ARE WE SECULAR?

India is a Socialist, Secular Democratic Republic pledged to

secure to all its citizens justice, liberty and equality, and to promote
among them all fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual and
the unity of the nation. This is stated in the Preamble of the
Constitution itself. Actually, while the word “secularism” is rather
vague, and was introduced by the 42nd Amendment in 1976, Articles
25 to 30 of the Constitution relating to the freedom of religion and
freedom to manage religious affairs are more specific. They contain the
clear directive that “no religious instruction shall be provided in any
educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds”.

There is also the further provision in Article 28(3) that no person

attending any educational institution recognised by the State or
receiving aid out of State funds shall be required to take part in any
religious instruction that may be imparted in such institution, or to
attend any religious worship that may be conducted in such institution
or in any premises attached thereto, unless such person or, if such
person is a minor, his guardian, has given his consent there to.

Thus, complete religious freedom, with the absence of any

compulsion whatsoever in religious matters, is legally guaranteed by
the supreme law of the land. India is, therefore, rightly described as a
secular country in which the State has no religion, nor does it seek to
promote or discourage any religion or religious belief. It is obvious that
the Government and people of India are secular, that is, there is no
official religion. That is the legal position. The State stands committed
to a policy of non-interference in religious matters. Religion is a matter
of personal beliefs and convictions.

In January, 1948, Jawaharlal Nehru spoke of secularism thus: “We

shall proceed on secular and national lines in keeping with the powerful
trends towards internationalism ... India will be a land, as in the past, of
many faiths equally honored and respected, but of one national
outlook, not, I hope, a narrow nationalism living in its own shell but
rather the tolerant, creative nationalism which, believing in itself and
the genius of the people, takes full part in the establishment of an
international order.”
 The goal of One World is still far, far away, but since
independence the Government of this country has undeniably kept
itself aloof from religious controversies, not taking any side and taking
all possible measures to ensure to every citizen full religious freedom
in accordance with enlightened opinion all the world over, except in the
Islamic countries where the tenets of Islam are enforced by law and the
whole polity is declared as Islamic, not secular in any sense. In fact,
Islam, like most other religions, regards secularism as a dangerous
challenge.

But how far are we, the people, secular in thought, word and
deed? When we look around us and examine the working of various
non-government institutions, the various political parties, especially
national parties, which are supposed to be have thrown their
membership open to all communities, we find that the spirit of
secularism is being flouted day after day. We are not completely
secular in our approach and attitudes. There are cases where
admissions to educational institutions are decided on a basis that is
anything but secular. If we review closely the working of our political
parties, we shall find that candidates for elections are often chosen on
communal considerations—Hindu candidates for constituencies having
a predominantly Hindu electorate, Muslim candidates for areas where
the majority of the voters are Muslims, and so on. There are exceptions
here and there but, by and large, the observation made above is well
founded. The voting in elections is often on communal lines; Hindus
voting for Hindu candidates, Muslims for Muslim candidates and Sikhs
for Sikh contestants. Political parties are not formed on a religious
basis, but how is it that there are some distinctly communal parties in
this secular country?

Again, how is it that in the selection of Ministers of various ranks,

adequate representation is generally assured to members of various
communities and even castes? There are “vote banks” in the rural
areas where the caste factor plays a dominant role in determining the
decisions of the village Sarpanches and leaders of the various clans,
(and even sub-castes) in directing their followers to exercise their
franchise for a particular candidate. Jats and non-Jats, Brahmins and
non-Brahmins, Scheduled Castes and non-Scheduled Castes—these
considerations, undeniably sectarian and narrow, determine their
actions.

In an ideal, well-established, modern polity— religion should have

no connection whatever with politics. But is that really so in India
today? Why do communal riots take place with such disconcerting
frequency wherever members of both communities live in parts of the
same city or town? Why are there so much destruction, ruthless killings
and callous indifference to the plight of people of another community?
Outbursts of communal frenzy are totally incompatible with true
secularism, and every well- educated community should have no
narrow considerations of religion and caste in worldly matters. And yet,
there are tensions, strains, fears of the impact of liberalisation on a
particular religion, the inward hostility and suspicion towards other
religions, and the lack of tolerance. All these point to a state of affairs
where genuine secularism has taken a back seat.

