DEEN DAYAL’S PHILOSOPHY:COMBATING
TODAY’S SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND POLITICAL CRISIS
Multiculturalism :
The very essence of Indian culture is clearly visible in the philosophy of DEEN
DAYAL UPADHYAY . His philosophy can be of great help in combating the social ,political,
cultural and economic crisis which has gripped the whole world.
He idealised the
following philosophies:
The first
characteristic of Bharatiya culture is that it looks upon life as an integrated
whole. It has an integrated view point. To think of parts may be proper for a
specialist but it is not useful from the practical standpoint. The confusion in
the West arises primarily from its tendency to think of life in sections and
then to attempt to put them together by patch work. We do admit that there is
diversity and plurality in life but we have always attempted to discover the
unity behind them. This attempt is thoroughly scientific. The scientists always
attempt to discover order in the apparent disorder in the universe, to find out
the principles governing the universe and frame practical rules on the basis of
these principles. Chemists discovered that a few elements comprise the entire
physical world. Physicists went one step further and showed that even these
elements consist only of energy. Today we know that the entire universe is only
a form of energy.
Philosophers are
also basically scientists. The western philosophers reached tip to the principle
of duality; Hegel put forward the principle of thesis, anti-thesis and
synthesis; Karl Marx used this principle as a basis and presented his analysis
of history and economics. Darwin considered the principle of survival of the
fittest as the sole basis of life. But we in this country saw the basic unity
of all life. Even the dualists have believed the nature and spirit to be
complementary to each other than conflicting. The diversity in life is merely
an expression of the internal unity. There is complementary underlying the
diversity. The unit of seed finds expression in various form – the roots, the
trunk, the branches the leaves, the flowers and the fruits of the tree. All
these have different forms and colors and even to some extent different properties.
Still we recognise their relation of unity with each other through seed.
Unity in diversity
and the expression of unity in various forms has remained the central thought
of Bharatiya culture. If this truth is wholeheartedly accepted then there will
not exist any cause for conflict among various powers. Conflict is not a sign
of culture of nature: rather it is a symptom of their degradation. The law of
the jungle, "Survival of the Fittest" which the West discovered in
recent years was known to our philosophers.
We have recognized
desire, anger etc. among the six lower tendencies of human nature, but we did
not use them as the foundation or the basis of civilized life or culture. There
are thieves and robbers in the society. It is essential to save ourselves and
the society from these elements. We cannot consider them as our ideals or
standards for human behavior. Survival of the fittest is the law of the jungle.
The civilizations have developed not on the basis of this law but by
consideration of how the operation of this law will be the least in human life.
If we wish to progress, we have to keep this history of civilization before our
minds.
Co-operation also
obtains in abundance just as conflict and competition in this world. Vegetation
and animal life keep each other alive. We get our oxygen supply with the help
of vegetation whereas we provide carbon dioxide so essential for the growth of
vegetable life. This mutual co-operation sustains life on this earth.
The recognition of
this element of mutual sustenance among different forms of life and taking that
as the basis of an effort to make human life mutually sustaining is the prime
characteristic of civilization. To mold the nature to achieve the social goals
is culture but when this nature leads to social conflict it is perversion.
Culture does not disregard or deny nature. Rather it enhances those elements in
nature which are helpful in sustaining life in this universe and making it
fuller richer, and curbs others which obstruct or destroy life. Let us take a
simple illustration. The relationship such as brother, sister, mother and son,
father and son are natural. These are same both in man as well as among
animals. Just as two brothers are sons of one mother so also two calves have a
single mother cow. Where lies the difference?? In animals by lack of memory the
relation is short-lived. They cannot build up an edifice of civilization on
these relations. But men use this natural relation as a basis to construct a
more harmonious order in life, to establish other relationships flowing from
these basic relationships so as to knit the whole society in single unit of
co-operation. Thus various values and traditions are built. Standards of good
and bad are constructed accordingly. In society we find instances of both
affection as well as enmity between brothers. But we consider affection good
and aim at enchanting affectionate brotherly relations. The opposite tendency
is disapproved. If conflict and enmity is made the basis of human relationships
and if on this basis history is analyzed, then it would be futile to dream of
world peace to result out of such a course of action.
When Nature is channeled according to
the principles of Dharma. We have culture and civilization. It is indeed this
culture which will enable us to sustain and sublimate the life of mankind.
"Dharma" is translated here as law. The English word 'religion' is
not the correct word for 'Dharma'.
Body, mind,
intelligence and the soul.-these four make up an individual. But these are integrated.
We cannot think of each part separately. The confusion that has arisen in the
West is due to the fact that they have treated each of the above aspects of
human being separately and without any relation to the rest. When there was
movement for democratic structure, they proclaimed "man is a political
animal" and therefore his political aspirations must be attended to. Why
only one person should be the king and others his subjects'? Let everyone rule!
In Order to satisfy this political man they gave him the right to vote. Now he
did get the right to a vote, but at the same time other rights diminished. Then
the questions arose. "The voting right is nice but what about food? What
if there is nothing to eat?"
