Achieving ‘Viksit Bharat’ will demand a collective effort to foster religious harmony, address environmental threats and navigate global tensions

India awaits 2047 as it aspires to become one of the developed nations, and obviously, that would mean striving, sincerely and collectively for the welfare of each of its citizens. Hopefully, in the Viksit Bharat, none would need a free ration, and freebies doled out as allurements for votes would become history. It would also unhindered availability of potable water, clean air, an all-weather roof over their heads, and freedom from a ‘no-work-to-do’ situation. Hunger, ill health and malnutrition would become history! India would have a system of education that would ensure equality of access and success at the same level’ for the children of the Lutyens zone and those in the Jhabua Village! 

Education shall no longer remain a ‘necessary utopia’! Moving in this direction necessitates getting rid of communal disharmony and socio-cultural exclusion of every kind. We expect a nation that no longer suffers the minority-majority concerns! Having seriously studied various aspects of social cohesion and religious amity – or social and religious cohesion and amity – in India, there is no escape from acknowledging that it is a very complex conundrum of communal curvatures that are resistant to various well-intentioned initiatives to smoothen it out.

There are human values that are common to every religion, and these could become the ground for cementing comradery without in any way interfering with the ways of faith and religious practices. The global rise of fundamentalism, terrorism, and fanaticism, and the consequent expansion of distrust, oppression and seclusion are certainly not conducive to a better life for the people, no matter how many more gadgets are made available in their homes. 

Sadly enough, it was very clear at the turn of the millennium that in days ahead, things would get tougher for leadership to handle, and the very survival of the human race would be at stake. In the third decade of the 21st century, humanity and the planet Earth confront the challenges posed by climate change, a sharp deterioration of man-nature relationships, and ever-increasing violence in various forms and formats.  The futility of the peace-making efforts by those whose economic interests require greater production of lethal weapons, and their sale and consumption is no longer a hidden secret.

The tensions, turmoil and anxiety that all of this creates are now being experienced everywhere, particularly in the West, which accepted the refugees and intruders with open arms, many of them are now repenting their policies of the past! The rise of distrust and apprehension constitutes greater danger than sporadic violence the instances of which are increasing in European nations.

These examples give some indications of the world before the young of today, and those who would wield power tomorrow!  

India is a major Asian nation that suffers from a huge influx of illegal migrants, and most of them get support from several political parties. It is clear that this support is based purely on communal considerations, and is certainly not in the national interest. It adds to the fragile relationship that has existed all along, was fuelled during the freedom struggle and led to the partition of India, the possibility of achieving social cohesion and religious amity remained elusive. The two-nation theory was elaborated in an oft-quoted speech of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in his Meerut speech delivered in March 1888, his view of the scenario that may emerge after the British leave: “Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations - the Mohammadans and the Hindus – could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not.”

Sir Syed was one of the most respected and admired of the leaders of the Muslim community who had opened the doors of modern education for them, and hence, the enlightened Muslim youth adored him. The essence of the above represented the prevailing sentiments of the Muslim community, and these were perpetuated by others, particularly by those who opposed the views of Sir Syed on modern education,

They, however, grabbed the idea of two nations! Subsequently, in the same lecture, Sir Syed elaborates his views further:  the principle of a representative government is ‘that it is government by a nation, and that the nation in question rules over its own people and own land.’  It is as simple as that: there could be no possibility of any representative government elected by Hindus and Muslims together ever ruling over India consisting not only of the nations of Hindus and Muslims but others who should also constitute nations of their own.  Indian democracy establishes that communal harmony is possible, and the two communities are equally enlightened to work together.

While Sir Syed deserves and gets praise for his futuristic outlook on modern education and its dire need to uplift the Muslims, it would certainly remain a matter of serious debate whether his definition of two nations did create a lasting impact on the psyche of the community that persists even today. 

The doctrine of the two-nation theory finally got buried with the formation of Bangladesh, and emerging multi-religious societies in Europe. If there is one nation that could present a functional model of religious unity it is India, the Hindus and the Muslims of India.  Nowhere else, the equality of all religions is so deep-rooted in thought and deed as in the ancient Indian culture.  It could be revived by the hereditary dialogical tradition which has excelled historically.

(Professor Rajput works in education, social cohesion and religious amity. He is an Atal Fellow in the PMML, New Delhi; views are personal)