I find growing intolerance in our civil society. And what we witness today is no longer limited to intolerance among people practicing different religions or between the castes. Political parties have aggravated the divide in an effort to create captive votebanks. So­me political parties not only take an extreme view in fav­our of a particular community but go a step further and alienate the rest in order to command the total loyalty of a particular group of people.

We are now grappling with new forms of intolerance — regionalism and linguistic ch­auvinism. Maharashtra has ta­ken the lead and Raj Thackeray has raised the slogan “Mah­a­rashtra for Maharashtrians”. Unfortunately, other political parties have rema­ined mute spectators as they do not wish to alienate Maharashtrian voters. Now Maharashtra chief minister Ashok Chavan has gone a step further and announced that unless a taxi driver knows Ma­rathi, he wo­uld not get a licence. He backtracked later but not before the damage was done. One can pardon Thackeray for his views as his sphere of influence is limited to Maharashtra. But why does a pan-India party like the Congress project such an extreme view.

There were times in early the 70s when a small group of people in West Bengal raised the slogan ‘Amra Bangali’. The group could not garner enough political support and the movement died a natural death. If such germs are sown in a state, other linguistic st­ates, particularly Bengal, Ori­ssa, Assam, Tamil Nadu, An­dhra Pradesh and Karnataka may follow suit. This form of intolerance may give divide­nds to a narrow-minded regional party. But the majority even in these states may not subscribe to this means of securing votes.

The fundamentalist elements in BJP and its allies ca­us­ed the demolition of Babri Masjid with the objective of consolidating Hindu votes. This dastardly act paid short-term dividends to BJP. But led them nowhere as soon as a majority of the people realised that this agenda is not serving the larger interests of the nation. Even BJP’s stint as a ruling party at the centre was due to the persona of Atal Bihari Vajpayee who projected a secular face. Now the BJP is in shambles. If they are ruling some states now, it is because of the leadership qualities of the respective chief ministers and not because of the BJP hi­gh command in Delhi. Narendra Modi, irrespective of what pe­o­ple think about the incidents at Godhra, continues to rule due to the virtues of good governance and personal integrity. Is it a BJP government or a Narendra Modi government? It is possibly the latter.

Now Congress has a uni­que opportunity to spread its powerbase across the country, including the Hindi belt wh­ere it has a mere token pre­sence. To regain lost ground, the party has to denounce a narrow-minded outlook. It has to rise above the politics of community and caste, and bring everyone into their fold with the slogan ‘Be Indian Fi­rst’. They have to project that our nation has always accommodated people of different faiths. Congress ran the freedom movement with the help of people from various communities, regions and la­n­guages. It was only during the last lap of the freedom movement that an error occurred in the judgment of Mahatma Gandhi. He possibly failed to notice the historical forces and personal ambitions of leaders like Jinnah on one side and Ambedkar on the other. Ambedkar believed, and rightly so, that though Congress includes Dalits in the Hindu fold, Dalits would not be able to get their rightful place in independent India. The age-old tyranny of upper castes left a long shadow. On the other side, Jinnah also realised that once independence was achieved, Congress would not give adequate representation to minorities in the governance of the country. The fatal mistake committed by the party in 1935 destroyed the faith that Muslim leaders had on Congress. The party formed the government in UP without Muslim League even though both the parties fought the election jointly.

Jinnah possibly could not anticipate the events that followed his call for the creation of Pakistan. He didn’t realise the magnitude of communal violence that would follow. He felt he was ignored and not given the rightful place in Congress. Mahatma Gandhi lo­st control over the party because of the ambitions of Congressmen to achieve Indepe­ndence at the earliest and at any cost. Jinnah wanted an equal status and there was no space for Jinnah as things developed. I would be inclined to believe the genuineness of Jinnah’s speech to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11. He wanted Pakistan to be a just nation, but the reason for creation of Pakistan was different from what he projected through his address. He contradicted himself when he addressed the nation. But that is history.

Can we reflect on our history and stop such divisive and intolerant forces now? If we do not do so, we may have to face minor civil wars. A civil war can never be controlled by the military. Military operations take place against an enemy nation and they cannot be used against our own countrymen. Police is totally inadequate when it comes to controlling a civil war and, therefore, it is incumbent on our political leaders to give up this tendency of fuelling regionalism and creating divisions on the basis of languages. If not, one day our country would pay a heavy price and our entire edifice of independent India spelt out in the Constitution would crumble. Congress possibly is a party that can evolve a larger vision and move swiftly to consolidate its position. It can help the country overcome such divisive forces by stirring Indian nationalism. It can fill the political vacuum as most people still believe in the basic integrity of the country.

The writer is chairman Ambuja Cement Foundation