They wondered,
"Now that you have voting right, you are the king. Why need you
worry?" But man replied, "What shall I do with the state if I do not
get any food? I have no use of this voting right. I want bread first. Then came
Karl Marx and said, "Yes, bread is the most important thing. The state belongs
to the 'haves'. So let us fight for bread. He saw man as primarily made up of
body, wanting bread. But hose who followed the path shown by Karl Marx came to
realize that they had neither bread not voting-right.
At the opposite end
there is USA. There is both bread as well as voting right. Even so there is
lack of peace and happiness. USA has highest list in number of suicides, number
of mental patients and number of persons using tranquilisers to get sleep.
People are puzzled as to the cause of this new situation. Man obtained bread,
he got his voting right, still there is no peace, no happiness. Now they want
back their peaceful sleep. Sound and undisturbed sleep is a scarce commodity in
the present day America. Those who think realize that there is a basic mistake
somewhere, whereby even after acquiring all good things of life, they are not
happy.
The reason is that
they have not thought of the integrated human being. In our country we have
thoroughly considered this matter. That is why we have stated that progress of
man means progress of the body, mind, intellect and soul of man, all together.
Often it has been propagated that Bharatiya culture thinks only salvation of
the soul. It does not bother about the rest. This is wrong. We do not think of
the soul but it is not true that we do not consider body, mind and intellect of
much importance. Other gave importance of body alone. Therefore our attention
to the soul is unique. With time this created and impression that we are
concerned only with the soul and not with other aspects of human being. A young
unmarried boy cares for his mother, but after marriage he cares both for his
wife as well as his mother, and discharges his responsibilities towards both of
them. Now if anyone says that this man has no loves for his mother, it would be
untrue. A wife also loves only her husband at first, but after the birth of
child, she loves both her husband and child. Sometimes an unthoughtful husband
feels that his wife neglects him, after the birth of their child. But this is
generally not correct. If that is true then the wife has certainly slipped in
her duty.
Similarly, while we
recognize the need to pay attention to the soul, we do not neglect the body.
Upanishads declare in unambiguous words i.e. weakling cannot realize the self.
Again Body is truly the primary instrument to discharge the responsibilities
that dharma in joins. The fundamental difference between our position and that
of the west is that. whereas they have regarded body and satisfaction of its desires
as the aim, we regard the body as an instrument for achieving our aims. We have
recognized the importance of the body only in this light. The satisfaction of
our bodily needs is necessary, but we don't consider this to be the sole aim of
all our efforts. Here in Bharat, we have placed before ourselves the ideal of
the four fold responsibilities, of catering for the needs of body, mind,
intellect and soul with a view of achieve the integrated progress of man.
Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha are the four kinds of human effort. Purushartha
means efforts which befit a man. The longings for Dharma, Artha Kama and
Moksha, are inborn in man, and satisfaction. Of these four efforts too, we have
thought in an integrated way. Even though Moksha has been considered the
highest of these purusharthas, efforts for Moksha alone are not considered to
give benefit to the soul. On the other hand, a person who engages in action,
while remaining unattached to its fruits, is said to achieve Moksha inevitably
and earlier.
Artha includes what
is known as political and economic policies. According to the ancients, it used
to include the justice and punishment also. Kama relates to the satisfaction of
various natural desires. "Dharma" defines a set of rules to regulate
the social activity. Artha and Kama, so as to progress in an integral and
harmonious way, and attain not only Kama and Artha but also Moksha eventually.
Thus even though
Dharma regulates Artha and Kama. all the three are interrelated and mutually
complementary. Dharma helps achieve Artha. Even in business, one requires
honesty, restraint, truthfulness etc. which are the attributes of Dharma.
Without these qualities one cannot earn money. It must be admitted that Dharma
is instrumental in attaining Artha and Kama. Americans proclaimed,
"Honesty is the best business policy". In Europe they said,
"Honesty is the best policy". We go one step forward and assert
"Honesty is not a policy but a principle" i.e. we believe in dharma
not just because it is instrumental in acquiring Artha but because it is a
fundamental principle of civilized life.
Kama too can be
attained only through Dharma. Having produced the material things such as nice
food. When, where, how and in what measure it will be used can be determined
only by Dharma. If a sick person eats food meant for a healthy one and
vice-versa, both of them will be at a disadvantage. Dharma helps in restraining
the natural tendencies of man, whereby he is able to determine what is
beneficial to him apart from what is pleasurable. Hence Dharma is given the
foremost place in our culture.
Dharma is of
primary importance, but we should not forget that it is not possible to
practice Dharma in the absence of Artha. There is a saying "What sin will
not be committed by one who is starving? Those who have lost everything become
ruthless." Even a rishi like Vishwamitra driven by hunger broke into the
home of a hunter and ate the flesh of a dog. Therefore we are enjoined to see
that there is enough wealth created continuously, since wealth. Also strengthen
Dharma. Similarly the government has maintain law and order and prevent chaos,
which definitely destroys Dharma. At the time of Chaos, law of the jungle
prevails where the strong feed upon the weak. Therefore stability in the state
is also essential for the prevalence of Dharma.
In order to do
this, education, character building, spread of idealism, and suitable economic
structures are all necessary. Governments also fall inside the realm of Artha.