PORTRAIT OF THE INDIAN POLITICIAN

Politics is much too complex a phenomenon for anyone to think

of it or describe it in straight lines and since the vast and ever- growing
tribe of politicians practice this art, they too seldom act or plan
straight. They are not what they seem, and they seem what they are
not. Jawaharlal Nehru was himself a politician, apart of course from
being a great statesman, thinker, philosopher and a man of letters. But
he was frank enough to concede that politicians usually hide their real
reasons and talk pompously of religion, justice, the truth and the like.
And still the great majority of the people are taken in by the soft,
deceptive talk of politicians. No wonder, this tribe generally proves a
roaring success in today’s gullible India, where the vast majority of the
masses are illiterate and highly credulous.

The typical Indian politician is a man without principles and

without scruples of any kind; he is an opportunist par excellence. He
changes his colours like the chameleon. Loyalty, sincerity and honesty
are as far removed from him as the earth is from the sky. It is true that
a politician has to deal with human beings and not with stones and
steel; even so, there is no end to the trickery, the sham and the
hypocrisy which the Indian politician symbolises.

Cartoonists generally present pot-bellied, Khaddar-clad people as

politicians. Khaddar has, of course, nothing to do with real Indian
politics. Mahatma Gandhi insisted on khaddar and the typical cap as
symbols of purity and sacrifice; but the age of sacrifice and of
principles has apparently gone. Nor is every politician in the country a
habitual wearer of khadi.

The Indian politician is supposed to serve the masses and be

their servant. Earnest and devoted service of the masses is, however,
rare in this country; instead of selfless service, there is exploitation
through deceptive and heart moving oratory; and instead of promoting
social welfare there is promotion of one’s own interests and those of
one’s nephews and nieces, and feathering of one’s own nest. Lincoln
defined politicians as a set of men who have interests aside from the
interests of the people and who are generally many steps removed
from honest and scrupulous men. Cynics, in fact, assert that politicians
and scruples are poles apart. A scrupulous person may never become
a successful politician, and a politician will never have any—he cannot
afford to have—scruples, otherwise he will not, generally, be able to
practise the subtle art that is politics.

Defection and desertion of party or group whenever he gets a

higher price elsewhere are the Indian politician’s favourite pastime.
Hypocrisy is closely associated with politics, and in this sense Plato, the
inventor of the “Royal Lie”, is often described as the first hypocrite. “O,
men of Athens”, he said centuries ago, “If I were engaged in politics I
would have perished long ago and done no good either to you or to
myself.” Just as Plato did a lot of good to himself, so the modern
politician in India believes in doing everything for himself; it is his
interest that is uppermost in his mind; why bother about the roofless,
the shelter less, the foodless and the waterless? It is enough to fight in
their name, to seek power in their name and to occupy seats of
prestige in their name.

And yet, politics and politicians are indispensable, just as political

parties are, whether the type of polity is Capitalist, Socialist or
Communist. They are the functionaries, the messengers, the wielders
and the self-appointed protectors of the weak and the helpless. We just
cannot keep them out of society because almost everything in India
today is mixed up, in one way or the other, with politics. There is
politics in religion, in education, in culture, in the arts and the cinema,
in the home and in offices. Where there is politics, there are inevitably
clever practitioners of the complex art. Thomas Jefferson, the great
American statesman-politician, advised everyone to shun politics.
Politics is such a torment, he said, that “I would advise everyone I love
not to mix with it.” But even he must have known that, like pure air
and unadulterated truth, politics-free life has become a virtual
impossibility.

It would not, however, be fair to paint every Indian politician with

the same black brush and condemn him (or her, because there are
some women members of the tribe too) squarely. There are black
sheep, cheats and dishonest people in every profession, it is said. That
may well be, but certainly there are more dishonest men and
hypocrites among politicians than among any other class of people.
The exceptions are so few (even though they may be outstanding),
that they make little difference to the generality. Moreover, truthful,
honest and principled politicians cannot last in a society such as India’s
where straight-forwardness and fair play are at a discount. Just as a
lawyer and a diplomat has necessarily to tell lies as a part of his
profession, whatever his motives, similarly a politician in India, which is
no longer the land of saints, sages and spirituality, politicians are men
who do not command credibility. They are quick to make tall promises
and give high-sounding assurances at election time, but once they are
elected to a legislature for five years or so, they concentrate on
safeguarding their own interests and ensuring their own future.

