EMINENT ISSUES IN PUBLIC DOMAIN.

During the several decades of India's fight against British rule, there was only one overwhelming issue which moved all patriotic Indians alike. That was freedom from British rule. The movement was political in order to realise India's independence. What is the most eminent and compelling issue (or issues) that now confront us?

Mahatma Gandhi had, a few months before independence cogitated about this question. He said that the national movement spearheaded by the Congress had one over-arching common aim, freedom from British rule. Into the national movement several streams of people, many with different and distinct visions of a future India had come in. Some had economic goals, some had social goals, some had political goals, some of these are in conflict with the rest; therefore, it would be proper for the Indian National Congress to dissolve itself immediately after independence and allow different political parties to merge with their distinct ideologies and party programs to realise these ideologies.

He wanted the Congress to convert itself into an organisation for 'constructive' work (village industries, Harijan uplift, basic education, etc.). But Jawaharlal Nehru, in his unquenchable thirst for power and dominance to build a 'socialist' India and many of his colleagues did not want to dissolve the Congress. They wanted to appropriate for themselves the credit that Congress accumulated for spearheading India's national movement for freedom. It is not I that is characterising Nehru as a person thirsty for power and with a dictatorial mental make up. He himself had, under a pseudonym written a self-criticism of his in the most famous journal 'Modern Review'. Therein he said that he had dictatorial mindset that, he was obsessive with leadership and power and so on. With the demise of Gandhiji and Sardar Patel, there was no check upon him and he used all the government power that Gandhiji contrived to confer upon him (dis-regarding Congress-men's preference for Sardar Patel) to smoother the true national aspirations of Bharatiyaas, calling them Hindu communalism.

Dr. Ambedkar and Dr. K.M. Munshi had clear ideas of what a nation means. If there is no fraternity among all the people, there can be no nation. If all the people are not motivated by the same heritage and deeds of their historical and legendary heroes, there can be no nation. If there are no common emotions as for example: when the country is subjected to external aggression or natural calamities, then there is no nation and fraternity. By giving adult franchise we are giving only political equality. Political equality by giving a vote to every adult cannot by itself bring in reduction of economic inequality, equal opportunity to prosper and social equality. 
Ambedkar was very articulate and insistent that without forging fraternity, we cannot have social and economic equality. Castes among Hindus (now Muslims and Christians also are asserting that there are castes among them too; even untouchability) and the structured social inequality based on caste (which correspond with the traditional profession of the people constituting the caste) militate against social and economic equality and fraternity. Ambedkar was therefore considerably exercised over as to how the inequality entrenched in the caste system could be eliminated.
Education and urbanisation both of which bring in their train, enlightenment and mobility form one profession to another ought to have been given the highest priority in our Planned Development. Every Asian country which gained independence after India had cared for the development of their human resources. They attained over 90 percent literacy within 10-15 years. They invested heavily on education, health care and housing. China, Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan and Singapore are great examples of right priorities which their enlightened and self-less leaders set for their national development. But India ruled for most of the years since 1947 by the Nehru dynasty did not care for education of all as Ambedkar and Munshiji and Rajaji had advocated.
The Constitution mandates that within the areas of Republic (i.e., by end of Jan, 1960), free compulsory education must be imparted by the State for all children between ages 6 to 14 years. Education, especially vocational, would have enabled the young to change, move among from the professional forages of their fore-fathers and thus escape the profession-based caste and gain social mobility and equality. Urban life largely ignores caste and caste-based segregated living an inequity imposed on scheduled caste for centuries. Singapore has large-scale State-built housing flats and allotted by lots between the three ethnic groups - Chinese, Malay and Indian in proportion to their populations.
Allotment by lots leads to mixed housing, i.e., people don't live in ethnically segregated housing, but they have mixed living. That blunts racial/ethnic separatism and conduces to tolerance, respect and cultural enrichment and eventually fraternity. 
It is now universally recognised that the faster the growth of the Gross Domestic Product of a country, the greater is going to be the inequality in countries where education and health are not universally available. That is what India is now experiencing.