Babri Masjid

Babri Masjid
Dr. Rameshchandra MukhopadhyayaAllahbad is the hallowed city of Allah. It is the confluence of three rivers in the Ganges , Jumna and Saraswati. The Kumbha Mela takes place there. Billions of the so called illiterate Indians along with the Bollywood stars , politicians and intellectuals bathe there during the mela and deem themselves blessed. Although the Ganges at Prayag has lost its flow in the sands the very name Prayag seems to sway the present author towards unknown destination-may be towards the seas. But let me not drift. It is said that wherever two or more rivers meet there is a great release of energy. True or false, it seems the Allahbad High Court has outdone every other High Court in its courage in the post independence India. Once upon a time Indira Gandhi was the all in all of all that she surveyed. It seemed that her rights there was none to dispute. And her yes men cried Indira is India and India is Indira. When Indira was apparently at the height of her powers Allahbad High Court momentarily pulled her down and reminded her that she was no more than an ordinary citizen of the country , Of course, ideally speaking, the status of an ideal citizen is the highest in a democratic state. Be that as it may Indira accepted the High Court
judgement in her cool and the crisis ignited in her the fire that was inherent in her She staged a glorious come back in the political firmament and proved herself to be a leader with difference. Well my theme is not Indira and her career. I want to focus on the courage of the Allahbad High Court. They were indeed the Daniel come to Judgment Daniel read the writing on the wall. Presently, Belzebubs flourishes proved themselves to be empty vaunts. But Allahbad High Courts decree only helped Indira manifest her innate fire and energy. And the nation saw her in emergent colours . But judgement on Indira has not been the only historic verdict pronounced by the Allahbad High Court. It has created history once again by giving its verdict on the Babri Masjid and Rammandir. The focus of our present article is on that verdict for the time being
The verdict of the Allahbad High Court on the dispute over the election of Mrs Indira Gandhi proved that judiciary has independence in the country. It does not fear the most powerful ruler of the country. It can pass judgements against him or her if law so demands. Mrs Gandhi accepted the verdict with calm and proved that the law of the country can overrule the whims of a powerful ruler. Indian constitution is a written constitution . Here fundamental rights are enshrined as they are in the American constitution. Hence in Goloknath case the right to property was upheld and it was decreed by the Supreme Court that fundamental rights are fundamental and they cannot be amended under any circumstances. The court promised that it would function as the watchdog of fundamental rights. But Mrs Gandhi stood
in the way . She observed that change is the category of existence and in a world that changes always, nothing could be fundamental. Hence fundamental rights are also not fundamental. They could be
changed. They could be changed with a view to implementing the Directive Principles. Indian constitution enshrines in it Directive Principles in close imitation of the Canadian constitution.Directive
Principles, Indira observed , are the beacon light that tells one whither the constitution should move. Thus by way of amending the constitution she made the parliament the most powerful institution in
Indian democracy. She thereby curbed the powers of judiciary. But when occasion demanded she bowed down to its decree without a demur. Despite judiciarys spectacular feats adjudicating on Indira ,, the Indian judiciary in its everyday business is lousy and lazy. Billions of dollars are spent every year for setting up of enquiry commissions by the judiciary ,their verdicts are delayed sine die and justice
delayed, everyone knows ,is justice denied.Besides, countless perhaps millions of cases are waiting for adjudication for decades together. In short Indian judiciary is an Aegean stable stuffed with multitude
of litigations awaiting adjudication and no Hercules has come to clean it.In fact it is judiciary alone that can provide employment to the millions of the unemployed in India. And if judiciary were prompt and
fearless our country would have become really the pink of perfection. Politics they say is the last refuge for the scoundrels . It is, so far as India is concerned. Exceptions prove the rule . Capitalists are predators in disguise.But if lawcourts were prompt and acted to the best of their understanding much of the corruption in every walk of life could be done away with and the society would be surely streamlined. But to think that law will rule the society is building sandcastles in the air.Judges are human beings and they are subject to all the follies to which man succumbs. In the storm scene in King Lear the king cries out that the judiciary has been bribed.