In advanced countries, such as the U.S.A. and Britain, politicians

do not specialize in dishonesty, falsehood and make-believe. They play
fair and accept defeat in the sporting spirit. The people, it is said, get
the Government they deserve; perhaps it is correct to say that a
country also gets the politicians it deserves. For, after all, politicians
are a part of ourselves, our own kith and kin. The profession of politics
and the politicians can undeniably be reformed, and perhaps the day is
not far off when, with the spread of all round education and
enlightenment, honest and principled politicians would emerge and
gradually eliminate the black sheep from society.

VIOLENCE AND POLITICS IN INDIA

Politics has come to acquire a bad odour and generally implies

unfair, underhand dealings, exploitation of the poor and the ignorant,
though it need not necessarily be so. Since it generally involves the
attainment of certain objectives, such as the seizure of power by all
available methods, violence often becomes a part of it. Of course,
violence need not be a vital or essential part of politics even in the
most ill-governed country, but there is no doubt that unscrupulous
politicians seldom hesitate to resort to violent methods to achieve their
aims. Whenever the practitioners of the art of politics find that normal
and socially acceptable methods and practices have not brought them
the desired achievements, they stoop to unethical methods, including
incitement of sensitive people to violence.

It is a tragic reflection on civilisation that with the much-

publicised progress in various spheres of human activity the resort to
violence has also increased. In fact, one of the dominating factors in
the post-war years is the growth of the spirit of violence. Even in India,
where the apostle of peace and non-violence, Mahatma Gandhi,
preached that violence is both degrading and derogatory to human
beings, the menace has been increasing. Proof of this dismal
phenomenon is found in the sharp increase in violent crimes in the
country, including murders, stabbings and other manifestations of
cruelty. The concept of “might is right” is being practised with a
callousness. That is highly disgraceful and a sorry reflection on
civilisation.

I t is poor consolation that violence has been on the increase not

only in India but also all the world over, even in the most civilised
countries, such as the U.S.A. and Britain. Naked, unabashed violence
has even been glorified in certain continents; the number and intensity
of armed clashes between various classes of people is yet another
proof; and so is the increasing number of communal riots, many of
which have their roots in politics. In fact, there would be no communal
disturbances in the country if the spirit of non-violence were
universally accepted as a guiding factor of human life.

It is indeed a sorry reflection on the state of our civilisation that

more politics has come to imply more violence; what is worse, violence
begets violence. When one party adopts violent means to achieve its
objectives, the other follows suit in the firm, though unwarranted,
belief that the only answer to violence is greater violence, not peaceful
overtures or non-violent Satyagraha which Mahatma so earnestly
advocated.

Yet another tragedy of modern civilisation is that politicians

refute by their actions the sound principle that a State based on force
and violence is built on foundations of sand. There can be no social,
economic or political stability where the entire polity is based on force
and violence, not on the people’s freely expressed and frequently
affirmed (through periodic elections) support and consent. Ousters of
one group by another are sometimes accompanied by force and
violence, together with reprisals in various forms. Violence in politics
also takes the form of coercion, which is another form of compulsion,
and compulsion involves or implies the use of force or threat of force.