Excessive power of state is also harmful of Dharma. It was said that a king
should be neither too harsh nor too soft with his people. Heavy reliance on
harsh measures produces a feeling of revolt in people. When state usurps the
rightful position of Dharma, then there is this evil of preponderance of power
of the state. Dharma suffers thereby. This is the reason of the decline of
Dharma in ruthless states.
When the
state-acquires all powers, both political and economic, the result is a decline
of Dharma. In this way if the state has unlimited powers, the whole society
looks towards the state, for everything. Officers of the government neglect
their duties and acquire vested interests. These are all signs of the
preponderance of the powers of state.
Dharma staffers a
setback. Hence Artha should not be allowed to acquire hold in either of these
two ways.
Karma too has been
considered on the same lines. If the physical needs are neglected, and desires
entirely suppressed, Dharma does not grow. Dharma cannot be observed if one has
no food to eat. If the fine arts which satisfy the mind, are altogether
stopped, then the civilizing influence on people will not be present. Mind will
become perverse and Dharma neglected. On the other hand, if greediness of the
gluttons of Rome or sensuousness of Yayati prevails, then the duties will be
forgotten. Hence Kama too must be pursued consistent with Dharma. We have thus
considered the life of an individual in a through and integrated manner. We
have set the aim of developing body, mind intellect as well as soul in a
balance way. We have tried to satisfy the manifold aspirations man taking care
that efforts to satisfy two different aspirations are not mutually conflicting.
This is the integrated picture of all the fourfold aspirations of and
individual. This concept of a complete human being, integrate individual, is
both our goal as well as our path. What should be the relation of this
integrated human being with the society and how the interests of the society
should be enhanced.
If there is any
standard for determining the merits and demerits of particular action, it is
this Chiti; from nature whatever is in accordance with 'Chiti', is approved and
added on to culture. These things are to be cultivated. Whatever is against
'Chiti,' is discarded as perversion, undesirable, is to be avoided. Chiti is
the touchstone on which each action, each attitude is tested, and determined to
be acceptable or otherwise. 'Chitti' is the soul of the nation. On the strength
of this 'Chiti', a nation arises, strong and virile if it is this 'Chiti' that
is demonstrated in the actions of every great man of a nation.
An individual is
also in instrument in bringing forth the soul of the nation "Chiti".
Thus apart from his own self, an individual also represents his nation. Not
only that, but he also mans the various institutions that are created for the
fulfillment of the national goal. Therefore he represents these too. The groups
larger than nation such as "mankind" are also represented by him. In
short, an individual has a multitude of aspect, but they are not conflicting;
there is co-operation. Unity and harmony in them. A system based on the
recognition of this mutuality complementary nature of the different ideals of
mankind, their essential harmony, a system which devises laws, which removes
the disharmony and enhances these mutual usefulness and co-operation, alone can
bring peace and happiness to mankind; can ensure steady development.
According to
Darwin's theory, living beings develop various organs as per the requirements
dedicated by the circumstances. In our shastras, it was stated slightly
differently, that the soul constructs, using the strength of
"Prana'", various organs as the need is felt, for the purpose of
continuing life. Just as the soul produced these different organs in the body,
so also in the nation many different organs are produced as instruments to
achieve national goals. Like various departments in a factory, building,
machinery, sales, production, maintenance etc. nations also produce different
departments, which are called institutions. These institutions are created to
fulfill the needs of a nation. Family, castes, guilds, (which are now known as
trade unions) etc., are such institutions. Property, marriage are also institution.
Formerly there were no marriages. Later on some Rishi established this practice
of marriage. He produced the institution of marriage. Similarly Gurukul and
Rishkul were institutions. In the same way, the state is also an institution.
The Nation creates it. A lot of trouble in the West is due to the fact that
they confused the state with the nation, they considered the state synonymous
with the nation. Truly speaking, nation and state are not the same. In our
country, the state was produced as per social contract theory. Formerly there
was no king. Mahabharat describes that in Krityuga, there was no state or king.
Society was sustained and protected mutually by practicing Dharma.
Later on
interruption and disorganization came into existence. Greed and anger
dominated. Dharma was on the decline and the rule "might is right"
prevailed. The Rishis were perturbed over the developments. They all went to
Brahma to seek counsel, Brahma gave them a treatise on "Law and the
Functions of the State", which he had himself writer. At the same time, he
asked Manu to become the first King. Manu declined saying that a king will have
to punish other persons, put them in jail and so on; he was not prepared to
commit all these sins. There upon Brahma said, your actions in the capacity of
king will not constitute sin, a long as they are aimed at securing conditions
under which the society can live peacefully and according to Dharma. This will
be your duty, your Dharma. Not only that but you will also have a share of the
Karma of your subjects, whereby you will gain Dharma considerably if your
subjects maintain conduct according to Dharma. Although it is not explicitly
stated here, but I believe that if the society under any king committed sin, a
part of that too must automatically go to the account of the king. It is not
proper if only good things are shared by the king and not the bad ones; both
must be shared in the same proportion. Thus state came into existence as a
contract. This contract theory can be applied to the state but not to the
nation. In the West, it was exactly opposite. Society as a nation, according to
them was a contract, but the k proclaimed himself the sole representative of
God. This is wrong. In our Country, the king may have been first recognized in
antiquity but the society as a nation is considered self-born. State is only an
institution.