The quarrel over a site where whether a temple or a mosque should stand might apparently seem to be much ado about nothing. Despite that historical wars burst forth in the West the other day over an issue
more trifling than that of the dispute over Ram mandir. Do we not remember the Crimean War. There was a church in Greece. The Roman Catholics claimed control of it. The Russian church also claimed
control of the same.And there was a dispute as to who should hold the key of the church. The then French Emperor Napoleon deemed himself as the protector of the Roman Church and it was he who vaunted that he would see to that the Roman Church possessed the key. It led to the historic war which is known as Crimean war. Why was Russia behind its church? Because by way of meddling into the church affair it could have passage to the sea. One of the greatest limitations of Russia is that it does not have icefree port. Hence a longing for ice free port has ever been impelling Russian foreign policy. Even today it lingers. Britain saw that if Russia won the war it would have its sphere of influence in reece. And that way Russia might stand in the way of British colony in India. Hence to checkmate Russian expansion Britain sided with France. So there was a war over the dispute as to the lock and key of a church. It was silly. But silly events might generate great consequences that are not immediately perceived. It was this Crimean war that saw the emergence of Florence Nightingale on the Anglo French side and of Tolstoy on the Russian. Ever author is always locked up in a mortal battle with the language he uses. But I will not digress. Only thing is that every Indian should remember that hospitals in India owe much to Florence Nightingale. And Tolstoy who it is said read Ramkrisna Kathamrita exerted great influence on Indian National movement through Gandhi. Gandhiji we all know set up Tolstoy Farm in South Africa. But let us not linger on that. The hard fact is that the Babri Masjid and Rammandir issue is much more serious in the Indian context than the lock and key dispute that triggered off the Crimean War.
One might argue that in a country where millions are grovelling in the dark in hunger and pain why spend your energy after disputes over a temple and a mosque. Such comments are dangerous. Those who comment like that do not want that the millions have two square meals a day. They only try to maintain the status quo. If feeding the millions are the only thing than than every other fundamental right could be abrogated or abolished. For example one need not fight for the freedom of speech. We are least bothered as to what the rulers do or say . We would be quite happy if we were fed. Indeed things were like that when the economy was on the subsistence level. Economy on the subsistence level does not always mean that they did not have surplus food. But they did not look forward to horde that food or sell them. In earlier times people really did not suffer from want of food in the main and
hence they did not bother what the government did. Of course the government did not commonly interfere with their faiths. Hence people were not much concerned with wars between a king and another. This is not true as to the history of the Europeans But this is true as to the political scenario of ancient India. Black sheep like King Asoka who enacted a mayhem in Orissa was rare in ancient India. But right now subsistence economies have been shattered under the impact of so called civilization . And to get square meals we have to fight on every front to assert our identity.
Why is the verdict of the Allahbad High Court historical ? India since independence has always betrayed its weakness in resolving issues when Hindus and Moslems disagree. According to the 1991 census the
Hindus( including most of the scheduled castes who are 16.49 percent) constitute 82 % of the total population of the country. Those who believe in Islam are only 12 % of the population. But it is a pity
that the government and the political parties have always pampered the Muslim minority . But they have not vacillated to interfere with the so called Hindu religion. This is the first time in the countrys
history that a brave High Court has decreed on behalf of the demand of the 81 percent Hindus of the country. The Hindus ( forget the intellectuals who are 0 .1 percent only) now onwards can think that
India is their country at least to an extent. India is not as yet a nation in the right sense of the term. May be it has been a bold step in nation building. Whether the verdict of the court has been justified or not is a different issue. We will come to that later. But the point is that the judgment has been historic at least because of the fact that it has paid due honours to Hindu sentiments. The 0.1 percent intellectuals among them might ask –Where is a Hindu? And even if there were Hindus why should a court give weightage to that? It should judge the merit of the case in the cold light of law. And I am sure that the communists A will be most vocal on the issue. It were they who went to the British jail in an attitude in support of Stalin who made a non aggression pact with Hitler. When the treaty between Hitler and Stalin was snapped and when Stalin joined hands with the British and America the communists in India changed their stance They at once came out of the jail and joined the British . Mahatma Gandhi
gave the call Quit India. The communists did not support the 42 movement. Instead they worked for the British against the freedom fighters of our country. Not only that it were they who were in the
pay roll of the British so that their trade unions helped the British by way of helping the factories over time. It were the communistys who first demanded partition of India Jinnah did not as yet show up as an advocate of partition. But I am here not to recount the glorious annals of the Communists of India. And I believe that Islam has not been ignored by the verdict. The Hindus do not mind if Islam is given identity. Only thing is that your identity should not be established at my cost.
