The Great Speeches of Modern India

by Rudrangshu Mukherjee

  In the last three to four years of my life in Karachi, I came in contact with Swami Ranganathananda, who was the head of the Ramakrishna Math here for six years from 1942 until it was closed down in 1948. I used to go to listen to his discourses on the Bhagwad Gita. In later years, I maintained regular contact with this great disciple of Swami Vivekananda, who went on to become the head of the Ramakrishna Math and Mission in India.

  Swami Ranganathananda passed away in April this month. The last time I met him was in Calcutta last year. He was 96 but still very agile in mind and radiant in spirit. Our talk, among other things, turned to his years and my years in Karachi. He asked me, ‘Have you read Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s speech in Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947? It is a classic exposition of a secular state, one which guarantees every citizen’s freedom to practice his or her religion but the state shall not discriminate between one citizen and another on the basis of religion.’

  He asked me to send him the full text of the speech, which I did.

  The reason for my recounting Jinnah’s historic speech in the Constituent Assembly is two-fold. Firstly, as I said, it is associated with my last conversation with the Swamiji, who was one of the towering spiritual personalities in India. The second reason is that its remembrance was triggered by my visit to the ancient Katas Raj temples in Chakwal district four days ago. The Government of Pakistan was kind enough to invite me to lay the foundation stone for a project to restore these temples, which are now in ruins but whose legend is rooted in the epic story of the Mahabharata.

  I feel it appropriate to read out the relevant portion from Jinnah’s speech.

  ‘Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and specially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in cooperation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this state with equal rights, privileges and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make.

  I cannot overemphasize it too much. We shall begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and Muslim community… will vanish. Indeed, if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain its freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long ago.

  Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free, you are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed; that has nothing to do with the business of the state… You will find that in course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.’

  What has been stated in this speech—namely, equality of all citizens in the eyes of the state and freedom of faith for all citizens—is what we in India call a secular or a non-theocratic State. There is no place for bigotry, hatred, intolerance and discrimination in the name of religion in such a state. And there can certainly be no place, much less state protection, for religious extremism and terrorism in such a state.

  I believe that this is the ideal that India, Pakistan as well as Bangladesh—the three present-day sovereign and separate constituents of the undivided India of the past, sharing a common civilizational heritage—should follow.

  I hope that this ideal is implemented in its letter and spirit. The restoration of the Katas Raj temples is a good beginning.

  Esteemed friends from Karachi, people often ask me: ‘Does this mean that you want to undo the Partition?’

  My answer is: ‘The Partition cannot be undone, because, as I said in Lahore at the SAFMA function, the creation of India and Pakistan as two separate and sovereign nations is an unalterable reality of history. However, some of the follies of Partition can be undone, and they must be undone.’

  I dream of the day when divided hearts can be united; when divided families can be reunited; when pilgrims from one country—Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs—can freely go to holy sites located in the other country; and when people can travel and trade freely, while continuing to remain proud and loyal citizens of their respective countries.

  Friends, at the end of my visit, if someone were to ask me to sum up the situation about Indo-Pak relations at present, I would, on the basis of what I have observed and experienced here since my arrival in Pakistan on the evening of May 30, say unequivocally that ‘Fiza zerooi badli hui hai, bahut badli hui hai,’ (The atmosphere has definitely changed, it has changed a lot).

  Yes, it’s true that there is tranquility on the border, which is no mean achievement in itself. True, there are greater people-to-people contacts, which too is a significant step forward. It is also true that the awaam (people) of both India and Pakistan have taken over the peace process.

  But the peace and tranquility that exists is still tentative. It is also relative, in the sense that terrorist acts in Jammu and Kashmir have not come to an end. Only last month there was a terrorist strike in Srinagar aimed at innocent school children.

  How do we convert this tentative peace into permanent peace? How do we remove all the irrational abnormalities in our bilateral relations to place Indo-Pak ties on a completely normal footing based on the principle of mutual benefit?

  I am posing these questions because these need to be discussed in-depth and with an open mind in both our countries. As I have reiterated on several occasions during my visit, I would like to emphasize that we need to seize this historic moment, which is pregnant with hope. We must convert this hope into confidence and resolve that we shall certainly find solutions to all the issues that have estranged our two brother-nations.

  There should also be no going back on the realization that dialogue is the only way to resolve every single issue, including the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, between India and Pakistan. Peace cannot be achieved through recourse to non-peaceful means. This must be clearly understood.

  There is a phrase in English that has always intrigued me—Waging Peace. Normally, one comes across the phrase—Waging War. I have often wondered why the word ‘wage’ is used in the context of peace. It is probably because, if the resolve to win is the aim in any war, the same resolve to win has to be the aim of making peace.