Similarly other
institutions, like the state, are created from time to time as the need is
felt. Every individual is a limb of one or more of these institutions. A person
is a member of his family, as well as his community; he may also be a member of
some association of his fellow professionals, if he pursues a profession. Above
all he is a member of the nation and society. If we consider even larger sphere
he is a member of the whole mankind, and then the entire universe, truly
speaking an individual is not merely a single entity but a plural entity. He is
a part of not just one, but a member of many institutions. He lives a variety
of lives. The most important aspect, is that despite this multiple personality,
he can and should behave in a way which does not bring different aspects of his
life into mutual conflict but which is mutually sustaining, complementary and
unifying. This quality is inherent in man.
A person who uses
this quality properly, becomes happy and on the other hand one who does not do
so, reaps unhappiness. Such a person will not have balanced development in the
life. As an illustration, a man is son of his another, husband of his wife,
brother of his sister and father of his son. A single individual is a father
and is also a son, he is brother and also husband. He has to maintain all these
relation with intelligence, understanding and tact. Where a person fails to do
so, there is conflict. If he sides with one party the other feels wronged. The
conflicts between his wife and his sisters, his wife and mother result from his
inability to behave properly. There upon some of his relations are strained. He
is pained because his duties towards his mother and towards his wife clash.
When he can resolve this conflict, and fulfill all his obligations properly, it
can be said that his development will be integrated
We do not accept
the view that there is any permanent inevitable conflict among the multifarious
personality of an individual, and different institutions of the society. If a
conflict does exist, it is a sign of decadence perversion and not of nature or
culture. The error in western thinking lies in that some people there believe
that human progress is a result of this fundamental conflict. Therefore they
consider the conflict between the individual and the state as a natural
occurrence, on the same basis they also theorized on the class conflict.
Classes do exist in
a society. Here too, there were castes, but we had never accepted, conflict
between one caste and another as fundamental concept behind it. In our concept
of four castes, they are thought of as analogous to the different limbs of
Virat-purusha. It was suggested that from the head of the Virat-Purusha
Brahmins were created, Kshatriyas from hands, Vaishyas from his abdomen and
Shudras from legs. If we analyze this concept we are faced with the question
whether there can arise any conflict among the head, arms, stomach and legs of
the same Virat Purusha. If conflict is fundamental, the body cannot be
maintained. There cannot be any conflict in the different parts of the same
body. On the contrary "one man" prevails. These limbs are not only
complementary to one another, but even further, there is individual unity.
There is a complete identity of interest identity of belonging. The origin of
the caste system was on the above basis. If this idea is not kept alive; the
castes, instead of being complementary, can produce conflict. But then this is
distortion. It is not a systematic arrangement, rather it is absence of any
plan, any arrangement. This is indeed the present condition of our society.
This process of
deterioration can set in the various institutions of a society due to a variety
of reasons. If the soul of the society weakens, then all the different limbs of
the society will grow feeble and ineffective. Any particular institution may be
tendered useless or even harmful. Besides the need and the usefulness of any
particular institution may change with time, place and circumstances. While
examining the present state of an institution we ought at the same time, to
think of what it should be like; mutual complementary and a sense of unity,
alone can be the standards of proper conduct. Family, Community, Trade Union,
Gram Panchayat, Janapada, State and such other institutions are various limbs
of the nation and even of mankind. They are interdependent, initially
complementary. There should be a sense of unity through all of them. For this
very reason, there should be a tendency toward mutual accommodation in them
instead of conflict or opposition.
State is one of the
several institutions, an important one, but it is not above all other. One of
the major reasons for the problems of the present day world is that almost
everyone thinks of the state to be synonymous with the society. At least in
practice, they consider the state as the sole representative of the society.
Other institutions leave declined in their effectiveness while the state has
become dominant to such an extent that all the powers are gradually being
centralized in the state.
We had not
considered the state to be the sole representative of the nation. Our national
life continued uninterruptedly even after the state went in the hands of
foreigners. The Persian nation came to an end with their loss of independence.
In our country, there were foreign rules now and then in various parts of the
country. At the same time the Pathans seized the throne of Delhi, and then the
Turks; the Mughals and the British too established their rules. Despite all
this, our national life went on, because the state was not its centre. If we
had considered state as the centre, we would have been finished as a nation
long time ago. In some tale for children, it is described that an evil spirit
resided in some parrot and to kill the evil spirit one had to kill that parrot.
Those nations whose life centred in the state, were finished with the end of
the state. On the other hand, where state was not believed central to its life,
the nation survived the transfer of political power.