I have already stated that the verdict of the Allahbad High Court has been satisfying to most of the Hindus.Please all , please none. May be you are one of those rare persons a Mahatma who loves all things great and small. But functionally often you have to choose one thing from another. And every one be it Lord Buddha or Mahatma Gandhi had to choose one thing from another. If you look towards east you cannot see things in the west. This is why Lord Krisna exhorted that every one and everything in the existence is the abode of God .Despite that functionally you have to participate in war when war is a must. That is the way of the world. War if you must , but for God’s sake let there be no war drums. Any judgement might please some and offend others. No judgement reveals any absolute truth that cannot be disputed. And precisely there cannot be any thing called absolute truth. Any truth whatever is context based. Whatever is asserted as truth by those who are in power is truth since there is nothing called absolute truth.It all depends on the socialization of the persons who judges the judgement. Those who have inculcated a hatred for Brahmanism through auto suggestion and socialization will rejoice whenever the symbols of Brahmanism are desecrated. With me things are different. When we were young the Islamic History by Iswari Prasad was deemed to be an authentic book on the Islamic period of history. And almost every page of the book is loaded with heart rending tales of destruction and besecration of Hindu temples in India by the Muslims. This is not all . It were they who killed the Buddhists to the last man. They destroyed Nalanda Mahavihar, Vikram shila Mahavihar and the
like. They killed the students and teachers in those centres of learning to the last man. This is not all.Everyone knows how the temple of Somenath was looted over and over again. . Go to Mathura. Go to Banaras. You will find how Islam tried to destroy whatever edifices the Hindu culture cherishes. One outstanding medieval scholar Zia ud din Barani ( A.D. 1280 to AD 1360) opined that the Muslim kings could not represent Islam in India in the right sense of the term unless they destroyed polytheism disbelief and idolatry. Those of us who read this history and those of us who are born into the Hindu society could not bear with such horrors enacted in Indian history. We wept in secret. Call it sentimental? Well Cant help it.In fact destroying other peoples faith is the characteristic of the Semitic religions. The Semitic religions are political ploys to have power over others. The Christian missionaries came to India only as the agents of British imperialism . Islam spread with sword in hand. It would not put up with any opposite view. And so was Marxism. Those who tried to mow down the differences between man and man with fire and sword have failed. The Semitic religions and the children of Goths
Vandals Angles Saxons and the like have now chosen a different strategy. They are out there to mow down the differences with their project of globalization. And they remind one of Quixote charging the
windmill. What is true of the Semitic religion is not true of Indian religions. Presently before the advent of Islam approximately in the 10 th century A. D the whole of Central Asia was swept by Buddhism. Buddhism was spread in China Japan Korea and so on. But Indian political power did not take any advantage of the same. No Indian religion has any Pope or Khalifa. The monks and monasteries in China
or Cambodia or Ceylon did not send any tribute to any Pope in India. On the contrary in England between 1485 and 1534 the Church paid an average of about 17300 pounds to the Bishop of Rome annually . Thus Christianity was an empire builder like the imperialist states and the companies. Think of the East India Company. But no such instance is found in Indian history of yore. With the advent of independence we found secularism in India too weak to give us that fortifying energy that is expected of the members of a strong nation . Secularism signifies nondiscrimination and equal liberty for all citizens, believers and non believers alike. A secular state is one where the state does not discriminate between citizens on the basis of their religious faith. It bestows equal civil rights on every citizen irrespective of caste or creed. It respects every religion whatever and protects those as well who profess that they
