Time To Resolve Problems Of ThePast; Time To Move On Towards A BetterFuture
As we bid goodbye to 2000 and usher in 2001, I send myhearty New Year greetings to all my fellow countrymen, as also to the largeDiaspora of Indians abroad.
The beginning of a New Year is always a time to look back andto look ahead. A year is but a speck in the life of an ancient nation likeIndia, which is ever youthful in spite of her great antiquity. However, unlikeour nation, all of us have a limited life. Each new generation, therefore, hasto give a worthy account of itself in its own lifetime, aware that itscontribution to India’s progress will be judged essentially on two counts:One, how many ‘legacy problems’ inherited from the past has it resolved?Two, how strong a foundation has it laid for the future development of thenation?
My mind probes these questions as my eyes feast on theverdant environs of Kumarakom resort on the banks of the sea-sized Vembanad Lakein Kerala. I have come here for my year-end holidays, far away from the nationalcapital. Nature’s silent beauty provides a perfect setting here forcontemplation. And I wish to share some of my thoughts with my countrymen withthis article.
Our country is facing many problems that are a legacy of ourhistory. I wish to share my views on two of them. One is the long-standingproblem with Pakistan over Jammu & Kashmir and the other is the RamJanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute at Ayodhya.
A self-confident and resilient nation does not postpone theinconvenient issues of yesterday to a distant tomorrow. Rather, it strives todecisively overcome the problems of the past so that it can pursue itsdevelopmental agenda for the future with single-minded determination. I haveheard many of my countrymen tell me that, now that we have entered a new centuryand a new millennium, it is time we found lasting solutions to these twoproblems, one of which is a legacy of the last century and the other a legacy ofthe last millennium. I agree with them.
The Kashmir problem is an unfortunate inheritance from thetragic partition of India in 1947. India never accepted the perniciousTwo-Nation theory that brought about the partition. However, the mindset thatcreated Pakistan continues to operate in that country. This is why it iscontinuing with its untenable policy on Kashmir, disregarding the considerationsof both good-neighbourly relations with India and the well being of the peopleof Jammu & Kashmir.
India is willing and ready to seek a lasting solution to theKashmir problem. Towards this end, we are prepared to re-commence talks withPakistan at any level, including the highest level, provided Islamabad givessufficient proof of its preparedness to create a conducive atmosphere for ameaningful dialogue. I am sad to note, however, that the Government of Pakistanis not doing enough to reign in terrorist organisations based on its soil thatare continuing their killing spree, targeting both innocent civilians and oursecurity personnel in Kashmir and other parts of India.
The Government is taking well-conceived steps to normalisethe situation in Jammu & Kashmir. The unilateral cessation of combatoperations against militants in the State, which was observed during the holymonth of Ramazan, has been extended till January 26. My heart shares the agonyof the grieving mothers, sisters and widows who have lost their near and dearones in the violence that has bloodied the beautiful Kashmir Valley. I also feelthe pain and anguish of those Kashmiris who have become refugees in their ownmotherland. The New Year is the time to heal their wounds. The Government willsoon initiate talks with various representative groups in the State. We areprepared to take further steps to respond to Jammu & Kashmir’s deeplonging for peace, normalcy and accelerated development.
In our search for a lasting solution to the Kashmir problem,both in its external and internal dimensions, we shall not traverse solely onthe beaten track of the past. Rather, we shall be bold and innovative designersof a future architecture of peace and prosperity for the entire South Asianregion. In this search, the sole light that will guide us is our commitment topeace, justice and the vital interests of the nation.
The Ayodhya issue is another problem from the past that weshould not allow to remain unresolved too far into the future. It is a challengeto the collective wisdom of our society that we find a peaceful and amicablesolution to this problem, sooner rather than later. I had consciously notcommented on this issue for the past three years. However, I am sad to notethat, when I was constrained to speak on the subject after the Oppositionstalled the proceedings of Parliament for three days in a row, my comments weretwisted and turned for no other reason but to gain political advantage.
Overnight I was transformed by a section of the media and thepolitical class from a "moderate" to a "hard-liner". "VajpayeeUnmasked," they said, conveniently masking the fact that my long stint inpublic life is an open book. Worse still, a campaign was launched to createmisgivings about me in the minds of our minority brethren.
I had hoped – and I am sure that most of our countrymen toohad hoped -- that my comprehensive replies to the debate, first in the Lok Sabhaand then in the Rajya Sabha, would put an end to the controversy. Alas, that hasnot been the case. I must confess that I am pained by some of the comments,observations and speculations in the aftermath of the recent developments inParliament. My political adversaries are entitled to disagree with me, but theywill not be able to see any inconsistency in my views on the Ayodhya issue, allof which are well recorded.
