Exactly a week before the nation was to celebrate the golden jubilee of its independence, a newspaper carried a report: A wrestling contest in Basti [in UP] sparked off a caste clash following the defeat of Rakesh Yadav by Rajmani (a Dalit). The clash left about a dozen Yadavs and two Dalits seriously injured. Tension is still palpable.
Seeds of conflicts like this were sown in the British era. Independence was not a gift to the people of this country from Britain. It was the outcome of a long-standing, conscious struggle that began with the foundation of the Indian National Congress. The objective was to gain independence, but the partys founding fathers were clear that it would not be possible without cultivating a sense of nationhood among the people.
Britain, however, sent some of its thinkers to India to prolong its own role. The British realised that this could not be done with naked force alone. They could reduce the cost of sustaining their rule by obstructing the growth of national consciousness. Their divide and rule policy was designed to sharpen the points of conflict in Indian society. They identified three principal points of conflict -- religion, caste, linguistic or ethnic.
More From This Section
The British rulers played a masterstroke in sharpening religious divisions by introducing separate electorates for Muslims. Gandhi sought to undo the damage by integrating the Khilafat issue, which appealed to Muslim fundamentalist sentiments, with his non-cooperation movement. But he unwittingly played into the hands of the British. He legitimised the manipulation of religion for political purposes. The manipulation of religion for political ends later came handy for Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The result was that the nation-makers original objective was only partially achieved.
Despite this, there was a sense of euphoria with which India welcomed independence. It was then presumed that Muslim fundamentalism had spent itself with the formation of Pakistan and that Hindus would remain secular. But, 50 years later, the communal question is back. In fact, in the wake of the demolition of the Babri Masjid, it appeared as if the mistrust between Hindus and Muslims had reached 46-47 levels.
The national movement, however, was fairly successful in containing the damage on the caste front. The British did their part on the caste issue also by announcing separate electorates for Dalits. But Gandhis epic Poona fast made the British government withdraw the proposal. Gandhi's moral authority worked on Amb-edkar because he had established himself as a genuine friend of the Dalits. Gandhi, however, had to agree to the reservation of seats for Dalits. But he said: I would, with great reluctance, tolerate reservation of seats under a joint electorate scheme. His fears come true but in a different way. The statutory reservation hardened caste hostility.
The trauma of partition led to the end of separate electorates. This helped keep communal sentiments dormant for four decades. But the national movement did not acquire the strength to end caste-based reservations. In fact, reservation was seen to be a typically Indian way of social engineering. Thus, when V P Singh announced the acceptance of the Mandal commission, there was no frontal opposition to it. Its implementation, in fact, accentuated caste hostilities. It was in sharp contrast to what Gandhi achieved through the Poona pact.
Today, the communal divide is overlapped by a hostile caste divide. It must, however, be added that the gains of the national movement on the linguistic/ethnic front have been consolidated. The biggest challenge came from TN, Punjab and Assam. These were successfully met. The problem now is confined to the North-East and Kashmir. Despite this, the Indian union has become indestructible.
But within the union, the people are hopelessly fragmented. Social tensions could have been eased had India not seen slow economic gro-wth and slower expansion of educational opportunities. In fact, stunted economic growth combined with the flawed social engineering of reservations have been mutually reinforcing. This crisis manifests itself in political instability.