Some people seem to be in a terrible hurry to enter a new century, a new millennium. How can we talk of the dawn of the 21st century or the new millennium a full year in advance? Besides, what calendar are we talking about, what is our historical reference point, when we talk of a new millennium – Hindu, Islamic, Christian, Eastern, Western? So why all this excitement?

In any case, all this talk of the new millennium is only for millionaires. Of what consequence is it for the poor, the millions? How will January 1, 2000 be any different from December 31, 1999? The poor would have reason to celebrate only if there were something that brings about a material difference in his daily life. The premature dawn of the new millennium offers no such promise for the toiling masses.

But if we leave aside all the brouhaha about a particular date, we can look back at the 20th century in a more sober, serious perspective. From an Indian perspective, the country’s freedom, Partition and Gandhi – the man, his message and his assassination – are the most important landmarks of the first half of the century. Gandhiji deserves special mention for he was not just a great leader for India; his contribution is internationally recognised.

Our evolution as a democracy, with all the shortcomings, and India’s emergence as an economically self-reliant nation, are two major landmarks for India in the second half of this century. It is not of little significance that we not only opted for democracy but have remained faithful to the ballot box. Others have not been so successful. We maintained democracy and we built our economy relying almost entirely on our own internal resources — to the extent of 93 per cent. We had the Green Revolution in agriculture and we built up an industrial base of our own. For a poor country to build its economy almost entirely on its own resources may not be worth a newspaper headline but this is no mean achievement.

On the negative side, unfortunately, there was little progress in the field of education and administration. The scale on which we should have launched a mass, nation-wide literacy education campaign did not happen. Similarly, after Independence we needed to create a new administrative machinery that was more responsive to our people. This, too, did not happen. The lot of the common man has improved in the course of this century but not to the extent it should have. Equally well, the disparities are still there, even growing. Continuing poverty remains one of the most negative facts.

The Pokhran nuclear tests constitute another major landmark which changed the international perception about India. Our progress in space technology and information technology is other major markers of India’s progress. What impact has all this had or not had on the life of the common man? How should this progress be used to benefit the common man? These are very important questions no doubt but that is another level of the discussion.

I believe, Mandal, too, is a major development of this century because it has altered mass consciousness in a radical way. That the backward classes have the right to a share in political power is today accepted by all.

The demolition of the Babri Masjid is another major landmark. There is no doubt that the action in Ayodhya left an imprint on the hearts and minds of most Indians. In fact, it is not just that the Babri Masjid was demolished, but an entire movement was built around that issue, seeking to take the country away from its secular moorings. Whether we endorse this movement or not, the fact remains that it has had a major impact on national politics.

The growth of militancy in certain parts of the country — Kashmir, the north-east and the naxalite movement – is another marker of this century. Even for those living far away from the conflict-torn states may not be directly affected by these disturbances. But they are certainly part of the nation’s consciousness.

If one were to draw a balance sheet of the last 50 years, I would say that the answer could not be only plus or only minus; one has to talk look at both the plus and the minus points.

A big challenge before the country today is that of evolving a new national consensus. A government can be run on the basis of a majority, but a country cannot be run without consensus. If there is no consensus in the country, if hearts get divided so that one man’s sorrow becomes another man’s joy, if one man’s happiness is a matter of grief for another, it means a grave danger for the country. Political outfits based on various degrees of hate pose a grave danger to national unity. Whatever they may say from public platforms, what matters is what they do at the ground level.

A nation is not a map on a piece of paper; it is a map of minds. And if boundaries get sketched on people’s minds, they could prove to be major hurdles. A country is very much like a family – it can face up to adversities and challenges so long as the family-feeling is intact.

I believe this was Gandhiji’s major contribution to the nation. His role was not limited to ending British rule; his far greater contribution lies in having been able to forge a national consensus on critical issues – amity between different religious communities, removal of social injustice, equality for Dalits, ending the feudal system in the country. It is because of the consensus he helped create that we could so easily end the feudal system in the country.