This had its
effects also. Late Dr. Ambedkar had said that our Gram Panchayats were so
strong that we neglected the throne of Delhi. We did not remain alert as
regards the state as much as we ought to have done, thinking that nation's life
did not depend on the state. We forgot that, though it may not be central. The
state is definitely an important institution serving some needs of the nation,
just as a limb of the body. It is possible to pluck a hair without much harm
but along with the hair, if some skin is also removed, and a little further, if
the head too is cut off, then there will be great loss for the body. Therefore
the body must be protected. Although the various limbs of the body are not absolutely
indispensable yet each of them serves an important purpose. From the same
standpoint, state, too, should have been deemed important in the life of a
nation. There were persons who attended to this aspect. It was for this reason
that the great teacher of Shivaji, Samarth Ramdas Swami, directed him to
establish his kingdom. Dharma wields its own power. Dharma is important in
life. Shri Ramdas would as well have preached to Shivaji to become a mendicant
and spread Dharma following his own example. But on the contrary, he inspired
Shivaji to extend his rule, because state too, is an important institution of
the society. However, to consider something important is different from saying
that it is supreme. The state is not supreme. The question arises, then, that
if the state is not of fundamental importance, what is absolutely important?
Let us consider this question.
The state is brought into existence to protect
the nation: produce and maintain conditions in which the ideals of the nation
can be translated into reality. The ideals of the nation constitute
"Chiti", which is analogous to the soul of an individual. It requires
some effort to comprehend Chiti. The laws that help manifest and maintain Chiti
of a Nation are termed Dharma of that nation. Hence it is this
"Dharma" that is supreme. Dharma is the repository of the nation's
soul. If Dharma is destroyed. the Nation perishes. Anyone who abandons Dharma
betrays the nation.
Dharma is not
confined to temples or mosques. Worship of God is only a part of Dharma. Dharma
is much wider. In the past, temples have served as effective medium to educate
people in their Dharma. However just as schools themselves do not constitute
knowledge, so also temples do not constitute Dharma. A child may attend school
regularly and yet may remain uneducated. So also, it is possible that a person
may visit temple or mosque without break and yet he may not know his Dharma. To
attend temple or mosque constitutes a part of religion, sect. creed, but not
necessarily "Dharma". Many misconceptions that originated from faulty
English translations, include this most harmful confusion of Dharma with
religion.
On the one hand we
used the word religion as synonymous with "Dharma" and on the other
hand increasing ignorance, neglect of our society and Dharma, and greater
acceptance of European life, became the outstanding features of our education.
As a result all the characteristics of a narrow religion, especially as
practiced in the West were attributed automatically to the concept of Dharma
also. Since in the West, injustice atrocities, were perpetrated, bitter
conflicts and battles were fought in the name of religion, all these were en
bloc listed on the debit side of "Dharma" also. We felt that in the
name of Dharma also battles were fought. However battles of religion and
battles for Dharma are two different things. Religion means a creed or a sect;
it does not mean Dharma. Dharma is very wide concept. It is concerned with all
aspects of life. It sustains the society. Even further, it sustains the whole
world. That which sustains is "Dharma".
The fundamental
principles of Dharma are eternal and universal. Yet their implementation may
differ according to time, place and circumstances. It is a fact that a human
being requires food for maintaining his body. However, what a particular person
should eat in, how much quantity, at what intervals is all decided according to
circumstances. It is possible at times that even fasting is advisable. If a
typhoid patient is given normal food, the consequences may be disastrous. For
such a person, keeping away from food is necessary, similarly the principles of
Dharma have to be adapted to changing times and pace.
Some rules are
temporary and others are valid for longer periods. There are some rules regulating
our conduct at this meeting. One of the rules is that I speak and you listen
with attention. If in contravention of this rule, you start conversing with one
another or addressing the gathering at the same time, than there will be
disorder; our work will not progress: the meeting will not be sustained. It can
be said that you have not observed your Dharma. Thus it is our Dharma that we
observed your Dharma. Thus it is our Dharma that we observed the rules by winch
the meeting proceeds smoothly. But this rule is applicable only as long as this
meeting lasts. If after the meeting is over, even when you reach home, you
continue to observe this rule and do not speak, a different problem will arise.
Your family might have to call in a doctor. At home, the rules suitable there
will have to be observed. The complete treatise on the rules in general, and
their philosophical basis is the meaning of Dharma. These rules cannot be
arbitrary. They should be such as to sustain and further existence and progress
of the entity which they serve. At the same time they should be in agreement
with and supplementary to the larger framework of Dharma of which they form a
part. For instance, when we form a registered society, we have the right to
frame the rules and regulations, but these cannot be contradictory to the
constitution of the society. The constitution itself cannot violate the
Societies Registration Act. The act has to be within the provision of the
constitution of the country. In other words, the constitution of the country is
a fundamental document which governs the formulation of all acts in the
country. In Germany the constitution is known as the "Basic Law".
Is the constitution
too, not subject to some principles of more fundamental nature? Or is it a
product of any arbitrary decisions of the constituent assembly? On serious
consideration, it will be clear that even the constitution has to follow
certain basic principles of Nature. Constitution is for sustaining the nation.
If instead it is instrumental in its deterioration, then it must be pronounced
improper. It must be amended. The amendment is also not solely dependent on
majority opinion. Now-a-days the majority is much talked of. Is the majority
capable of doing anything and everything? Is the action of the majority always
just and proper? No. In the West, the king used to be the sovereign. Thereafter
when royalty was deprived of its so-called divine rights, sovereignty was
proclaimed to be with the people. Here in Our country neither the kings, nor
the people, nor the parliament have had absolute sovereignty. Parliament cannot
legislate arbitrarily.