It is not surprising in such circumstances that politics of peace is

becoming uncommon, and politics of war is replacing it gradually but
surely. Some of those who are very much in politics, and seldom
hesitate to adopt violence as a means to an end, quote Mahatma
Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. Even though moral force is more
effective at times, the Mahatma conceded that in certain
circumstances, the refusal to fight violence adequately might smack of
cowardice. Why does India maintain a large police force and ever-
expanding military forces? The State has to use force to quell riots of
various types and has to be in a constant state of preparedness to
meet aggression by hostile countries. Violence then becomes
inescapable. Ironically, both peace and politics have become difficult to
ensure without adequate preparations for fighting violence. This
genuine peace in politics has become uncommon and the spirit of
violence is abroad—like an infection that has seeped into all areas of
human activity.
 PEOPLE THE ONLY CENSORS OF GOVERNMENTS

There are governments of men who are sincere, honest and true,
just as there are governments run by self-seekers, demagogues,
power-obsessed tyrants. There are monarchies, oligarchies,
dictatorships and democracies. Who serves as a check on all types of
government, good, bad or indifferent? Who acts as the final arbiter and
the ultimate determinant of their worth and performance? The plain
answer is the people. The will of the people is the only legitimate
foundation of any government. The legal sovereign, that is, the
authority constituted or set up by law, may have a will of its own and
may enforce it for some time, but it is the political sovereign (who lies
behind, and limits, the legal authority) that ultimately prevails.

During the 16th and 17th centuries the doctrine of “popular

sovereignty” emerged as an expression of resentment of the people
against the despotic authority of kings and their reliance on the theory
of Divine Rights. The concept of popular sovereignty attributes
ultimate sovereignty to the people. Rousseau was its great exponent,
and it became a slogan of the French Revolution. The American
Declaration of Independence and the U.S. constitution incorporated
this principle in the preamble by affirming that Government derives its
authority from the consent of the governed. Popular sovereignty has
since then become the basis and watchword of democracy.

The General Will and popular sovereignty are admittedly vague,

indeterminate and diffusive concepts, but these do convey the basic
idea of who is ultimately supreme. Since the electorate sits in
judgement over the performance of the Government at the time of
elections, it is called the final censor and the real sovereign.

A President, a Prime Minister or a dictator may establish any

number of organisations, small or big, to create the impression that his
policies and actions are approved by representatives of various
sections of society. But this is just for appearances. How can
handpicked men and loyalists speak up for the people as a whole?
When the time comes for the final censor the people to have their say,
nothing else counts. What is more, their assessment and censorship is
sound and effective. Of course it is the final word.

Significantly, the people’s judgement is mature and fully

warranted even when they are largely illiterate. The people know how
to punish and teach a lesson to leaders who abuse their authority and
power and who tend to become arrogant and arbitrary in their conduct.
When Mrs Indira Gandhi and her colleagues abused their power and
betrayed the trust reposed in them, the people threw them out in the
March, 1977, general elections and gave an opportunity to the Janata
Party, even though it was a conglomeration of irreconcilable
constituents. When the Janata leaders fell out among themselves and
proved inept, inefficient and unfit to govern the country well, the
people firmly rejected them thus asserting themselves once again, and
in an unmistakable manner.

The Indian electorate’s rebuff to Mrs Gandhi affirmed the dictum

that censure is often useful, and praise may at times prove deceitful
and misleading. There is also a grain of truth in Swift’s comment that
“censure is the tax a man pays to the public for being eminent. It is the
eminent people whose actions, which have a direct impact on the
people, are subjected to final censorship by the ultimate arbiter. A
government whose actions are repeatedly censured by the people does
not last long, because every government is ultimately answerable to
the people. A censured, rejected government loses all credibility.

The universal acceptance of this principle prompted a great

philosopher to assert that “the voice of the people is the voice of God”.
Another one put the same idea in different words “the will of the
people is the best law”. Then we have the view of the American
statesman Jefferson (1787) that “the people are the only sure reliance
for the preservation of our liberty”. The people indeed are the only
effective censor and sovereign of any country and no one can fool
them for all time.

Public opinion is a great force far more powerful than any other.
In fact, public opinion has been described as much stronger than the
mightiest Power on earth. As time passes and as education and
general enlightenment spread, public opinion becomes more and more
influential and decisive. The Press reflects it, faithfully in most cases. In
the West the ouster of the Shah of Iran a decade ago is quoted as a
notable example of public opinion acting as the final arbiter of the
destiny of a powerful, arrogant Shah who thought no one could harm
him and that he was destined to rule his country for ever.