have no religion Only when it needs to protect or enhance the rights of citizens it might stand in the way of secularism, if necessary. It is fashionable now a days to assert that religion and politics should be separated from each other. This has come from misreading of Machiavellis Prince and Madison and Jeffersons discourses during the presentation of the Bill of Rights. In fact everywhere all over the globe every man and woman and child are guided by the religion into which they are born. Comte wanted to do away with religion But his experiment failed. Stalin constitution banned the preaching of every religion.Only Marxism was preached. Living decades together in a world where religious discourses are banned they are back to the realm where there is the right to religion and see their passion for religious
discourses has not waned a whit despite the fact that they lived in a world sans religious discourse for three generations. Go to China. The cultural Revolution desecrated numerous cave temples and beheaded the images of Lord Buddha Lao Tse and Confucius . But that spell is over Right now China acknowledges the right to religion and the role of religion in the society. You cannot do without religion. And there cannot be one religion for the people of the whole world. Different experiences of different communities will give rise to different religions. A secular state should not stand in the way of different
religious practices of different religions . But it must ensure civil liberty for all and the same civil laws for all. Look at the marriage law in India. It is not the same for every religion. It tenders a special respect to Islamic faith. But the constitution does not speak of Hindu faith. Does it not imply double standard ? If the 81 percent of the people do not have the sense of belongingness to their native country can the state ever dream of becoming a nation. If the law of the country makes special provisions for a minority religion what offence has been committed by the honourable judges of the Allahbad High Court when they speak of the faith of Hindus?
Intellectuals have attacked the Allahbad High Court judgement because it took into account the faith of the majority of Indians. What is faith but faith in fiction . May be Sree Ram is a figment of imagination that the Hindus have been nurturing in the mind for ages and aeons. But the learned critics should know that the laws of any country whatever are based on fiction. Take for example man’s right to landed property. Has man really the right to landed property? Has he ever entered into any contract with the deer and the tiger and the snakes and the chimpanzees so that they should give up their right to wilderness for man to enjoy urban facilities. Has man any right to deforestation and raise towers driving away the animals and birds and insects? These are simply violence What is a company? One can sueagainst a company . Because in the eyes of law it is a person. It is an artificial juridical person. The notion of bargadar in West Bengal is a fiction of law . Thus fictions abound in law. In fact the whole system of law is a Disneyland where arbitrary assertions have great value. Take for example the Evidence Act. There the onus of proving has been often thrust upon the shoulders of a party in a dispute arbitrarily. For example if a ticket collector complains that you were journeying in a train without a ticket the burden of proving that you were travelling without ticket does not fall on the ticket collector but on you. In fact any legal system could be compared with the rules of any other game. One must play according to the rules of the game or else one is disqualified Now interstingly enough one of the participants in Allahbad High Court was Ram lala himself. See the fun of it. As per law Ramlala is a person . He is an artificial juridicalperson. Lord Siva of Tarakeswar or Ram lala of Ayodhya is an assessee in light of Income Tax. This has been done to save the deities from being possessed by the pandas.Since Ramlala is a minor some body took part in the legal battle of a game at Allahbad. High Court.