I have always held that there are only two ways to resolvethis contentious issue: the judicial route or the route of negotiations leadingto a mutually acceptable solution. I have stated that the Government willaccept, and is Constitutionally bound to implement, the judiciary’s verdict, whateverit might be. But this does not foreclose the need for negotiations in anon-governmental and non-political framework. The judicial route and the optionof talks do not exclude, but are rather complementary to, one another.
Irrespective of what the judicial verdict might be, itssmooth implementation would require a conducive social atmosphere. Resumption oftalks between representatives of the two communities, conducted in an atmosphereof trust, goodwill and flexibility, has the potential to create such anatmosphere. The ongoing controversy over implementing the Supreme Court’sverdict in the case of relocation of polluting industries out of Delhi hasstrikingly highlighted the need for a supportive social environment involvingall the parties to a dispute.
Few can deny that Ram occupies an exalted place in India’sculture. He is one of the most respected symbols of our national ethos. Respectfor him transcends sectarian barriers. Many Indians revere him as an avataar ofGod and some regard him as Maryada Purushottam. Non-Hindus, too, see in him anideal king and an embodiment of great human qualities. Had it not been so, PoetAllama Iqbal would not have penned the following eulogy to Ram.
The cup of India has always overflowed
With the heady wine of truth.
Even the philosophers from the West
Are her ardent devotees.
There is something so sublime in her mysticism
That her star soars high above constellations.
There have been thousands of rulers in this land
But none can compare with Rama;
The discerning ones proclaim him
The spiritual leader of India.
His lamp gave the light of wisdom
Which outshone the radiance
Of the whole of humankind.
Rama was valiant, Rama was bold,
Rama yielded deftly his word,
He cared for the poorest of poor,
He was unmatched in love and compassion.
No wonder, then, that the movement for construction of a RamTemple at Ayodhya struck a supportive chord in more than one political party.Had it not been so, the government of late Rajiv Gandhi would not have taken thekind of specific steps it did to facilitate the construction of a Ram Temple atAyodhya. Rajivji even inaugurated the Congress party’s 1989 election campaignfrom the vicinity of Ayodhya with a promise to usher in Ram Rajya, which wasalso Mahatma Gandhi’s dream. There was nothing communal about either Gandhiji’svision or Rajiv Gandhi’s initiatives at Ayodhya.
This shows that there was no dispute over a Ram Temple atAyodhya being an expression of the national sentiment, in the same way thatreconstruction of a temple at Somnath too was recognised by the then Governmentas an expression of the national sentiment. (The Government of Pandit JawaharlalNehru had set up a committee for the reconstruction of Somnath Temple under thechairmanship of K.M. Munshi. Babu Rajendra Prasad, the then President, himselfparticipated in the temple’s inaugural function, calling Somnath a"symbol" of India’s national culture.)
The only dispute at Ayodhya was over where and how. On thiscontentious matter, too, my views have been clear and consistent. I never statedthat the temple should be built at the disputed site without either a judicialverdict or an amicable agreement between the two communities. This is how itshould be in a law-governed country. I wish to make it absolutely clear that thelaw will take its course, should any organisation attempt to disturb the statusquo. The Government will not remain a silent spectator and adopt delayingtactics, as unfortunately happened eight years ago.
In my reply to the debate in the Lok Sabha, I had statedthat, in addition to Ram, many other personalities and places symbolise ournational culture. Be it the Dargah of Ajmer Sharif or the shrine of NizamuddinAulia in Delhi, the Golden Temple at Amritsar or the Church of St.Francis atGoa – these are all proud symbols our syncretic national culture.
My statement that the movement for construction of a RamTemple in Ayodhya was an expression of the national sentiment has beenmisrepresented in many ways. What is overlooked is the past tense that I hadconsciously used in my statement. In my reply to the debate in the Rajya Sabha,I had clearly stated that although the movement for the construction of a RamTemple at Ayodhya was an expression of our national sentiment, thissentiment became narrow, and its inclusive character became restrictive, becauseof the unfortunate demolition of the disputed mosque structure on December 6,1992. A flagrant violation of the law, it certainly was. But it was also attotally variance with the Hindu ethos. The wrongs of a medieval past cannot berighted by a similar wrong in modern times.
The status quo at Kashi, Mathura and other disputed places ofworship must remain undisturbed. Far from indicating the Hindu society’sweakness, this will show the strength our national ethos of tolerance andreligious harmony.
Deeply saddening though that December Sunday was, we cannotforever remain shackled to the debate on demolitions, either of the distant orthe recent past. India must move on. The best of India resides not in the past.Rather, it belongs to the future that we all must collectively build. Gloriousthough our past was, a more glorious destiny beckons India. However, itsrealisation calls for a radical shift from contention to conciliation, fromdiscord to concord, and from confrontation to consensus and cooperative action.
How do we make this transition? I would like to share somemore of my thoughts with my countrymen in another article tomorrow.
