LET THERE BE LIGHT: A NAMING PROBLEM

`What is in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.

`Every truth, however true in itself, yet taken apart from others which at once limit and complete it, becomes a snare to bind the intellect and a misleading dogma; for in reality each is one thread of a complex weft and no thread must be taken apart from the weft.’
(Sri Aurobindo quoted from `The Discovery of India’)


Since Independence we became used to a new idea in our political vocabulary: `secularism’. In view of all the violence of Partition, the Indian Constitution prescribed secularism as the guiding principle of administration. It was pre-eminently Nehru’s concept. `Secularism to Nehru did not mean that religion had to be outlawed; but unlike Gandhi, he did insist that religion and politics be separated. Gandhi had attempted to free religion from formal institutions and priestly hierarchies, rejecting caste prejudice and bigotry. But religion thus purified remained at the centre of his political creed; and secularism for him had meant equal respect for all religions. Nehru, on the other hand, was an avowed agnostic, who believed that religious ritual of any sort had no place in public life.’ (Mark Tully & Zareer Masani, in `Raj to Rajiv’). In the same book further elucidatory remarks on secularism by Ravindra Kumar have been quoted:`Nehru’s attempt was not only to delink religion from the formal and vested institutions of religion, but also push religion to private domain of operation. Religion was a very valid value for the individual in his personal life, but it should not play or operate upon the political arena. This was a further refime-ment of the concept of secularism as defined by Gandhi, which Nehru tried to project on to our political scene. Very frankly, I don’t think he was successful in this endeavour, for the simple reason that the popular mind in India has really no notion of the distinction between the public and private domain that one is talking of.’
Dr. Radhakrishnan wrote a book `Our Heritage’ in 1973 where he discussed about traditional attitude of the Indians and said: `……We have here a large mass of humanity, held together not by coercion, not by dictatorship, but by democratic outlook, an outlook with safeguards for the integrity of the individual. It does not wish to enfeeble or impoverish any human being.’ He has further elucidated: `All the living faiths of the world are there. We have Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, etc. They are all living, generally speaking, in amity and harmony. The tradition of the country is responsible for that. The Jews came to us when the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in the first century A.D. The Christians came to us in the early centuries of the Christian Era. The Zoroastrians came to us when Islam occupied Iran. And the Muslims came to us in the 7th and 8th centuries A.D., and they have been here all these years ….The country has had a tradition in religion that is not a matter of doctrine or dogma or rites; it is a matter of man’s encounter with the Ultimate Mystery of the world….’
On the same line but on a much higher plane, the great freedom fighter and a seer, spoke on the day of our Independence at length about his dreams about India’s future: `The first of the dreams was a revolutionary movement which would create a free and united India. India today is free but she has not achieved unity. At one moment it almost seemed as if in the very act of liberation she would fall back into chaos of separate States which preceded the British conquest. But fortunately it now seems probable that this danger will be averted and a large and powerful though not yet a complete union will be established. Also, the wisely drastic policy of the Constituent Assembly has made it possible that the problem of the depressed classes will be solved without schism or fissure. But the old communal division into Hindus and Muslims seems now to have hardened into a permanent political division of the country. It is to be hoped that this settled fact will not be accepted as settled for ever or anything more than a temporary expedient. For if it lasts, India may be seriously weakened, even crippled: civil strife may remain always possible, possible even a new invasion and foreign conquest . India’s internal development and prosperity may be impeded, her position among the nations weakened, her destiny impaired or even frustrated. This must not be; the partition must go. Let us hope that that may come about naturally, by an increasing recognition of the necessity not only of peace and concord but of common action and the creation of means for that purpose. In this way unity may finally come about under whatever form ---the exact form may have a pragmatic but not a fundamental importance. But by whatever means, in whatever way, the division must go; unity must and will be achieved, for it is necessary for the greatness of India’s future.