It is said about
the British parliament that it is sovereign and can do anything. They say that
"British Parliament can do everything except making a woman a man and vice
versa." But is it possible for the parliament to legislate that every
Englishman must walk on his head? It is not possible. Can they pass an act that
everyone in England must present himself before the local authority once every
day? They cannot. England has no written constitution. They regard tradition
highly. But their traditions too have undergone change. What is the basis for
making changes in their traditions? Whichever tradition proved an obstacle in
the progress of England, was discarded. Those which were helpful in the
progress were consolidated.
The traditions are
respected everywhere, just as in England. We have written constitution, but
even this written constitutions cannot go contrary to the traditions of this
country. In as much as it does go contrary to our traditions, it is not
fulfilling Dharma. That constitution which sustains the nation is in tune with
Dharma. Dharma sustains the nation. Hence we have always given primary
importance to Dharma, which is considered sovereign. All other entities,
institutions or authorities derive their power from Dharma and are subordinate
to it.
If we examine our
constitution from the point of view of the growth of the nation, we find that
our constitution needs amendment. We are one nation, one society. That is why
we did not entertain any special rights on the basis of language, province,
caste, religion, etc. but gave every one equal citizenship. There are separate
states. There is no separate citizenship of state and of Union. We are all
citizens of Bharat. By the same token, we have denied the right to secede to
individual state. Not only that the power to demarcate the boundaries of state
and to choose their names, is vested in the parliament, and not in assemblies.
This is as it should be; in tune with the nationalism and tradition of Bharat.
However, despite all this, we made our constitution federal, whereby what we
have adopted in practice, we have rejected in principle. In a federation
constituent units have their own sovereignty. These voluntarily relinquish
their sovereignty to the federation, by an agreement. It may be that they
surrender all their rights and thereby the centre requires sovereignty. But
these powers are given to the Union. It has no power of its own. Thus the
federal constitution considers the individual states as fundamental power, and
the centre as merely a federation of states. This is contrary to the truth. It
runs counter to the unity and indivisibility of Bharat. There is no recognition
of the idea of Bharat Mata, Our sacred motherland, as enshrined in the hearts
of our people.
According to the
first para of the Constitution, "India that is Bharat will be a federation
of States", i.e. Bihar Mata, Banga Mata, Punjab Mata, Kannada Mata, Tamil
Mata, all put together make Bharat Mata. This is ridiculous. We have thought of
the provinces as limbs of Bharat Mata and not as individual mother. Therefore
our constitution should be unitary instead of federal.
A unitary State
does not mean concentration of all powers in the Centre; just as the head of
the family does not have all the powers with him even though all the
transactions are carried out in his name. Others also share the executive
power. In our body also, does the soul possess all powers? Thus a unitary State
does not mean a highly autocratic centre nor does it entail the elimination of
provinces. The provinces will have various executive powers. Even the various
entities below the provincial level, such as the Jana Padas, will also have
suitable powers. The Panchayats too should have powers. Traditional, the
Panchayats had a very important position. Nobody could dissolve Panchayats.
Today, howeve, our constitution does not have any place for these Panchayats.
There are no powers to these Panchayats in their own right. They exist at the
mercy of the states only as delegated authorities. It is necessary that their
powers be considered fundamental. In this way, the decentralization of power
will be accomplished. The authority will be distributed to the lowest level,
and will be fully decentralized. At the same time, all these entities of power
will be centred around the unitary State. This arrangement will embody Dharma.
If we carry this
concept of Dharma even further, not only the State and the nation but the
nature of the entire mankind will have to be considered. In other words, the
constitution of a nation cannot be contrary to the natural law. There are a
number of norms of behavior which are not found in any statute book, yet they
do exist. At times they are even stronger and more binding than any statutory
law. The precept that one should respect one's parents is not written in any
law. The present day governments which are turning out variety of laws, day in
and day out, have not passed a law to this effect. Still, people respect their
parents. Those who do not are criticized. If tomorrow there arises a
discussion, even in a court, it will be generally accepted that as long as a
person does not attain majority, he should accept his parent's decisions and
should respect them.
