The India Debate: Faith,
Terrorism and Democracy
Editor’s Note: For the benefit of its readers, The Palestine
Chronicle presents two contributions by two of its respected
writers, Vijay Rajiva and Aijaz Zaka Syed. The two writers
differ on various issues concerning the violence and turmoil
currently gripping India. We hope that you will find the
debate both enriching and insightful. The Palestine Chronicle.
Monotheism: The Challenge to Indian Democracy
By Vijay Rajiva
The two monotheistic faiths in India, Islam and Christianity,
present a set of challenges that the Indian polity must face
head on if India is to survive as a democracy. The central
principle of both these faiths is the belief in the one god,
defined by its adherents as such and entailing belief in one
prophet or divine redeemer, and this belief while it could be
and has been accommodated by the Indian Constitution which
guarantees freedom of worship, and in the case of Islam the
practice of Sharia in civil matters, is in danger of
overturning the Indian polity by causing a revival of identity
politics.
The Hindu ethos does not require a commitment to monotheism.
The cardinal belief here is that all belief systems are
equally valid and monotheism is only one such belief system.
Hence, a Hindu can enter a church and worship the Christian
god without being ostracized by the community and indeed the
Hindu mystic Ramakrishna had the pictures of all the founders
of religions hanging on the walls of his prayer room. The
second aspect of the two monotheistic faiths is their
objection to what is termed as ‘idol worship’. Here again,
this is a misunderstanding of the nature of symbolism and
representation in religious worship. The Divine Principle in
the Hindu faith is infinite and therefore has infinite names
and appearances, not one name or one manifestation. And all
Hindu saints and sages down the ages are revered equally, and
neither is there need for a special mediator between the
individual and the Divine Principle. Islam, of course, only
recognizes the one mediator, the prophet Mohammed.
These
India
their
There
significant differences have not in post independence
caused any problems and all three faiths went about
daily worship without impinging on each other’s domains.
were the occasional skirmishes left over from the past,
when Hindus complained of Muslim slaughter of cows and Muslims
complained of the sound of Hindu temple bells in the vicinity
of mosques. Occasionally this would erupt in violence but
nothing lasting. And with regard to Christianity, there were
the discreet conversions to Christianity, at which the Hindu
community turned an indifferent eye.
This all has changed, first with the increase of missionary
activity and with the eruption of terrorism, which can and
should be viewed not as an attempt at Muslim expansionism, the
search for Lebensraum, emanating from the Kashmir region, but
as the expression of an age long desire to proselytize and
convert the infidels. In the interests of political
correctness, Indian intellectuals have remained silent on this
question, which cannot be postponed any longer, if India is to
remain a secular democracy.
The bomb explosions are clearly the work of Taliban and Al
Qaida affiliates within India.
In the most recent serial
bombs in Tripura in the North East, bordering Bangla Desh and
the two bombs in the Delhi market place, and those in Gujarat
and Maharashtra, there is similarity in the methods used, and
the possible culpability of Bangla Desh Muslim immigrants
cannot be ruled out. A group calling itself the Bangla Desh
Hizbullah has made no secret of its intentions to cause murder
and mayhem within India.
Since India is well within the UN designated Line of Control
in Kashmir and has no political problems with Bangla Desh, the
question arises as to the real agenda of these terrorist
groups. Merely, the presence of Indian authority in the
Kashmir Valley, does not explain the rise of the separatist
movement which knows clearly that legally speaking it cannot
go anywhere, since the accession of the Maharajah to India was
perfectly legal and is still legally valid. And minus the
presence of the separatist militants, the Muslim population is
satisfied with its connection to a prosperous and stable
India. Pakistan’s precarious situation is well known in the
region, especially to the residents of the Kashmir Valley.
By a process of elimination one arrives at the real reason:
the compulsion for any monotheistic faith to expand by
proselytisation. This applies equally to Christianity. After
all, India in Left parlance, is locked into the international
capitalist system, especially the American one. And the
Nuclear deal recently signed onto between the Indian PM and
the Bush administration fetches jobs and profits for American
companies. What then, is the need for missionary activity
inside India, except the burning desire to bring souls to
Christ?
