A good society is the cherished ideal of every human soul. But a consensus has yet to emerge about what constitutes a good society. This is undoubtedly one of the most complex questions facing us today.

It would be no exaggeration to say that three major initiatives, designed in their separate ways to offer a solution, have been utter failures. A hundred years ago it was generally assumed that the setting up of a national government would provide the answer. It was felt that it was foreign rule which was responsible for the rot that had set in society, and that indigenous rule alone could set matters right. We did finally succeed in establishing a national government in 1947, but it failed to yield the desired result―a good society.

If individuals are reformed, society follows suit. And if individuals degenerate, society too goes into a decline.

Similarly, the initiative which led up to home rule, i.e. the non-violent movement started seventy five years ago by Mahatma Gandhi, did not usher in any utopian ideal. It had come to be assumed that once the principle of non-violence became the mainstay of Indian politics, it would automatically be put into practice in society. But this transference of a principle from the political to the social sphere did not take place. We may have been successful in launching a political movement based on non-violence, but we were to find that it took more than earnest enunciation of the principle of non-violence to build a good society.

The third initiative, carried out after independence, was the attempt to bring about a good society by legislation. There are now scores of laws aimed at social reform, each social evil having several specially framed laws to itself. But this multitude of laws has done little to bring a good society into existence.

Our basic shortcoming is to think purely in terms of systems. This has caused us to devote all our attention to overall social reform, at the expense of the more worthwhile reform of individuals. Over a period of a hundred years, all the major movements launched in our country have been system-based, rather than individual-based.

The individual is the primary unit of society. If individuals are reformed, society follows suit. And if individuals degenerate, society too goes into a decline. That is why our best efforts should centre on the individual, who is, after all, the basic building block of society. The day we reform individuals in their thousands and tens of thousands we shall have set ourselves well and truly on the path of successful social reform.

The solution to our problems lies in uniting in spite of our differences. The need of today is to hold dialogues. Serious minded and influential people from all communities should participate in this dialogue. Its goal should be the securing of peace on the basis of purely non-political grounds.

The representatives of all communities should hold discussions with open hearts. They must strive to put an end to controversial situations on their sides and they should discover a common basis by adopting which both communities can live together as good neighbours.

Dialogue is not a meeting of rivalry but is a brotherly meeting. Such noble tasks are performed by rising above the defeat-victory psychology.

A dialogue of this kind is exactly in accordance with the Islamic Shariah. The Hudaybiya peace treaty in Islamic history is an instance of a successful dialogue of this nature. After the Prophet’s emigration in AD 622, the relations between Muslims and non-Muslims had considerably deteriorated in Arabia. A number of battles and skirmishes ensued, walls of prejudice and hatred barred one another from coming closer.

Finally, Prophet Muhammad was forced to stay for about two weeks at Hudaybiya near Makkah in AD 628. Here began negotiations with nonMuslim Makkan leaders. And then according to most of their conditions, a peace treaty was signed between Muslims and non-Muslims known as Hudaybiya Treaty in Islamic history.

If such a dialogue is held with full justice and sincerity, a new chapter will be opened in the history of India. It is at this point of inter-community relationship where the history of India is standing still. Once this problem is solved and the relations between communities improve, nothing else will come in the way of India’s progress.

The dialogue, if it has to succeed, should not take the form of polemics. They should not become spokespersons of their respective communities during the discussion. What should be uppermost in their minds is larger national interest and the path of improvement for all communities.

All parties will have to commit themselves to differentiating between issues and nonissues; that they will not hold any matter as an issue of prestige; that they will not adopt the way of claim and counter-claim; that they will speak only with the result in mind; that their way will be one of impartiality; that while pressing their demands they will also be willing to concede; that while taking from others they will also be willing to give.

The solution to our problems lies in uniting in spite of our differences.

Dialogue is not a meeting of rivalry but is a brotherly meeting. Such noble tasks are performed by rising above the defeat-victory psychology. Its aim is to solve the matter and not confound it. The feeling at work behind dialogue is one of reconciliation and not of rivalry.

Dialogue means an attempt to solve controversial matters through negotiation rather than through confrontation. If a dialogue is started with this spirit, its success is certain. The door to progress of our country is barred. And a dialogue keeping this spirit in view can surely open the closed doors provided it is conducted with true spirit.