  However, there is a crucial difference. In war, strategists look for a quick victory. They have an impatience to achieve their goal. In waging peace, you cannot do that. We need patience. We need to realize that it takes time to minimize differences and to find a mutually acceptable solution, especially to longstanding problems.

  It takes time—and I would urge all those who sincerely desire peace between India and Pakistan to realize this important truth—because not only the painful manner in which the

  Partition happened in 1947 but also subsequent hostilities have hardened feelings and rigidified mindsets in both India and Pakistan.

  After all, the Partition resulted not only in unprecedented violence but also in the largest cross-migration in the history of mankind. In history, including in the history of undivided India, kingdoms and dynasties have come and gone. Power has changed hands either peacefully or violently. But in recent centuries these developments did not destabilize the society very much.

  In contrast, when the British left in 1947, not only was there a change of power, but there was also human displacement on a massive scale. This has left behind a trail of tragedy. The wars that followed, the long period of terrorist violence and other events have contributed to the hardening of positions in certain sections of society both in India and Pakistan.

  This is the reason
why even well-intentioned moves for peace and normalization are often viewed with suspicion and met with disapproval on both sides.

  I therefore strongly submit to one and all involved in the Indo-Pak peace process—to those in governments as well as to those in civil society organizations—that we should give due weightage to these critical viewpoints. Nothing can be achieved by either dismissing or disparaging these critical viewpoints.

  This is because, firstly, those who view the peace process with suspicion both here and in India are not insubstantial in number. Secondly, in our endeavour to establish lasting peace between India and Pakistan, it is axiomatic that we should strive to carry with us all sections of society and public opinion in our two countries.

  I shall make one last point before concluding. For us to move towards peace and normalcy, it is necessary to move the dialogue process forward on all issues. This is the reason why we both have called it the Composite Dialogue process. I was happy to know that many people in Pakistan also believe that we should move in tandem on all issues. As I said in Lahore, it is not in the interest of the peace process to let slower progress on some issues become a hurdle in achieving faster progress on others.

  Here I shall just flag off a few issues that show how the relations between India and Pakistan suffer from avoidable abnormality. For instance, since coming here I have not been able to watch any of the Indian news channels to see what is happening in India and also, secondarily, to know how my visit to Pakistan is covered. It is ironical that in Pakistan one can see American CNN, British BBC, Chinese CCTV but not Indian news channels.

  The abnormality is also evident in other spheres. India and Pakistan have an official trade of about $250 million, which is meager by any standards in today’s age of globalization. But the unofficial trade is at least four to five times larger. Isn’t it ironical that we buy and sell our products of mutual demand by routing them through Dubai and Singapore, and thereby enriching those countries, but have not been able to regularize this trade right across our borders, thereby creating more employment and business opportunities for our own people?

  Take another example. Pakistan’s economy, like the economies of any country today, has a lot of need for Information Technology solutions. And I am told that, in addition to this being met by your local IT industry, you buy costly IT solutions from several western countries. But right across the border we in India have a flourishing IT industry, which is ready to cooperate with Pakistan and offer cheaper solutions. Ironically, the IT solutions that western companies sell around the world are produced in Bangalore, Hyderabad, Gurgaon, and Pune.

  I am making this point because Karachi is the commercial capital of Pakistan. And I may add that, historically Sindh was the incubator for global trade. In ancient times our forefathers from Sindh ventured forth to far off lands, in the same way as in modern times Sindhi businessmen have so successfully demonstrated their acumen in Hongkong, Singapore, London, and New York.

  In the era of globalization, trade and business are not only about money and profit. They also bring another kind of profit—a stronger stake in peaceful, stable, and cooperative relations between two countries.

  It is heartening to know that soon we’ll have a broad gauge rail link between Munabao and Khokrapar. I suggested to President Musharraf that we should also reopen the sea link between Karachi and Mumbai via Gujarat. He accepted the suggestion. The issue of reopening of our consulate offices in Karachi and Mumbai is also on the cards.

  All these are good signs. But much more can be done. And it should be our mutual resolve to do all the desirable things, and do them quickly.

  With these words, I conclude my remarks. I sincerely thank the Karachi Council on Foreign Relations, Economic Affairs and Law for providing this opportunity of interaction with you.

  Thank you.

  In Lahore (Lahore, February 1999)

  ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE (1924–)

  In the summer of 1998, both India and Pakistan tested their nuclear bombs. There was the fear that the Kashmir dispute could escalate and produce a situation where both countries might use their nuclear weapons. The pressure on both governments to resolve problems through dialogue was high. As a special gesture, Vajpayee travelled by the first bus from Delhi to Lahore. This bus had been started as a first step to bring about normalcy between the two countries. His speech moved all who heard it though the talks were fruitless. Sadly, this speech loses much of its poetry in translation.