To a secular person and indeed to the Hindu this seems
incomprehensible. Nevertheless that is the raison d’etre for
unceasing missionary activity in India. While during the
British Raj, the missionaries were emboldened to publicly
abuse the Hindu religion, during the post Independence period,
that had ceased and the indigenous Christian community had
quietly led their lives, made their contributions to national
life and saw themselves as truly Indian. Now, however, there
is the spectacle of such entities as Life Vision, a
fundamentalist Christian outfit in Mangalore (Karnataka) which
distributes literature containing scurrilous reference to
Hindu deities, which are not fit to be repeated in decent
company. Likewise, quite unusually, painters such as the wellknown MF Hussein have taken to depict Hindu deities in
insulting (to the Hindu consciousness) modes.
These are new developments in India, along with the rise of
the nationalist parties such as the BJP (Bharatiya Janata
Party), which was in power between 1994-1999. Their coming to
power at the centre was preceded by the demolition of the
Babri mosque in 1992, claimed by the Hindu nationalists as
having been built over a Hindu temple (as indeed many were
during the Muslim conquest). Then, followed the horrific
burning of Hindu pilgrims returning in a train from Ayodhya,
the majority being women and children, followed by the
horrific massacre of Muslims as a revenge attack, where
according to official estimates 1044 people were killed, 790
of them being Muslim and 254 Hindus, with 223 missing and 2548
injured, 919 women widowed, and 606 children orphaned.
And last month the horrific murder of an 81 year old Hindu
monk and his associates, one Hindu nun and a child, by
Christian converts. All this followed by revenge attacks on
both sides, with a spreading attack on Christian churches in
other parts of India. The Christian community, which is a 2%
minority, is understandably alarmed at this sudden eruption by
Hindu militancy.
Indian news media is inundated with responses, from both the
Muslim and Christian sectors deploring the loss of unity in
the Indian polity. The well-known Indian journalist MJ Akbar
had once observed that Indian Muslims are the only Muslims in
the whole world who have enjoyed uninterrupted democracy for
sixty years! And an Indian Roman Catholic prelate writing from
Rome has shed tears, not just for his Christian community but
for what he sees as the slow breakdown of Indian democracy.
In response to this the incumbent government of Manmohan Singh
and his allies in government have called for unity in the face
of unexpected challenges. MJ Akbar has remarked that the
terrorists had not aimed at the Indian government but at the
people of India, and the people of India have risen to the
challenge and continued calmly with their daily lives. The
leader of the BJP, Mr. Advani has called for an inter faith
dialogue.
In the opinion of this writer, that is not enough. Indian
intellectuals have to resume the age-old responsibility of the
intellectual and display some intellectual honesty and not
take refuge in political correctness. They must meet head on
the problem of how the two monotheistic faiths can co exist
with the Hindu ethos. While sincerely held religious beliefs
need not and should not be abandoned by the two monotheistic
faiths, there could be a better appreciation on their part of
the millennia old Indian history which unfolded several
thousand years before either Islam or Christianity. This
historical process is the famed Hindu synthesis of three main
stratums, the Aryan, the Indus Valley Civilisation and the
indigenous population, whose origins have been traced to
Australoid tribes.
Once the two monotheistic faiths grasp the panorama of Indian
history they will come to understand that Indian democracy is
a strongly rooted tree and will not be shaken, despite
temporary setbacks. This way, all three major communities and
the smaller Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, Zorastrian and the small
Jewish communities can co exist in peace and prosperity. India
has survived many conquerors and two Occupations and has
emerged intact.
– Dr. Vijaya Rajiva taught Political Philosophy at university.
She contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.
Why Do They Hate Us?
By Aijaz Zaka Syed
Every time I manage to write something, I wait for the
feedback with bated breath. This is always the case, week
after week. One awaits the readers’ verdict as a nervous
student would wait for results after a critical exam. And the
feedback is invariably instructive; even one doesn’t always
agree with the views.
Look at this take by a Canada-based writer, for instance, on
my recent piece on Islam and how some Muslims misrepresent its
humane teachings. I had argued that if the world has a
negative view of the great religion, its followers are largely
to blame.
Frankly, I was rather stunned by Dr Vijaya Rajiva’s response
and her views on Islam and Muslims. Because Vijaya is not only
a fellow Indian but like me she has also been a passionate
supporter of the Palestinian cause, frequently writing on
their dispossession and struggle.
In her take on my piece, Medium is the Message, (Palestine
Chronicle, Sept 26) Vijaya wrote:
“I have nothing against Muslims, especially Indian Muslims who
are basically converts from one of the indigenous religions.
My quarrel is with Islam itself. Its history has been one of
war and violence. The conquest of southern Europe, the other
countries of the Middle East, Iran, Iraq and later
Afghanistan, the Muslim conquest of Sind in the 8th century AD
(have all been the result of Islam’s war). Well, I’m sure you
know your history!