Call Of The New Year: Clear Vision, Concerted Action
In my article yesterday, I had expressed some thoughts on theKashmir question and the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, the two problemsthat we have inherited from the past. Today I wish to share my vision of how wecan leave a better legacy for our future generations.
I am one of those fortunate people in public life who havenot only observed, but also participated in, the evolution of independent Indiafrom 1947 till now. As a student I had taken part in the Freedom Movement. As ayoung man of 22, I had seen our first Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru,unfurl the Tricolour at Red Fort at that immortal midnight hour on August 15.Little did I know that just after a decade I would be sitting with him inParliament discussing and debating affairs of the nation. It is a tribute to thepower of India’s democracy that an ordinary man like me, son of a villageteacher, has since been called upon to serve the nation as its Prime Minister.The days of dynasties are over in India’s vibrant democracy.
When I look back at Free India’s journey through the pastfive decades, I am filled with pride and disappointment in equal measure. Pridebecause we have been successful in preserving two ideals that are most preciousto all of us: one, the unity of India; and two, our democratic system. This isnot a mean achievement given the track record of many newly independentcountries, including some in our own neighbourhood. Few countries in the worldfacing the kind of challenges of development and governance that India does,have so steadfastly continued on the democratic path. Similarly, fewmulti-religious, multi-lingual and multi-ethnic societies in the world havepresented such an exemplary demonstration of unity in diversity as India hasdone.
On the developmental front, too, we have many proudachievements to our credit. All the governments of the past, belonging todifferent parties and coalitions, have contributed in their own way to India’sself-reliant progress on several fronts. Many developing countries look up toIndia as an example for building indigenous policies and programmes forsocio-economic development. We should never belittle India’s achievements, assome people do. Such belittlement only serves to spread cynicism, apathy andinaction, qualities we must shun.
Nevertheless, I am as distressed as all my countrymen are atthe wide gulf between India’s indisputable potential and her actualperformance. Nothing agonises me more as the Prime Minister than the realisationthat millions of my countrymen, even after five decades of independence, stilldo not have enough to eat and proper roofs to sleep under. Many have to suffereven for the lack of drinking water and basic medical care. If children aredeprived of good food, good education and good upbringing, the loss is not onlytheirs and their families’; the nation too deprives itself of precious humanresources for its all-round development.
We must change this reality, and we can. India does not lackthe requisite natural resources to remove these basic developmentalinadequacies. We also have a vast reservoir of talented and hard-working men andwomen. Many of those who have gone abroad to work have scripted amazing successstories, earning high reputation for themselves and their motherland in theirhost countries. I often ask myself the question: If Indians can overcome all theodds and succeed spectacularly outside India, why can’t we do so in Indiaitself?
Yes, we can create prosperity for all. We can fully removepoverty, unemployment and all other traces of underdevelopment from India. Whatis needed is an inspiring national vision, a strong sense of purpose shared byall the citizens and communities of our diverse country, and a single-mindeddetermination supported by concerted action to achieve what are identified ascommon national goals.
A nation attains greatness when it develops a strong nationalmind. All of us know that the power of the mind is immense. It is true about theindividual mind, and also true about the national mind. When India was unfree,attainment of freedom was our single-minded national objective. Sadly, afterindependence, we failed to mobilise our national energies for a similarsingle-minded pursuit of the goals of nation-building.
Our first task is to strengthen the awareness that we are onepeople -- sisters and brothers who are children of the Great Mother India. Oursis a vast and varied country. Sometimes, however, we get so involved in our ownnarrow concerns and so obsessed with our own specific identities, that we tendto ignore the chief source of our national pride and strength – namely, India’sdiversity and her essential unity. Some of our citizens focus too much on one orthe other aspect of our diversity, ignoring the common national bonds that uniteus. Others ignore our diversity and, instead, tend to overemphasise only certainaspects of our national unity. In my view, both approaches are flawed.
Diversity does not permit divisiveness or exclusiveness.Similarly, unity cannot be achieved through uniformity.
In this context, I must confess that the growing trend ofintolerance which I see in our society today worries me deeply. This trend mustbe checked.
India belongs equally to all her citizens and communities,not more to some and less to others. At the same time, all citizens andcommunities have an equal duty to strengthen our national unity and integrity,and to contribute to the nation’s progress. In recent times, there has been atendency to focus more on one’s rights, and less on one’s duties. This mustchange.
Throughout her long history, India’s unity is nurtured byan ethos of secularism that teaches all her people not only to tolerate eachother’s customs, traditions and beliefs, but also to respect them. Mutualtolerance and understanding leads to goodwill and cooperation, which in turnstrengthens the silken bond of our national unity. Secularism is not an alienconcept that we imported out of compulsion after Independence. Rather, it is anintegral and natural feature of our national culture and ethos.