If public opinion is well organised and clearly articulated, it acts

invariably as a mighty censor. There is, however, the danger of public
opinion being misguided in the heat of the moment. Calm and cool
judgement is sometimes not given by the public when, for instance,
they are swayed by momentary passions, anger and deep resentment
over a specific act. So the public voice too has its limitations and all
public verdicts need not necessarily be perfect or unexceptionable. But
such exceptions apart, the general proposition that the people alone
are the final censors is well-founded and universally accepted

THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA TODAY

The magic of the printed word and the mesmerism of the visual
media, though appearing or seeming to vie with each other to occupy
the paramount position, are the two facets equally relevant and
revealing in the fast changing world of today. Without cutting into each
other’s area of operation, the media best serves the interests of those
who see them, not as crass competitors but as comrade sin-arms
seriously committed to expose and explore those areas of human
strengths and stupidities that comprise the entire gamut of life.

Like the mighty human mind, media’s reach is vast and its role
vigorous. In the context of present-day realities, both pleasant and
painful, the question that troubles most right thinking persons is: Does
the media today fulfill the role of Sanjaya, describing the state of
affairs to a population as blind and helpless as Dhirtrashatra? Is the
media the ring in the nose of the bull, being used to lead the masses in
the direction people in power want them to be led? Working under
constraints, the media does play the role of separating the wheat from
the chaff and the resultant exposure does cause a few ripples in the
murky waters of polity, whether the scoop relates to corruption,
violation of human rights, and exploitation of the weaker and
dispossessed segments of society. Judicial activism may be attributed
to some extent to investigative journalism or visual capturing of sordid
scenes that the media publishes or transmits, as the case may be.
Many skeletons in the cupboards see the light of the day simply
because some persons challenge the power-that-be and come out with
startling secrets that have been allowed to remain hidden or concealed
under the wraps.

The role to inform, educate and stir the conscience of the masses
is unique and unequal. Journalists and others associated with the
media may find their role cut out for them in the fields of news, views
and reviews, but their functions or contributions in the large socio-
economic and socio-cultural context have changed manifold. In free
societies, the media is supposed to meticulously meet the challenges
thrown up every moment, with courage and conviction. Of course,
there is no denying the fact that on many occasions the danger of their
freedom being curbed or conditioned by subterfuge or subtle dangling
of carrot and stick policy, keeps hanging over their heads.

Media, even when it has now become an industry like any other,
should never lose its missionary character. It is always up against
many odds, at home and abroad, and, like a consistent crusader and
campaigner; it has to fight many a battle on many fronts such as
political and economic hegemony of some nation-States,
environmental degradation, drug-trafficking and terrorism,
preservation and protection of democracy and human rights.

Undoubtedly, the media needs celebrities and vice versa. Though

the law allows the media to burrow, pry, expose public personalities, its
role to indulge in scandals for fun or money, or both, is highly
questionable and even immoral. Such an attempt on the part of
`paparazzi’ in recent times has already brought a bad name to the
media. Money-making in an age of consumerism is not the end for
which the media has acquired so much power and prestige. It’s role is
not confined to yellow journalism and sensational scoops only.

The media does not function directly as an instrument of social

change— its primary role is to observe and describe national and
international issues objectively, accommodating diverse views without
being dictatorial. Like any other mirror, the state of the media reflects
the condition of the times. The media cannot construct society—those
who believe this labour under an illusion. If the media follows a
progressive path, being critical of traditions and history, it must have a
clear mental picture of where its slant will take it and how this will
influence the people.
 If dress makes a man, extraordinary events make the media.
Where even angels fear to tread, some media men rush in to cover—
events like bloody scenes and armed confrontations, even at the risk of
their lives. It brings into focus those sore points of a society that have
remained utterly neglected as a result of some default or design.
Because of its global network, the media brings to the people the
immediacy of what is happening within and outside the national
frontiers. If the visual media shows the events and whets the curiosity
of viewers, the print media informs and satiates people’s appetite for
more information and knowledge. All successful persons have to curry
favour with the media, because it is the only channel, if properly
cultivated, that can go a long in ensuring their longevity on the
political, cultural, sports and other horizons. None should dare
antagonize it. It is the all-powerful and all-pervasive deity that
demands attention and adulation for its unique role in the lives of one
and all. Its influence is like that of an icon, and those sitting pretty safe
in their ivory towers of glory and grandeur can ill-afford to offend it.

