Justice Markandey Katju, Judge, Supreme Court of India explains why the 'Kalidas-Ghalib Academy for Mutual Understanding' has been created at Delhi.
 
Today India is passing through a critical stage in its history. In Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, etc. farmers and weavers are committing suicide regularly.  Prices of essential commodities are sky rocketing.  Unemployment has become massive and chronic, the educated youth can see only darkness in their lives. Water and electricity shortage is widespread.  Corruption and fraud are seen everywhere, even in the highest places.  Medicines and medical treatment have become prohibitively expensive for the masses.  Housing is scarce.  The educational system has gone haywire.  Law and order has collapsed in many parts of the country where criminals and mafia are calling the shots.  The worldwide economic recession has hit India too. 

Apart from the above, powerful divisive forces have started operating in our country trying to sow the seeds of discord among our people and trying to create hatred and enmity between various communities and groups. 

In this scenario the time has now come for the patriotic intellectuals of the country to come forward to give guidance to the people and to promote the rich composite culture of India and help the country on the path of progress. 

It is with this aim and intention that the 'Kalidas-Ghalib Academy for Mutual Understanding' has been created at Delhi, and it is proposed to set up its branches all over India. 

Ordinarily, intellectuals are the eyes of society; without them, the society is blind.  However, when the intellectuals themselves are groping in the dark and seem to be without vision, one can well imagine the terrible plight of the society. The truth is that today even intellectuals are unable to understand what is happening in India and in the world.  Hence, we have to first enlighten and educate the intellectuals of India and only thereafter will they be able to educate the rest of the country.

We have, therefore, to first discuss what is our country, India.

It may be surprising but the truth is that very few people know what is India.  Hence, it is absolutely necessary to understand our country before we can discuss about what steps should be taken for its progress.

India: A Country of Immigrants  
 
While USA and Canada in North America are each a country of new immigrants, who came mainly from Europe over the last four centuries, India is a country of old immigrants who came over the last ten thousand years or so.  Somewhere between 90-95 % people living in India today are descendants of immigrants who came mainly from the North-West and to a lesser extent from the Northeast.  Since this is a point of great importance for the understanding of our country, it is necessary to go into it in some detail. 

People migrate from uncomfortable area to comfortable areas.  This is natural because everyone wants to live in comfort. Before the coming of modern industry there were agricultural societies and India was a paradise for this because agriculture requires level land, fertile soil, plenty of water for irrigation etc. which was in abundance in India.  Why should anybody living in India migrate to, say, Afganistan which has a harsh terrain -- rocky and mountainous and covered with snow for several months in a year when one cannot grow any crop?  India has thus had a lot of immigrations and invasions from outside. Historically, there are very few instances of outward migrations -- except for those who were sent out during British rule as indentured labour, and the is the recent migration of a few to the developed countries for job opportunities.  

India was a veritable paradise for pastoral and agricultural societies because it has level & fertile land, hundreds of rivers, forests etc. and is rich in natural resources.  Hence for thousands of years people kept pouring into India because they found a comfortable life here in a country which was gifted by nature. 

As the great Urdu poet Firaq Gorakhpuri wrote: 

"Sar Zamin-e-hind par aqwaam-e-alam ke firaq
kafile guzarte gae Hindustan banta gaya" 
 
Which means:
"In the land of Hind, the Caravans of the peoples of
the world kept coming in and India kept getting formed". 

Who were the original inhabitants of India?  

At one time, it was believed that the Dravidians were the original inhabitants.  However, this view has been considerably modified subsequently, and now the generally accepted belief is that the original inhabitants of India were the pre-Dravidian aborigines.  In this connection it is stated in The Cambridge History of India (Vol-I), Ancient India as follows: 

"It must be remembered, however, that, when the term 'Dravidian' is thus used ethnographically, it is nothing more than a convenient label. It must not be assumed that the speakers of the Dravidian languages are aborigines. In Southern India, as in the North, the same general distinction exists between the more primitive tribes of the hills and jungles and the civilized inhabitants of the fertile tracts; and some ethnologists hold that the difference is racial and not merely the result of culture. Mr. Thurston, for instance, says: 

It is the Pre-Dravidian aborigines, and not the later and more cultured Dravidians, who must be regarded as the primitive existing race…… These Pre-Dravidians …… are differentiated from the Dravidian classes by their short stature and broad (platyrhine) noses. There is strong ground for the belief that the Pre-Dravidians are ethnically related to the Veddas of Ceylon, the Talas of the Celebes, the Batin of Sumatra, and possibly the Australians. (The Madras Presidency, pp. 124-5.)       

It would seem probable, then, that the original speakers of the Dravidian languages were outsiders, and that the ethnographical Dravidians are a mixed race. In the more habitable regions the two elements have fused, while representatives of the aborigines are still in the fastnesses to which they retired before the encroachments of the newcomers. If this view be correct, we must suppose that these aborigines have, in the course of long ages, lost their ancient languages and adopted those of their conquerors. The process of linguistic transformation, which may still be observed in other parts of India, would seem to have been carried out more completely in the South than elsewhere.  