In a democratic system what really counts is the myth. Who knew that Mrs Gandhi would be a ompetent Prime Minister before she became the Prime Minister? It was the myth about her that cast votes on her
behalf.Those who expect rationality to work everywhere . and those who are waiting for rational men to people the world are the denizens of a fools paradise. What does reason do? It is deductive. It can not be the music maker or the lone sea breaker. It cannot explore fresh horizons of thought and experience. Any reasonable argument is deduced from a premise. But every premise whatever can be questioned. So reason does not take us any where. And in fact reason plays very little role in the most rational of our philosophrers. Because below his conscious mind lurks the vast landscapes of the subconscious and
the unconscious minds which are unknown and unknowable and they are playground of blind impulses. Only a yogi could know them and control them perhaps. Since judges and the masses are neither yogis nor robots they cannot be rational enough. We need not judge whether a cricketer is rational or not. We have to see whether he plays according to the rules. Or else he will be disqualified Similarly we need not see whether the judges at Allahbad were rational or not. We have to check whether they acted according to the law of the country. Those who advocate a wall between the secular and the religious in the Indian context do not appreciate the reality. Yes you can distinguish religion from the secular. But in India secular way of life of the masses is encompassed by the religions . Religion in Indian context pervades virtually every aspect of life.This has been effected not through any mechanical diffusion And hence in the Indian context religion permeates every sphere of politics economics law and all that Only
thing is that it is not visible to the myopic eye of the intellectual. The intellectual says that issues of faith cannot be judged at the court . So do the fundamentalists say. The intellectuals are post cards or as much one dimensional men as the fundamentalists essentialists and the like. In a vast multi religious country like india disputes will arise on religious issues . If out of the negotiations are not reached does any one want to throw the country into the jaws of riots? Better go to courts. And the judges cannot
help but to adjudicate on the issue. That way the mutual enmity of the two communities could be sublimated. When we lose a game do we go to beat one who has one it? No we want to face him in another match and defeat. The playground should be as wide as the existence itself and there is no age limit in taking part in the game of life. And going to courts is a kind of participating in the game.
Suppose we are quarreling you and me on whether we should take lemonade a lime juice. A third party-- an intellectual interrupts us bringing an apple instead of soft drinks. It will neither help me nor you. Because both of us thirsty. While the majority of the people of the country are debating over Ram Mandir and Babri Masjid these intellectuals, may be great Mulayam Singh is one of them, exhort that
instead of masjid or mandir there should be hospitals. Those who advocate for hospitals are the agents of the multinationals. It should be noted that more people are cured by alternative therapeutic system than by allopathic treatment . This has been acknowledged by WHO And that is why alternative therapeutic systems have been recognised by the WHO. But despite that the hospitals and allopathic
therapeutic system continues because billions of dollars are being spent on its behalf. The multinational companies are there. There could be intellectuals who might say that there is no use of churches and temples and mosques . They should remember that in every locality there should be a hyperspace like a temple or a mosque where an individual could weep to herself or himself or weep before some god.
Every man is fetishistic. Even with the so called intellectual Hospitals are his fetish.
Reason and rationality are always subject to culture Culture is thatcomplex whole that includes knowledge belief art law customs etc. and any habits and skills acquired by man as a member of a particular society. The self styled rational thinkers should learn to understand . The world is peopled by myriads of culture and that is why it interesting . Those who want to impose one culture on every society are fascists . If they were in power the world would be a place unworthy for living. The rational man assumed by the economists is found no where. Market exchange is not the only method of exchange . Besides the economists claim that price is the basis of market exchange Price is determined at the point of equilibrium where the demand curve and the supply curb meet. In fact they seldom meet.
But we donot always buy a thing even when the price is alright. It is because cultural pressure is there . That is why we prize exchange value in place of use value A shirt sold at the Calcutta footpath could serve as well as a branded shirt would do . Still we go for the branded shirt. The economists do not take into account the change in culture.With them the rational man is ever the same , let time do what
it can.But today a rational man , be it European or Indian will opt for a lobster dish. But hundred years ago lobsters were abominable nuisance . No rational man would agree take lobsters Thus tastes of
rational men also change . And it is most rational not to preach rationalism and exhort that there should be a hospital at the place where people are arguing over whether there should be a temple or a
mosque. Such people if they ever come to power will not pay heed to demands of the subjects. They will rule the world with divine right.