Thus the
fundamental law of human nature us the standard for deciding the propriety of
behavior in various situations. We have termed this very law as' Dharma'. The
nearest equivalent English term for Dharma can be "Innate law",
which, however, does not express the full meaning of Dharma, Since 'Dharma' is
supreme, our ideal of the state has been "Dharma Rajya". The king is
supposed to protect Dharma. In olden times at the coronation ceremony the king
used to recite three times. "There is no authority which can punish
me". (Similar claim was made by kings in the western countries. i.e., it
was said, "King can do no wrong", and hence there too, nobody could
punish the king). Upon this, the Purohit used to strike the king on his back
with a staff saying. "No, you are subject to the rule of Dharma. You are
not sovereign". The king used to run around the sacred fire and the
Purohit would follow him striking him with the Staff. Thus after completing
three rounds, the ceremony would came to an end thereby the king was
unambiguously told that he was not an unpunishable sovereign. Dharma was above
him, that even he was subject to Dharma. Can the people do whatever they
please? It may be contended that democracy means just that. The people can do
what they please. But in our country, even in people wish, they are not free to
act contrary to Dharma. Once a priest was asked: "If the God is
omnipotent, can he act contrary to Dharma. If he does, then he is not
omnipotent". This was a dilemma. Can God practice Adharma or is lie not
omnipotent? Actually God cannot act contrary to Dharma. If he does, then he is
not omnipotent. Adharma is a characteristic of weakness, not of strength. If
fire instead of emitting heat, dies out it is no longer strong. Strength lies
not in unrestrained behavior, but in well regulated action. Therefore God who
is omnipotent is also self- regulated and consequently fully in tune with
Dharma. God descends in human body to destroy Adharma and re-establish Dharma,
not to act on passing whims and fancies. Hence even God can do everything but
cannot act contrary to Dharma. But for the risk of being misunderstood, one can
say that Dharma is even greater than God. The universe is sustained because he
acts according to Dharma. The king was supposed to be a symbol of Vishnu, in as
much as he was the chief protector of Dharma Rajya.
Dharma Rajya does
not mean a theocratic state. Let us be very clear on this point, where a
particular sect and its prophet or Guru, rule supreme, that is a theocratic
state. All the rights are enjoyed by the followers of this particular sect.
Others either cannot live in that country or at best enjoy a slave-like,
secondary citizen's status. Holy Roman Empire had this basis. The same concept
was existing behind "Khilafat". The Muslim kings world over used to
rule in the name of Khalifa. After the First World War, this came to an end.
Now efforts are afoot to revive it. Pakistanis the most recent theocratic state.
They call themselves an Islamic State. There, apart from Muslims all the rest
are second class citizens. Apart from this difference there is no other sign of
Islam in Pakistan's administration. Quran, Masjid, Roja. Id, Namaz etc. are
same both in Bharat as well as in Pakistan. There is no need to link the state
and religion. By such a tie-up, there is no increase in an individual's
capacity to worship God. The only result is that the state slips in its duty.
This does not happen in a Dharma Rajya. Rather there is freedom to worship
according to one's religion. In a theocratic state one religion has all the
rights and advantages, and there are direct or indirect restrictions on all
other religions. Dharma Rajya accepts the importance of religion in the peace,
happiness and progress of an individual. Therefore the state has the
responsibility to maintain an atmosphere in which every individual can follow
the religion of his choice and live in peace. The freedom has its inherent
limits. I have the freedom to swing my hand, but as soon as there is conflict
between my hand and someone else's nose, my freedom has to be restricted. I
have no freedom to swing my hand so as to hit another person's nose. Where
other person's freedom is likely to be encroached upon, my freedom ends. The
freedom of both parties has to be ensured. Similarly every religion has the
freedom to exist. But this freedom extends only as far as it does riot encroach
upon the religion of others. If such encroachment is carries on, it will have to
be condemned as misuse of freedom and will have to be ended. Such limitations
will be required in all aspects of life. Dharma Rajya ensures religious freedom
and is not theocratic state.
Now-a-days the word
"secular state" is being uses as opposed to theocratic state. The
adoption of this work is mere imitation of the western thought pattern. We had
no need to import it. We called it a secular state to contrast it with
Pakistan. There is some misunderstanding arising out of this. Religion was
equated with Dharma and then secular state was meant to be a state without
Dharma. Some said ours is a state (without Dharma), whereas others trying to
find a better sounding word, called it Dharmanikshepa (indifferent to Dharma
state). But all these words are fundamentally erroneous. For a state can
neither be without Dharma nor can it be indifferent dharma just as fire cannot
be without hear. If fire loses heat, it does not remain fire any longer. State
which exists fundamentally to maintain Dharma to maintain law and order, can
neither be needharma nor Dharmanipeksha. If it is Nidharma it will be lawless state, and where there is lawlessness,
where is the question of the existence of any state? In other words Dharma and
State are self-contradictory. State can only be Dharma Rajya (rule of Dharma)
nothing else. Any other definition will conflict with the reason of its very
existence.
In a Dharma Rajya,
the state is not absolutely powerful. It is subject Dharma. We have always
vested sovereignty in Dharma. Presently there has arisen a controversy.
Parliament is sovereign or the Supreme Court? Legislature is higher or
judiciary? This quarrel is like a quarrel whether left hand is more important
or right hand? Both are limbs of the state, the Legislature is well as Judiciary.