The theory that the Dravidian element is the most ancient which we can discover in the population of Northern India, must also be modified by what we now know of the Munda languages, the Indian representatives of the Austric family of speech, and the mixed languages in which their influence has been traced (p.43). Here, according to the evidence now available, it would seem that the Austric element is the oldest, and that it has been overlaid in different regions by successive waves of Dravidian and Indo-European on the one hand, and by Tibeto-Chinese on the other. Most ethnologists hold that there is no difference in physical type between the present speakers of Munda and Dravidian languages. This statement has been called in question; but, if it is true, it shows that racial conditions have become so complicated that it is no longer possible to analyse their constituents. Language alone has preserved a record which would otherwise have been lost.  

At the same time, there can be little doubt that Dravidian languages were actually flourishing in the western regions of Northern India at the period when languages of the Indo-European type were introduced by the Aryan invasions from the north-west. Dravidian characteristics have been traced alike in Vedic and Classical Sanskrit, in the Prakrits, or early popular dialects, and in the modern vernaculars derived from them. The linguistic strata would thus appear to be arranged in the order---Austric, Dravidian, Indo-European.  

There is good ground, then, for supposing that, before the coming of the Indo-Aryans speakers of the Dravidian languages predominated both in Northern and in Southern India; but, as we have seen, older elements are discoverable in the populations of both regions, and therefore the assumption that the Dravidians are aboriginal is no longer tenable. Is there any evidence to show whence they came into India? 

No theory of their origin can be maintained which does not account for the existence of Brahui, the large island of Dravidian speech in the mountainous regions of distant Baluchistan which lie near the western routes into India. Is Brahui a surviving trace of the immigration of Dravidian –speaking peoples into India from the west? Or does it mark the limits of an overflow form India into Baluchistan? Both theories have been held; but as all the great movements of peoples have been into India and not out of India, and as a remote mountainous district may be expected to retain the survivals of ancient races while it is not likely to have been colonized, the former view would a priori seem to be by far the more probable."  

In Wikipedia  it is mentioned:

 "A number of earlier anthropologists held the view that the Dravidian peoples together were a distinct race.  However, comprehensive genetic studies have proven that this is not the case. The original inhabitants of India may be identified with the speakers of the Munda languages, which are unrelated to either Indo-Aryan or Dravidian languages"   

Thus the generally accepted view now is that the original inhabitants of India were not the Dravidians but the Munda aborigines whose descendants presently live in parts of Chotanagpur (Jharkhand), Chattisgarh, Orissa, West Bengal, etc.  In 1983 their total population was about five million, which is only a tiny fraction of the total population of India. 

It is not necessary for us to go into further details into this issue, but the facts mentioned above certainly lends support to the view that 90-95% people living in India are descendants of immigrants. 

It is for this reason that there is such tremendous diversity in India.  This diversity is a significant feature of our country and it is necessary to go into this aspect also in some detail.    

Diversity in India 

There are a large number of religions, castes, languages, ethnic groups, cultures etc. in our country, which is due to the fact that India is a country of immigrants. Somebody is tall, somebody is short, some are dark, some are fair complexioned, with all kinds of shades in between, someone has Caucasian features, someone has Mongoloid features, someone has Negroid features, etc. There are differences in dress, food habits and various other matters. 

We may compare India with China which is larger both in population and in land area than India. China has a population of about 1.3 billion whereas our population is roughly 1.1 billion.  Also, China has more than twice our land area.   However, all Chinese have Mongoloid features; they have a common written script (Mandarin Chinese) and 95% of them belong to one ethnic group, called the Han Chinese. There is a broad homogeneity in China.   

On the other hand, as stated above, India has tremendous diversity and this is due to the large scale migrations and invasions into India over thousands of years. The various immigrants/invaders who came into India brought with them their different cultures, languages, religions, etc. which accounts for the tremendous diversity in India. 

What follows from the Diversity 

Since India is a country of great diversity, it is absolutely essential, if we wish to keep our country united, to have tolerance and equal respect for all communities and sects. It was due to the wisdom of our founding fathers that we have a Constitution which is secular in character, and which caters to the tremendous diversity in our country.

Thus it is the Constitution of India which is keeping us together despite all our tremendous diversity, because the Constitution gives equal respect to all communities, sects, lingual and ethnic groups, etc. in the country.  The Constitution guarantees to all citizens freedom of speech (Article 19), freedom of religion (Article 25), equality (Articles 14 to 17), liberty (Article 21), etc.  