ADVERTISING

Advertising, though a close companion of market economy is an

unpleasant feature of modern life. Watching from the sidelines, the glut
of consumer goods and the crass craze for something quick and queer,
the conscientious critic sees the menace and mesmerism that
advertising has brought about in the lives of all. To be taken in, or
taken for a ride, the confused consumer is always at his wits’ end on
how to sift the chaff from the grain. Besides the bewilderment that
advertising causes in many a case, sometimes strange but sensational
commercials on TV can cost heavily to one’s pocket or even to one’s
life.
 Recently an innocent student tried to imitate the acrobat of the
Youngman in a commercial ad and lost his precious life, for nothing.
Advertising and consumerism have reached a stage in America where
critics are demanding adequate checks and balances, because it has
begun to influence even human relations on an everyday basis. In
some cases, advertising has started to erode individual privacy. In the
name of educating and enlightening the consumer about his rights to
choose the right product, the magazines, television and movies keep
dinning into the ears that material things and sensual pleasures are
what life is about. The happiness lies in automatic appliances and
automobiles churned out in various forms and colours. When this
instant gratification does not get translated into reality, the world
seems to fall apart. Gradually, the voices of sanity and restraint are
being raised to rein in the wild animal within all and sundry, before it
becomes too strong to stop in the face of temptations let loose by the
awful agent called advertising.

There is no denying the fact that advertising has invaded every

aspect of human existence and this is being reached and achieved
through sponsoring of events, especially sports, on a global basis. In
everyday life, we find advertising aims at selling goods and services,
exploring new avenues and markets and, finally, reaching out to those
people and places that have remained untouched by its ever-
expanding shadows and shades. Propaganda—a cheap or inferior form
of affecting people’s minds and influencing their thinking and psyche—
too plays a vital role on certain occasions and situations where static
senses and sensibilities have to be stirred and stimulated to new ideas
and ideologies. In the words of Jacques Ellul: “Propaganda by its very
nature is an enterprise for perverting the significance of events and
insinuating false intentions....The propagandist will not accuse the
enemy of just any misdeed; he will accuse him of the very intention he
himself has and of trying to commit the very crime he himself is about
to commit.”

It is now recognised that solving complex social issues is a

managerial task. Communication and advertising find a crucial place in
this new approach. “The Green Revolution could not have come about
in India without the help of radio and TV advertising”, says an expert.
“Advertising sells not only goods, it sells ideas as well. Ideas like
national integration and communal harmony have been spread through
advertising.” Advertising flourishes in an environment which is free—an
atmosphere which encourages a different point of view, an
environment where people can disagree without being disagreeable.
 In addition to commercial advertising and ideological propaganda
there is social advertising, which refers to the advertisements which
deal with social causes and are aimed at the welfare and well-being of
the people. Its target audience is not specific class but the masses who
can be educated about socially relevant issues like health, family
welfare, literacy, national security, to mention a few issues only. The
importance of such advertisements has reached such heights that
even the government falls back upon them quite often to highlight the
issues to immediate concern. Undoubtedly, in today’s context, carrying
out campaigns through social communication is of paramount
importance. The society, the economy, the politics and the media
exposure are bringing about changes which are so radical and dynamic
that they are creating dissonance and upheavals. In order to withstand
the negative effects of changes, we certainly need these kinds of
campaigns through advertising or propaganda, for sustaining
communication with the masses at large. In short, advertising not only
influences the buyer’s perception but also his responses to social
problems. It has its negative effects but the positive side far out-strips
the negative side.

WE TALK MORE, WORK LESS

Undeniably, there are millions of people in India who think little,
act even less but talk too much. Indulgence in idle gossip, disgruntled
attitudes, bitter criticism of all and sundry, frustration over their sorry
plight, fate and “kismat”, have in fact become national pastimes. The
number of those who can claim that they keep their tongue within their
lips and never talk in vain is limited. The talk of the common people,
mostly irresponsible, creates the impression that they have little to do.
Indians are indeed typical of the people of the Orient who have nothing
worthwhile to say, and yet contrive to spend the longest time in saying
it.