`Another dream was for the resurgence and liberation of the peoples of Asia and her return to the great role in the progress of human civilization. Asia has arisen; large parts are now quite free or are at this moment being liberated; its other still subject or partly subject parts are moving through whatever struggles towards freedom. Only a little has to be done and that will be done today or tomorrow. There India has her part to play and has begun to play it with an energy and ability which already indicate the measure of her possibilities and the place she can take in the council of the nations.
“The third dream was a world union fprming the outer basis of a fairer, brighter and nobler life for all mankind. That unification of the human world is under way; there is an imperfect initiation organized but struggling against tremendous difficulties. But the momentum is there and it must inevitably increase and conquer. Here too India has begun to play a prominent part and, if she can develop that larger statesmanship which is not limited by the present facts and immediate possibilities but looks into the future and brings it nearer, her presence may make all the difference between a slow and timid and a bold and swift development. A catastrophe may intervene and interrupt or destroy what is being done, but even then the final result is sure. For unification is a necessity of Nature, an inevitable movement. Its necessity for the nations is also clear, for without it the freedom of the small nations may be at any moment in peril and the life even of the large and powerful nations insecure. The unification is therefore to the interest of all, and only human imbecility and stupid selfishness can prevent it; but these cannot stand forever against the necessity of Nature and the Divine Will. But an outward basis is not enough; there must grow up an international spirit and outlook, international forms and institutions must appear, perhaps such developments as dual and multilateral citizenship, willed interchange and voluntary fusion and cultures. Nationalism will have fulfilled itself and lost its militancy and would no longer find these things incompatible with self-preservation and integrality of its outlook. A new spirit of oneness will take hold of the human race.
Another dream, the spiritual gift of India to the world has already begun. India’s spirituality is entering Europe and America in an ever increasing measure. The government will grow; amid the disasters of the time more and more eyes are turning towards her with hope and there is even an increasing resort not only to her teachings, but also to her psychic and spiritual practice.
“The final dream was a step in evolution which would raise man on to a higher and larger consciousness and begin the solution of the problems which have perplexed and vexed him since he began to think and dream of individual perfection and perfect society. This is still a personal hope and an idea, an ideal which has begun to take hold both in India and in the West on forward-looking minds. The difficulties in the way are more formidable than in any other field of endeavour, but difficulties were made to be overcome and if the Supreme Will is there, they will be overcome. Here too, if this evolution is to take place, since it must proceed through a growth of the spirit and the inner consciousness, the initiative can come from India and, although the scope must be universal, the central movement must be here.
“Such is the content which I put into this date of India’s liberation; whether or how far this hope will be justified depends upon the new and free India.”
Sri Aurobindo’s words, though appear to be too dreamy and high-brow, befitting a true seer (`Yugarshi), are too weighty and meaningful to be brushed aside. Every line of his provides a deep insight regarding India’s past, present and future. Dr. Radhakrishnan also concludes on a similar vein in his book `Our Heritage’ in more day-to-day language: “The UNESCO brings together artists, thinkers and scientists whose works move multitudes, who lay the foundations of the great republic of truth, beauty and human brotherhood. We should not only for our national aims, however noble and reasonable they may be, but for the healing of discords of the political and economic world by the majic of that inward community of spiritual life, which, in spite of difficulties, reveals to us our brotherhood and our high destiny. We are the heirs of all that is good and great in the world. The Greek thinkers and dramatists have lessons for us.Rome under the guidance of law created the unity of the Mediterranean world and now the whole world aspires to be under the dominion of law. Israel gave the three prophetic religions. The religions of the East stress the need for the transformation of man. India has held together the Aryans and the Dravidians, the Hindus and the Buddhists, Muslims, Christians and Jews. Indian people live together, in spite of occasional setbacks, as members belonging to one whole. May not this policy meet the requirements of the modern world? Inter-cultural, inter-religious co-operation has been taking place in India from the beginning of her history, with its central principle formulated by Asoka in his XIIth rock edict `Samavaya eva sadhuh’. Concord alone is meritorious. This view is slowly spreading. The second Ecumenical Council organized by the Vatican supports such co-operation. In many universities of the world there are departments for the sympathetic study of world religions. Rammohan Roy, Rabindranath Tagore, Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru are universal men, who have faith in the development of a world culture which will preserve, not obliterate, the specific features of different cultures. They refuse to see the shape of the world with its saddening divisions as final.