Both have distinct functions to perform in their individual sphere each is
supreme. To consider either one above the other would be mistake. Yet the
legislators say, "we are higher", On the other hand members of the
Judiciary assert that they have a higher authority, since they interpret the
laws which the legislature makes. The Legislature claims to have given powers
to the Judiciary. If necessary, legislature can change the constitution. Hence
it claims sovereignty. Now since powers are bestowed by constitution, they are
talking of amendment to the constitution. But I believe that even if by a
majority the constitution is amended, it will be against Dharma. In 'reality'
both the Legislature and the Judiciary are on an equal plane. Neither the
Legislature is higher nor the Judiciary. Dharma is higher than both. The
Legislature will have to act according to Dharma and the Judiciary will have to
act according to Dharma. Dharma will specify limits of both. The Legislature,
the Judiciary or the people, none of these is supreme, Some will say,
"Why! People are sovereign. They elect", But even the people are not
sovereign because people too have no right to act against Dharma. If an elected
government allows people to go against Dharma and does not punish, then that
government is in reality a government of thieves. Even the general will cannot
go against Dharma. Imagine the situation if by some manoeuvring, thieves gain a
majority in the government and send one of their ranks as an executive! What
will be the duty of the minority if the majority is of thieves and elects a
thief to rule? The duty clearly will be to remove the representative elected by
the majority.
During the Second
World War then Hitler attacked France, the French army could not stall the
onward march of Nazi troops. The then Prime Minister of France. Marshall Petain
decided to surrender. The French public supported the decision, but De Gaulle
escaped to London where he declared that he did not accept the surrender.
France is independent and will remain so. From London, he formed a Government
of France in Exile and eventually liberated France. Now if the majority rule is
to be considered supreme, then De Gaulle's action will have to be condemned. He
had no right to fight in the name of independence. De Gaulle derived his right
from the fact that the French nation was above the majority public opinion. The
national Dharma is above all. Independence is Dharma of every nation. To
preserve independence, and to strive for regaining it when lost is the duty of
every citizens.
Even in our country
a majority had not risen against the Britishers; only a few had. Some
revolutionaries arose, some brave people arose and fought. Lokmanya declared
"Freedom is my Birthright". He did not declare this birthright with
the support of a majority or by a referendum from the public. Nowadays people
advocate that the merger of Goa should be decided by referendum, that there
should be plebiscite in Kashmir etc., etc. This is wrong. National unity is our
Dharma. Decision concerning this cannot be made by plebiscite. This type of a
decision has already been taken by the nature. Elections and majority can
decide as to who will form the government. The truth cannot be decided by the
majority. What the government will do will be decided by Dharma.
Here in our country
the situation in this regard is very much like old Hindu marriages where a
married couple could not divorce even if both the parties wished. The principle
was that their behavior should be regulated not by their sweet will but by
Dharma. The same is case with the nation. If the four million people of Kashmir
say that they want to secede, if the people of Goa say they want to secede,
some say they want the Portuguese to return, all this is against Dharma. Of the
45 million people of India, even if 449,999,999 opt for something which is
against Dharma, even then this does not become truth. On the other hand, even
if a person stands for something which is according to Dharma, that constitutes
truth because truth resides with Dharma. It is the duty of this one person that
he tread the path of truth and change people. It is from this basis that
persons drives the right to proceed according to Dharma.
Dharma is eternal. Therefore, in the
definition of democracy to say that it is a government of the people is not
enough. It has to be for the good of the people. What constitutes the good of
the people? Dharma alone can decide. Therefore, a democratic Government
"Jana Rajya" must also be rooted in Dharma i.e. a "Dharma
Rajya". In the definition of 'Democracy' viz. "government of the
people, by the people and for the people", of stands for independence,
'by' stands for democracy and 'for' Indicates Dharma. Therefore, the true
democracy is only where there is freedom as well as Dharma encompasses all
these concepts.
'Chiti' is a
nation's soul. The strength and energy activating the nation is called
"Virat" and channeled by 'Chiti'. The place of 'Virat" in the
life of nation is similar to that of Prana in the body. Just as 'Prana' infuses
strength in various organs of the body, refreshed the intellect and keeps body
and soul together; so also in a nation, with a strong 'Virat' alone can
democracy succeed and the government be effective. Then the diversity of our
nation does not prove an obstacle to our national unity. The difference of
languages. occupations, etc. are present everywhere. However, when the 'Virat'
is awake, diversity does not lead to conflicts and people co-operates with each
other like the various limbs of the human body or like the members of a family.
We have to
undertake the task of awakening our nation's 'Virat'. Let us go forward in this
task with a sense of pride for our heritage, with a realistic assessment of the
present and a great ambition for the future. We wish neither to make this
country a shadow of some distant past nor an imitation of Russia or America.
With the support of
Universal knowledge and our heritage, we shall create a Bharat which will excel
all its past glories, and will enable every citizen in its fold to steadily
progress in the development of his manifold latent possibilities and to achieve
through a sense of unity with the entire creation, a state even higher than
that of a complete human being; to become Narayan from 'Nar'. This is the
external divine from of our culture. This is our message to humanity to cross
roads. May God give us strength to succeed in this task .
His philosophies need to implemented in our
daily lives in order to get rid of all the hindrances in the path of progress
on which not only our country but the whole world needs to proceed.
REFERENCES :
1. www.bjp.org
2. Sharma,S.R. - LIFE AND WORKS OF PANDIT DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAYA
3. Soni kumar,Suresh - DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAYA: A VIBRANT HUMANIST
4.Jog,B.N. - PT. DEENDAYAL UPADHYAYA: IDEOLOGY AND PERCEPTION
No comments:
Post a Comment