Those who have endless time on their hands are great babblers.
Thinking and reflection postulate a certain degree of education and
intellectual development. About 64 per cent of the people in India are
illiterate; so they have not developed the qualities of thinking and
reflection. Montesquieu truly said that the less men think, the more
they talk. India is a land of myriad tongues. The 1961 census listed
1652 languages as mother tongues spoken in India, and the 1971
census, retaining the number, presented a somewhat more realistic
picture. Judged by any standard, India is Babel of tongues, perhaps the
largest in the world. This Babel has been the outcome of a cumulative
process resulting from the influx of various races into the country
through the centuries. Talkers are never good doers; this explains the
proverbial sloth, idleness and complacency of the average Indian. Our
material output, our productivity and production, our net contribution
to the country’s Gross National Product (GNP) are all far too low. While
people should learn to use their hands and to be active all the time
(like the Japanese who have raised their country to the pinnacle of
glory despite the havoc done to their economy during World War II), we
have mastered the technique of whiling away time talking and talking,
doing little positive, constructive and concrete work.

Jawaharlal Nehru, in a speech way back in 1952, said he was

tired of people who merely talk about various things. However wise you
may be (in India the number of truly wise, sagacious men and women
is limited), he said, you can never enter into the spirit of a thing if you
only talk about it and do nothing. We do not know the value of time; so
we do not mind spending precious hours in idle gossip. In part the
disinclination to be up and doing all the time is the result of our
fatalistic beliefs and attitudes. Most of us tend to believe that what God
has ordained cannot be averted. What will be, will be; so, they argue,
why needlessly waste energy in thwarting God’s will?

Besides, there are many among us who believe that flattery is

the shortest route to success in today’s India. The great talkers, the
wily, garrulous politicians who sway audiences through their loud talk,
all manage to mislead the people and promote their selfish ends. A
flatterer is in the excellent company of imitators because imitation is
considered the sincerest form of flattery. The easiest weapon adopted
by flatterers and sycophants is smooth talk, not work. A ready and glib
tongue has at times proved to be a more precious weapon than gifts of
cash and kind. Through a facile tongue the flatterers continually create
illusions and a world of make-believe. Almost all great talkers are great
flatterers; praise inevitably becomes their forte.

Then there are those whose talk mostly comprises advice to all
and sundry on everything on earth. Like air and water, advice too can
be had free. Self-appointed advisers are great talkers; they talk their
way into your hearts and they even drive away rationality, good sense
and the quality of discriminating between chalk and cheese. Asking for
advice is to tout for flatterers. And flattery feeds the ego and is
exhilarating. Most talkers become bores. But let it be said in defense of
the growing tribe of talkers that they do manage at times to relieve
boredom. A quiet gathering at which all those present are serious-
minded people deeply engrossed in thought and philosophy would
appear to maintain the silence of the graveyard. The talkers relate
funny incidents, describe lively experiences and entertain their
credulous listeners, quieten and comfort the people, for hours together.
There is no tax on talk and gossip. So the idle, endless talker flourishes
at the cost of the silent, constructive worker. It is the latter who can
help ensure national progress, not the ceaseless twisters of the tongue,
even though the latter manage to find credulous audiences. True,
sincere and genuine workers cannot stand non-sensical postures,
including nonsense talk. But work does not lie in marching up and
down the streets, shouting slogans and lodging protests. Many of us
tend to resort to strikes and work stoppages.
Undeniably, our future amongst nations, and the good name of
our country, depends entirely upon our work and work alone. Much
valuable work can be done silently and without becoming noisy or
indulging in aimless talk. If everyone realises the truth of this dictum,
the salvation of the country would not be far off.

LIBERTY WITHOUT DISCIPLINE

Liberty denotes absence of restraint; in fact the word liberty is
derived from the Latin word “liber” which means free. It implies
freedom to do what one likes, regardless of the conditions, the
environments and the postures of leaders who rule the land with or
without the people’s consent. In many regions, especially those under
authoritarian rule, individual liberty in the real sense is still an ideal to
be achieved. It is only in genuine democracies that there can be true
liberty for the individual. Liberty or freedom means doing or acting
without any restrictions; where there is restraint or restriction, liberty is
limited to that extent.