Today, the foremost issue before the country is once again that of creating a national consensus. The need of the hour is for every thinking Indian, every writer, every social activist, every Indian, to apply their mind to this issue.

Badshah Khan (‘Frontier Gandhi’) made a very pertinent observation when I met him in Bombay many years ago. "Everyone is engaged in the task of forming and running a government, but no one seems to be concerned about shaping the nation and its people", he lamented. This was Gandhiji’s main contribution to our national life – creation of human beings.

We, unfortunately, tend to see the country as an aggregate of statistics – What is our GDP? What is the inflation rate? How many people are unemployed? No doubt, statistics are important, but a nation is not just a sum of numbers. A nation is the preparedness of its people to share joys and sorrows together. And it is this sentiment of togetherness that is threatened with fracture today.

I didn’t mention Babasaheb Ambedkar earlier. This is because his ideas have a far greater acceptance and impact on Indian society now than they had in his lifetime. For a large section of Indian society today, Babasaheb Ambedkar is god. In more recent years, Mandal, too, has had a tremendous social impact. The biggest thing is that today because of Mandal, from the panchayat to the Parliament, we see an increase in the political representation of those who earlier had no access to power. This is a major political revolution, a real shift in power equations.

In the midst of all this flux and change, we all need to remember that centuries of hatred cannot be set right with new hatreds today. We must have the broad perspective that in undoing the injustices of the past, new injustices are not meted out. We have to evolve a vision where the new politics can take everyone along.

Then there is the question of the new challenges that religion will face in the coming century. I am of the belief that religion is a very personal thing, it’s a very personal experience. Let me give the example of the word, mithas (sweet). Imagine how many innumerable experiences are congealed in a single word — the sweetness of a mango, of an imarti, peda, jalebi, banana. When you tell someone that something is sweet, you can only communicate so much of your experience to another person and no more. Let’s take another word, beautiful. Same story. Beyond a limit, words fail to elucidate even our sensory experience. If words are inadequate to describe the sensations we experience through our five senses, how can they be adequate for sharing the much deeper experience arising from faith?

Therefore, I believe that religion necessarily involves a very personal search. You can, of course, share with others the rituals of the social milieu in which you are brought up. But rituals are not religion. And that’s what all the conflict is about – conflicts are over rituals, not religion. If we let go of the fundamentals, the essence of religion, we are bound to face conflicts.

The God above is one, but on this earth there are disputes over his ‘residences’. Thanks to communal politics, He who has created the entire universe finds himself faced with a ‘housing problem’! I believe that one’s own inner voice can be the only ultimate sanctioning authority. For me, anyone who engages in a dialogue with his or her inner voice and follows its dictates follows his or her religion.

Of course, religions have a social form and function, too. As we all know, some truths are universal. A fire will burn, that’s its ‘religion’, its essence. There is nothing Hindu, Muslim, or Christian about this. Similarly, greed is bound to bring grief, irrespective of whether you are Hindu, Muslim or Christian. I think religious leaders can and should play an important role in identifying these universal truths for all of us.

Finally, talking of the century ahead brings us back to the question of investment in human beings. If we do not pay adequate attention to this, we will face grave difficulties in the coming century. The creation of human beings is not a political but a social issue. Politicians only play with people, the task of preparing human beings can only be handled by people in the social field. Unfortunately, very little is being done in this field. Only sectarian organisations seem to feel the need for investing in human beings. But brainwashing people into a certain mould is not the same as preparing human beings with human sensibilities.

This, incidentally, is one area where religious leaders can play a very positive role. After all, religion still plays a major part in the life of our people. If religious leaders could play a positive role in this regard, they could frustrate the designs of those who exploit religious feelings.

It is our great fortune that India is home to all the major religions of the world. If the leaders of all these religions could sit together and arrive at some understanding on the essence of religion and communicate that effectively to the masses, it would be a very major contribution.