent Response to Hindu revivalism and domination.

Caste system is yet another formidable obstacle not only to India’s progress on secular lines but also to the achievement of social equality. The laws of Manu which have religious sanctity since time immemorial roughly divide the Hindu society into four castes: the Brahmins (priestly class) the Kshatriyas (the temporal rulers owners and defenders of land) the Vaishyas (commercial classes) and Shudras (the untouchables engaged in menial jobs) Although religious and social reformers right from Mahavir (founder of Jainism) and Gautam Buddha (founder of Buddhism) to Raja Ram Mohan Roy tried to abolish the social inequality of caste system their efforts failed to produce the desired results The truth of the matter has been that caste system thrives on the feudal socioeconomic substructure. The teachings of Bhagats Mahatmas Sufis and other reformers did create the feeling that all are equal in the eyes of God but failed to bring about social equality in the world of reality mainly because of feudal system. Even the Muslim and British rulers did not make any dent on the Hindu caste system. They too upheld and fostered the feudal socioeconomic system. The Muslims despite their claims to Islamic fraternity and equality created their own caste system. What after all do the surnames like Sayed Sheikh Khan Raja Malik Bhatti Janjua Rathore etc. signify? In rural Pakistan too marriage is rarely contracted outside ones caste or bradari.

UPPER CASTES

The upper class castes in India have traditionally owned land and controlled agricultural production (and eventually much nonagricultural production in urban India) and extracted surplus value out of the labor of inferior serving castes and tribes Leaders of the upper castes collaborated with foreign rulers on the tacit understanding that such reforms that touched their socioeconomic interests would not be introduced. Caste in India is as much an intractable reality as class based ownership of the means of production. Caste confers hegemony over subordinate castes while class confers hegemony over economically subordinate classes. When their interest coalesces at certain levels in rural India caste and class fuse together and become formidable. Historically caste and class have reinforced each other to aggravate cumulative social and economic in equalities.

The Indian constitution passed in 1950 under the stewardship of India’s first Prime Minister Jawahhar Lal Nehru and his Law Minister Amhedkar who belonged to the low caste of Shudra not only laid down fundamental human rights (including equality of treatment opportunity sex etc.) but also provided for special advancement of socially and educationally backward classes. That the fundamental rights have not been enforced in rural India is a fact which cannot be denied.

The constitutional law on rights by itself could not change the reality of caste and class inequality. And whenever efforts were made to give land or to increase quota in services and educational institutions for backward castes the upper castes opposed. Such steps by all means at their command. The latest example is the upper caste students agitation in the state of Gujarat in 1985 against increasing quota in services and educational institutions for the inferior castes.

HARD REALITY

Whatever be the ideals couched in the Indian constitution the hard reality is that the upper caste Hindus of the Hindi belt have been dominating the Indian economy and politics. In response to these domination movements for greater autonomy started in southern India and in states on India’s western and Easter periphery. Simultaneously religious minorities and inferior castes also began agitations for their rights. The democratic process (that has undoubtedly taken roots in India thanks to Periodic elections) did facilitate readjustment of conflicting regional ethnic linguistic and religious interests but not before the issues were forced through street power agitations even armed struggles. The ruling party at the Centre suppressed agitations or entered into compromises in accordance with its political and/or electoral exigencies.

Mrs. Indira Gandhi one year before elections to Lok Sabha were due adopted a tough attitude towards regional parties in the Punjab Assam and Mizoram mainly because she wanted to win votes of the Hindu majority which it was feared might vote for the Hindu communalist parties in the ex-general elections. The military occupation of the Sikhs holiest shrine at Amritsar not only cost Mrs. Gandhi her life but virtually resulted in a civil war between the Sikhs and the Hindus.

After Mrs. Gandhi’s assassination at the hands of Sikhs Rajiv Gandhi led Congress to a landslide victory in the general elections rather it would be more correct to say that Congress (I) rode to victory on a sympathy wave.

Rajiv Gandhi reversed his mother’s policies in that he tried to Conciliate with the dissident Sikhs the Assamese and the Mizos. He entered into accords with their accords have encouraged regional movements. The recent addition is the Gurkhas agitation for Gurkhaland.

In the Punjab the accord has not worked The Centre’s failure to transfer the capital of Chandigarh to the Punjab mainly because of counter pressure by the adjoining Haryana state has brought back the Sikh freedom fighters to ascendency. The upshot is that the Sikhs and the Hindus are against at each other’s throats. Rajiv Gandhi has been caught between the devil and the deep sea If he goes ahead and fully implements the Rajiv Longowal accord not only will he face revolt in the Hindi belt but ugly Hindu chauvinistic forces will be unleashed If he does not implement the accord the Sikh freedom fighters will be further strengthened.

Mr. Rajiv. Gandhi’s efforts to solve problems through accords with regional parties appear to have created more problems The Punjab accord as mentioned earlier has given rise to Sikh Hindu riots and strained relations between Haryana and Punjab the Assam accord has created bad blood between the Assamese and non Assamese (mainly the migrant Bengalis) and the Mizo accord has widened rift between moderates and fighters for independence of Mizoram.

BALKANISATION

The specters of Balkanization is already haunting India as the Congress which has been a unifying force since independence is fast losing ground particularly in the non-Hindu speaking states. In Punjab and Kashmir the regional parties have taken roots In West Bengal the CPI (M) skillfully projected itself as the champion of Bengali aspirations. In Tamil Nadu at any time the main force is either the AIADMK or DMK both being regional parties. In Karnataka the Janata Party under Hedge has taken the wind out of the sails of the Congress. In Andhra Pradesh Teleu Desam has emerged as the most potent factor that leaves out only one non-Hindi state Orissa which still has a Congress government In the Hindi belt itself the Congress is facing the challenge of strong Hindu communalist parties.

It is apprehended that in the next general elections Congress (I) may either lose or win with a marginal majority at the Centre as it did in 1967. The question however is not what polices the ruling party should adopt to continue in power. Now it seems the time has come when basic and revolutionary socioeconomic changes will have to be brought about to save India’s democratic system as well as to avoid its Balkanization.

Article extracted from this publication >> September 26, 1986