“The roots of human conflicts spring from the way in which the members of different groups picture those of others. Our ideas of duty and justice are said to be superior to those of others. Such ideological conflicts mobilize violence in defence of their basic values. The different systems are distincts, not opposites, complementaries and not contradictories. They can live together and should live together……
“The tragedy of world history with its perpetual conflicts is due to power politics. It is rooted in the demonic. The world seems to have become jaded, tired and unable to pull itself out of its present entanglements, bereft of its recuperative power. In such dark periods when tragedy beckons us all, only free spirits who own world loyalty can lead us out. A new creative phase of living should start with meeting of minds. We should own that we are responsible for the state of the world. Men and women of the different sovereign independent states of the world should be trained to live as citizens of the world and in case of conflicts between national interests and those of the international community, should prefer the latter to the former. The present world is the raw material of the world to be.
“We wish to give support to our selfish aims, narrow national interests, by piling up armaments. Gandhi taught us, by precept and practice, that courage, confidence and self-denial are as important in international life as nuclear weapons. He created a new heroism, steeled by suffering, a war of the spirit. We have to struggle hard with the souls of men. Nothing can be a greater tribute to the life and work of Jawaharlal Nehru than a rededication of efforts to rid the world of fear and hate which breed conflicts and cause wars.”
Mahatma Gandhi’s primary prescription was courage, by which he meant moral courage. The essence moral courage, in his view, was defiance of death. He preferred non-violence as a means of resistance, but he liked even violent defiance too than running away or submission. He wrote: “My mission is to convert every Indian, whether he is a Hindu, Muslim or any other, even Englishmen and finally the world, to non-violence for regulating mutual relations whether political, economic, social or religious. If I am accused of being too ambitious, I should plead guilty.’
“Moral (independence) means freedom from armed defence forces. My conception of Ramrajya excludes replacement of British army by a national army of occupation. A country that is governed by even its national army can never be morally be morally free and therefore, its so-called weakest member can never rise to his full moral height”
“I do not know how many swear by non-violence. I know on the contrary that many would have India become a first class military power…I know that if India is to be the leader in clean action based on clean thought, God will confound the wisdom of these big men”
Gandhi returned to India from South Africa in January 1915 and found a country disrelishing alien rule. But the reality was rather disheartening to find great distrust among fellow-Indians. Hindus and Muslims were at loggerheads. Division in castes and unthinkable forms of untouchability prevailed among Hindus. What was worse that each section would solicit support and intervention in its favour against a rival section. “We have problems that would baffle any statesman. We have problems that other nations have not to tackle. But they do not baflle me.’ Gandhi said in London in 1931. In his own appreciation of India, Gandhi sensed the prevalence of peculiar weakness among Indians. He accepted it, but said: “if we are unmanly today, we are so not because we do not know how to strike but because we fear to die.” He also said that the kshatriya rather than the bania spirit, soldierly virtues and indeed military training, were needed for India’s regeneration. There was soul-searching as well, linked to his awareness of Indian cowardice: “ I find men are incapable through cowardice of killing. How shall I preach to them the virtue of non-killing ? And so I want them to learn the art of killing! This is awful. But such is the situation before me. Sometimes my heart sinks within me.” (Collected from a book written by Rajmohan Gandhi, `The Good Boatman’). In the same book, Rajmohan has also written: `In 1910, Leo Tolstoy had described Gandhi’s work in Transvaal as `most fundamental and important.’ And in 1909 Gopal Krishna Gokhale had declared before a Congress session in Lahore that in the forty-year-old Gandhi `Indian humanity’ had `reached its high watermark.’
Mark Tully and Zareer Masani have concluded their book, `From Raj to Rajiv’ with a fundamental question: `Are we prepared to take the wisdom that India’s ancient and unique civilization can give us?’
Who will answer? Will the words of the saintly persons yield light unto our path?