But liberty does not and in effect cannot, mean license to do or

act as one pleases, regardless of the consequences for others. Liberty
is a highly cherished and much valued privilege; it implies that we can
go where we like, do what we like, and work as and where we like. But
absolute liberty, like absolute rights, is absolute nonsense, because
everyone lives in society and living in society means we have all to
observe certain rules and regulations. That is where discipline comes
in. Discipline involves a restraint on liberty but it is a necessary and
vital restraint in the interest of society. Ever since the origin of man
and society, discipline of some kind has been found necessary for both
individual and social welfare. Discipline and restraint were deemed
essential in prehistoric times also, and as society has become more
and more complex, the urgency and importance of discipline has been
felt all the more.

Actually, discipline is not only desirable but indispensable.

Wherever discipline and regulation of human conduct are absent,
moral and material deterioration has set in. And where such
deterioration starts the nation falls a victim to aggression by better
organised and more disciplined people from outside. So the absence of
discipline and restraint often means decay; to prevent such decay,
discipline has to be imposed in the common interest and for the
common good. Such discipline may be internal, that is, accepted
without demur or protest by the people themselves, or it may be
external, in which case it sometimes means the rule of the jack-booted
commissars, as in Communist countries. Discipline has, therefore, to be
distinguished from dictatorship under which individual liberty is rapidly
taken away, supposedly in the interest of the State but in reality to
promote the interests of the dictator. History has shown that dictators
are firmly opposed to the grant of basic rights and liberties to the
people. They want blind, unflinching obedience instead; the people are
blandly told that theirs is not to reason why but to do and die as and
when they are told all in the interest of their Fatherland or Motherland.
That was Hitler’s technique in Nazi Germany and Benito Mussolini’s
technique in Italy. The truth, repeatedly affirmed by human experience
over the ages, is that it is discipline that enables all the people to enjoy
their liberty while living in the community. Thus liberty and discipline
are not contradictory or mutually exclusive terms; they are very much
complementary and both are indispensable. One, in fact, feeds and
reinforces the other. When we say that discipline is essential we mean
discipline in all walks of life, social, economic, political and industrial.

In social life the enjoyment of liberties and fundamental rights

becomes possible only through due regard for the corresponding rights
and liberties of others. Whoever disregards the corresponding rights of
others becomes a law breaker and an offender, making himself liable
to action under the law “Do as you want to be done by” is a
golden rule.

Discipline means full realisation of the sense of responsibility,

and where there is irresponsibility there is confusion, chaos and worse.
It has been well said that we can have discipline without liberty but we
cannot have liberty without discipline. When there is discipline, liberty
is not endangered, but when there is liberty or rather excessive
emphasis on liberty alone, it will soon be lost. This leads us to the
conclusion that a proper and reasonable balance has to be struck
between liberty and discipline or restraint. The restraints must of
course be designed for the social good, and it is obvious that excessive
restraints will inevitably lead to the erosion of human liberties.

It is this sound reasoning that prompted law-makers to assert

that law is the essential condition of liberty. For instance, if I claim the
liberty to rob, kill or injure another, or defy the traffic rules and drive
my car or scooter on the wrong side of the road, I endanger myself as
well as others, besides making myself quil of defying the law and
discipline. If everyone thus defies the laws and rules, designed to
ensure discipline and smooth living, what will become of society?

Those who describe laws as restraints on liberty and hostile to

individual freedom apparently fail to understand the true concept of
liberty and discipline. It is the State acting through laws that ensures
justice and equality of opportunity to all, especially the weaker
sections of society. So it is true to say that discipline ensures justice
and fair play. Is it not a fact that the law which punishes the murderer,
the thief, the robber and the violator of rules and regulations is thereby
promoting the rights and liberties of others? The truly free man is he
who, while living in society, invariably observes discipline and accepts
the limitations on his actions imposed for the common good. Thus
discipline is as
Necessary as liberty itself. Each reinforces the other.