Apart from that, the Constitution provides for federalism.  Federalism is really catering to regional aspirations, and this is essential in a country like ours with such diversity.  Thus, the Tamil people have their own State Government, and so do people of Bengal, Nagaland, Orissa, Punjab, Maharashtra, Gujarat, etc.  There is also a Central Government for everyone, and thus there is Unity in Diversity. 

Akbar and Tolerance

The architect of modern India was the great Mughal Emperor Akbar who gave equal respect to people of all communities and appointed them to the highest offices on their merits irrespective of their religion, caste, etc. Emperor Akbar was perhaps the greatest ruler the world has ever seen. He consulted scholars of all the religions and gave respect not only to Muslim scholars, but also to Hindus, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs, Jains, etc. Those who came to his court were given respect, and the Emperor heard their views, sometimes alone, and sometimes in the Ibadatkhana (Hall of Worship), where people of all religions assembled and discussed their views in a tolerant spirit. The Emperor declared his policy of Suleh-e-Kul, which means universal tolerance of all religions and communities. He abolished Jeziya in 1564 and the pilgrim tax in 1563 on Hindus and permitted his Hindu wife to continue to practice her own religion even after their marriage. This is evident from the Jodha Bai Palace in Fatehpur Sikri which is built on Hindu architectural pattern.  

In 1578, the Parsi theologian Dastur Meherji Rana was invited to the emperor's court and he had detailed discussions with Emperor Akbar and acquainted him about the Parsi religion. Similarly, the Jesuit Priests Father Antonio Monserrate, Father Rodolfo Acquaviva and Father Francisco Enriques etc. also came to the Emperor's court on his request and acquainted him about the Christian religion. The Emperor also became acquainted with Sikhism and came into contact with Guru Amar Das and Guru Ram Das. 

Thus, as stated in the Cambridge History of India (Vol. IV- The Mughal Period) Emperor Akbar conceived the idea of becoming the father of all his subjects, rather than the leader of only the Muslims, and he was far ahead of his times. As mentioned by Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru in The Discovery of India, "Akbar's success is astonishing, for he created a sense of oneness among the diverse elements of India."  

In 1582, the Emperor invited and received a Jain delegation consisting of Hiravijaya Suri, Bhanuchandra Upadhyaya and Vijayasena Suri. Jainism, with its doctrine of non-violence, made a profound impression on him and influenced his personal life. He curtailed his food and drink and ultimately abstained from flesh diet altogether for several months in the year. He renounced hunting which was his favourite pastime, restricted the practice of fishing and released prisoners and caged birds. Slaughter of animals was prohibited on certain days and ultimately in 1587 for about half the days in the year. 

Emperor Akbar was  a propagator of Suleh-i-Kul (universal toleration) at a time when Europeans were indulging in religious massacres e.g. the St. Bartholomew Day massacre in 1572 of Protestants, (called Huguenots) in France by the Catholics, the burning at the stake of Protestants by Queen Mary of England, the massacre by the Duke of Alva of millions of protestants for their resistance to Rome and the burning at the stake of Jews during the Spanish Inquisition.  We may also mention the subsequent massacre of the Catholics in Ireland by Cromwell, and the mutual massacre of Catholics and Protestants in Germany during the thirty year war from 1618 to 1648 in which the population of Germany was reduced from 18 million to 12 million.  Thus, Emperor Akbar was far ahead of even the Europeans of his times. 

Emperor Akbar himself abstained from eating meat on Fridays and Sundays and on some other days, as has been mentioned in the Ain-i-Akbari by Abul Fazl. 

It was because of the wise policy of tolerance of the Great Emperor Akbar that the Mughal Empire lasted for so long, and hence the same wise policy of tolerance alone can keep our country together despite so much diversity.   

We may give another historical illustration of tolerance in our country. In the reign of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah of Awadh, in a certain year Holi and Muharram coincidentally fell on the same day. Holi is a festival of joy, whereas Muharram is an occasion for mourning. The Hindus of Lucknow decided that they would not celebrate Holi that year out of respect for the sentiments for their Muslim brethren. On that day, the Nawab joined the Muharram procession and after burial of the Tazia at Karbala, he enquired why Holi was not being celebrated. He was told that it was not being celebrated because the Hindus out of respect for the sentiments of their Muslim brethren had decided not to play Holi that year because it was a day of mourning for the Muslims. On hearing this, Nawab Wajid Ali Shah declared that since Hindus have respected the sentiments of their Muslim brothers, it is also the duty of the Muslims to respect the sentiments of their Hindu brethren. Hence, he announced that Holi would be celebrated the same day and he himself was the first who started playing Holi on that day and thereafter everyone in Lucknow, including the Muslims, played Holi, although it was Muharram day also. 

It is this kind of sentiment of tolerance which alone can keep our country united.      

Since our country has tremendous diversity (for the reasons given above), it is absolutely essential in order to keep the country united and to take it on the path of progress to give equal respect to all communities and sects and all people must live in peace and harmony with each other, even if they differ in religion, caste, language, beliefs and practices.