  Mr Prime Minister, friends, sisters and brothers,

  As we break bread together, a new century and a new millennium knocks on our doors. Fifty years of our independence have gone by. On one side there is pride and on the other, regret. Pride because both the countries have been successful in retaining their independence; but regret because even after fifty years we have not liberated ourselves from the curse of poverty and unemployment.

  I am grateful to you, Mr Prime Minister, for hosting this banquet in such a historic location. It was in this magnificent fort that Shah Jahan was born; it is here that Akbar lived for over a decade.

  My delegation and I are overwhelmed by the warmth of your welcome, and the gracious hospitality extended to us. Mr Prime Minister, you have upheld the nobility of this fort and the tradition of the historic city of Lahore. On this occasion, I am reminded of the lines of the eleventh century poet Mas’ud bin S’ad bin Salman.

  ‘Shud dar gham Lohur rawanam Yarab!

  Yarab! Ki dar arzu-e anam Yarab!’

  (My soul goes out in longing for Lohur, 0 God! How I long for it)

  Excellency, this is the first visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Pakistan in ten years. I am delighted to be here. When I inspected the guard of honour and saw the beautiful panorama of the setting sun, I was overwhelmed by mixed feelings. It gave me joy that I was returning here after twenty-one years with the message of friendship. My regret is that we have spent so much time in mutual bitterness. It is unworthy of two nations the size of India and Pakistan to have wasted so much time in mutual ill-will.

  Earlier when I came to Pakistan, I was alone. This time we have representatives from every section of Indian society.

  The bus service between Lahore and Delhi is not a means only to ease travel from one country to another. The running of the bus between the two countries symbolizes the desire of the people to improve relations and come together. Indeed, if this was only a bus made of metal, it would not have caused such excitement and expectations, not only in our two nations but all over the world.

  It is our duty, Mr Prime Minister, to pursue the desires and wishes of our peoples; to develop trust, confidence, amity, and to create a solid structure for co-operation.

  We have been encouraged that our interaction in recent months has focussed on issues which directly benefit the lives of our peoples. Our two countries have engaged within the composite dialogue process to work out mechanisms to ensure that humanitarian concerns are addressed quickly; that possibilities of economic and commercial co-operation such as sale of power are identified and pursued; that confidence-building measures are discussed and agreed upon. But this marks only a beginning. We will, together, give directions to our officials to accelerate what we have jointly set in motion.

  We have also discussed those areas of relationship on which we do not see eye to eye. That is only inevitable. As we seek to resolve issues, we have to be conscious that there is nothing which cannot be solved through goodwill and direct dialogue. That is the only path.

  I am convinced that there is nothing in our bilateral relations that can ever be resolved through violence. The solution of complex outstanding issues can only be sought in an atmosphere free from prejudice and by adopting the path of balance, moderation and realism. To those that preach, practice or foment violence, I have only one message: understand the simple truth of the path of peace and amity. That is why, as part of the composite dialogue process, we welcome sustained discussions on all outstanding issues, including Jammu
and Kashmir. As we approach a new millennium, the future beckons us. It calls upon us, indeed demands of us, to think of the welfare of our children and their children, and of the generations that are yet to come.

  I have brought but one message from India. There can be no greater legacy that we can leave behind than to do away with mistrust, to abjure and eliminate conflict, to erect an edifice of durable peace, amity, harmony, and co-operation. I am confident that through our combined efforts we will succeed in doing so, no matter how hard we have to work in achieving it.

  Permit me to extend to you, Mr Prime Minister and to Begum Sahiba a most cordial invitation to visit India. Let me assure you that you will find in India a very warm welcome. We look forward to receiving both of you soon in India.

  I express my best wishes for your progress and prosperity, for the establishment of durable peace and co-operation between India and Pakistan.

  The viable university (February 2010)

  ANDRÉ BÉTEILLE (1934–)

  As one of India’s leading social anthropologists and sociologists and as a dedicated teacher, the subject of higher education in India has always been very close to André Béteille’s heart. He had observed at very close quarters the working of Delhi University and had seen how the nature and the priorities of the universities in India were changing. Was the university as it had been since the middle of the nineteenth century in India at all viable in an altered environment? In this convocation address to one of India’s new universities, the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, André Béteille turned to this and related questions. This address has now been included in Professor Béteille’s latest book Universities at the Crossroads.

  Are there any basic conditions that have to be met if the university is to be viable as an institution for the pursuit of science and scholarship? This is a difficult and contentious subject on which those who occupy positions of authority and dignity rarely speak on ceremonial occasions such as a university convocation. Since I occupy no such position, I shall take the liberty of addressing this question plainly and candidly.