One of the most salient features of the verdict of the Allahbad High Court is that all the three judges have been of the opinion that there was a temple below the mosque. While two judges opined that the temple was destroyed and on its ruins the mosque was raised . The third judge opined that the mosque was raised on the ruins of the temple. The temple was already ruined when the mosque was raised. The High Courts acknowledgement of this archaeological fact is a great joy. Those of us who felt bad when we read that the expansive Islam built their mosques on the ruins of temples feel that after all this has been acknowledged by the law of the land. By the by I have not read the verdict which runs through something like 1000 pages . My knowledge of the verdict is news paper deep only. However on the ground that there was temple at the site of dispute the pujahs of Ramlala at that site has been upheld by the High Court. Witty criticisms of such arguments are there .It has been argued that the demon Bali was a native of Kerala. The Brahmins conquered Kerala and destroyed all the structures raised by Mahabali. Firstly this is based on Aryan hypothesis put forward by the West which has been exploded I have touched upon that in my Random Thoughts on Yoga and elsewhere in Sefirah too. Secondly if a political outfit could be raised and the masses made aware of this loot and plunder by the Brahmins and if they could be made to claim that they should be given back the land that the Brahmins had usurped . Fine they could go to the court. The Kerala High Court then must take into account the precedent set up by Allahbad High Court. But is Mahabali being worshipped since say 1500 BC anywhere in Kerala? I do not know . In a democratic set up the myth of the majority is vindicated. Men live with their myths. If their myths are destroyed they are destroyed at heart. They voted for Indira because she promised a socialist pattern of society. Her step towards the nationalization of banks, they thought , was one big leap of India towards distribution of wealth. But has it materialized? What else but myth that helped Indira to win the laurels. It matters little whether Sri Ram was a historical personage or not . Although recently I have learnt through hearsay that Sri Lanka Govt claims that archaeological excavations have found the ruins of Ravanas kingdom May be it is true. But true or not does not matter What matters is the belief system of a culture. Sri Ramchandra is over whelmingly popular in India . The Valmiki Ramayana is the fountain head of thousands of Ramayanas in thousands of tongues. The Tulsidasi Ramayana is so popular in U. P. and Bihar that I have seen even unlettered thieves of remote villages quoting the Ram charit manas. What to talk of India. Indonesia is a predominantly Moslem country But their national epic is Ramakien or Indonesian Ramayana. Thailand is predominantly a Buddhist country. There the national epic is the Ramayana. The belief of the millions must be honoured. No other myth has multiplied in thousands of literary works of high watermark in the world. The archaeological evidence points out that there is no historical evidence of Babri Masjid as raised by Babar. The rejection of an ordinary mosque where prayers were not conducted for a long time could be done to uphold the
myth of 80 percent Hindus . When Hazrat baal was stolen from a mosque the whole of India was dumbfounded and Hindus shared the grief with the Muslims. Just as Hazrat Mahammad is venerable to the Muslims so is Ram venerable to Hindus. And the Hindus will not get a piece of land in the city where Rama is said to have been born in a country where they are 80%. In that case 81 % percent people of the country will be alienated and how come a nation will exist with 19% of its population . Even the Muslims of the country have understood the truth of it. Debates may go on . But a Shia outfit has promised to contribute money to the end of building the Rammandir. Those who are unhappy with the verdict are at liberty to go to the Supreme Court for appeal. In case the Supreme gives a verdict on behalf of the mosque the intellectuals will dance to the light steps of Lalu Prasad and Mulayam Singh Yadav . Why not . The IIM invited Lalu to deliver lectures . The IIMs are really great.