“To give an example, Mohamed of Ghazni did come and plunder
and loot India but that was only one of his aims.
The other (aim) was conversion of the infidels, at the point
of the sword. Those who did not convert were summarily killed.
Nadir Shah standing on the ramparts (of Delhi) watching the
inhabitants of the city being put to death because they were
infidels is a well-known fact. The entire history of Muslim
conquests is well known. Hundreds of temples were destroyed,
sacred books burned and thousands were killed or converted (in
India). I would be interested in knowing when exactly Islam
morphed into a ‘peaceful’ religion!”
Then she goes on to say:
“Intellectually, I find it insulting there is only one God,
and one Prophet. I much prefer the truth that the divine
principle is a mystery and each of us has access to it. (There
is) not just the One Way!”
Well, I wish I could reproduce the fascinating letter in its
entirety but can’t do it for obvious space constraints.
One could write a whole book in response to these familiar
rants steeped in ignorance and mostly based on hearsay and
utter lies shamelessly peddled by European crusaders dressed
as historians and scholars for a thousand years now.
I respect Vijaya for her activism on behalf of the
Palestinians. But let me say this. Her ignorance and mixing
of historical facts with fiction is not only surprising, it’s
downright pathetic.
Mahmoud of Ghazni, who she calls Mohamed of Ghazni, and
numerous ‘Muslim rulers’ who invaded India at one time or
another, were not driven by a missionary zeal to convert the
subcontinent to Islam.
They were merely greedy kings and
conquerors like hundreds of others who came to India for its
fabled riches.
Be it Mahmoud of Ghazni or Mohammed Ghouri, who invaded India
17 times, they were not ideal Muslims nor did they represent
Islam. Like other conquerors in history, they were merely men
driven by a craving for power, not by a holy mission to spread
Islam.
They just happened to be Muslims — just like some
European and Indian conquerors happened to be Christian or
Hindu.
Just as Ashoka the Great was not driven by any religious zeal
when he painted Kalinga red with the blood of its people,
Muslim conquerors were not on a proselytizing mission.
This is why they were equally ruthless in dealing with fellow
Muslims. What Babar did to Ibrahim Khilji and what Sher Shah
Suri did to Humayun is what emperors and kings routinely did
to each other — and not just in India.
Nadir Shah of Iran, who Rajiva says watched from the ramparts
of Delhi while the ‘infidels’ were killed, did not kill only
Hindus. If this is any consolation, almost all of those killed
in Delhi at the time were Muslim subjects of the reigning king
Mohammed Shah.
If Muslim rulers fought and killed Hindu kings and their
subjects, they also killed their fellow Muslim rulers and
their subjects with equal impunity. Mughal emperor Aurangzeb
incarcerated and killed his own father and brothers.
All this was for power and the religion of these rulers had
nothing to do with the whole circus. Even the most benign of
Muslim emperors like Akbar did not represent Islam or Muslims,
just as most of the current lot of Muslim rulers do not.
If these men had indeed been real models of Islam and its
teachings, their subjects would have thanked them as the
persecuted Jews did when the second Caliph Syedna Omar entered
Jerusalem or as the oppressed Christians did when Tareq bin
Ziad led the Muslim army into Spain.
As for the charge of forcing the Hindus to convert to Islam,
there’s a simple answer to the accusation. If the Muslims had
indeed converted the indigenous population at sword’s point,
India would have been a Muslim country today, which is not the
case. The Muslims are still a minority in the country of a
billion. The same would have been true of Spain. Remember,
both India and Spain were ruled by the Muslims for nearly a
thousand years.
That said, I understand if well-read and informed friends like
Vijaya Rajiva demonstrate such incredible ignorance about
Islam and Muslims. Despite the wealth of resources at their
disposal and their growing numbers (recently the Vatican
admitted Muslims have replaced Christians as the world’s
biggest religious bloc), the Muslims have done little to
bridge this gulf of mistrust and hatred that alienates them
from the rest of the world.
They remain their faith’s worst enemies doing nothing to
present its real, pristine face before the world. They’re busy
chasing worthless mirages in concrete while the world builds
on and multiplies its prejudices against Islam and Muslims.
No wonder then the world can barely conceal its contempt for
us.
-Aijaz Zaka Syed is Opinion Editor of Khaleej Times. He
contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. Contact
him at:
[email protected].