The judgement of the Allahbad High Court seems to have made the majority of the country happy.Happiness doesnot consist of getting enough bread only.People are happy when their ego is given identity. People are satisfied when their faiths are honoured. Those who clamour that poor people need food first are right and not right. Even a hungry man has his pride and prejudices. Those highly educated and rich persons who do not take that into account do suffer from superiority complex and are beggars in the right sense of the term. These self seeking intellectuals have no other object in their ken but
their power over others. Neither do they trust modern science nor do they trust primitive religion. Take Darwin for example. If Darwin is to believed the different plants and animals. Including man descends
from the same ancestor. Do the intellectuals believe that at all? Nope.Or else they would not call the Australian aborigines and Red Indians uneducated and uncultured. The Australian aborigines and Red
Indians believe in totems . They are divided in many clans . Each clan has its own totem . May be it might be a bird or an animal or a plant. They believe that the above plant or animal has descended from
the same forefather as theirs. Hence they respect the animal or the plant which is their totem It is their duty to preserve the above plant or animal. When my grandmother after her bath in the Ganges came
all the way home pouring water at the root of this tree or that tree intellectuals would call her illiterate and superstitious. These illiterate people need not know what Darwin said. When people address a
tree or an animal as brother or sister do they need to know Darwin. The modern development pundits would lament that they have not been given modern education .Send them to Loreto . They will learn what has been said in the Origin of Species. But they will never learn to respect a plant or an animal.When the intellectuals lament that these naïve people are oppressed because they donot get the opportunity to read in the Loreto The intellectuals are like the frog in the well. It is indeed Gods blessing that quite a large part of humanity have been deprived of the disease called modern education . It is they who are still looking after the good of man and Nature. The frogs in the well however seeks to humiliate the poor man by crying hoarse that they need bread only The intellectuals are the jackal who lost his tail in a car accident and asks every one to get rid of the tail or to study in Loreto or to study Nuclear Physics to get an assignment from the Pentagon the fort of devils of men. These intellectuals should first learn to have respect for the culture and education of the economically backward. Only then they will know that the poor in our country do not need food only, they need their intellectual fellowmen to respect them and their beliefs faiths and knowledge. If they knew this they would not say that the poor Hindus do not bother for Ram Mandir. The intellectuals must not decide what we the common people want. They cannot decide the wants for us . There is the rub for all developmental thoughts.But we must agree that a democracy must not ignore the minority within its ambit To make the Hindus happy a democracy must not make the Christians or Jews or Muslims unhappy. When there is any dispute however what is more true (since there is nothing called absolute truth) in the contingent or in the relevant context should be upheld. In other words democracy must uphold the public opinion Public opinion is however not always the opinion of the majority of the people. Public opinion could be the opinion of one person only if it is meant for the benefit of the public as a whole. What if the truly public opinion and the opinion of the majority differs? Let us not get into that riddle Happily for us the opinion of the majority of the Indians , public opinion and the opinion of judges see eye to eye on the Babri Masjid . The minorities in the country including the Moslems are not that unhappy at this , I presume.
Temples and mosques and churches, the sacred places hallowed by the memories of the pirs and the like are spread all over the country. No wonder that they go to ruins here and there. Often they are demolished by government orders. The devotees like us become sad when such incidents take place . But commonly no one goes to the court. But when a particular place is set apart reminiscent of His Holiness Mahammad or Saint Thomas Guru Nanak or Lord Buddha it is quite natural that the followers of the great man , call him a prophet or avatar seek to protect the place from being used in any other way. No one knows whether Babri Masjid was founded by Babar or not. Babar is not a role model . Aggressors are never looked up by as messiahs. Exceptions of course prove the rule. The communists looked upon Chinese army attacking India as the liberation army. Marx and the Western
intellectuals supported colonization as a civilizing force . Their agents like Rammohon in India prayed that more Englishmen should come to India to civilize us The first modern Bengali poet Iswar Gupta
celebrated the victory of the English over the sepoys. He called the queen of Jhansi as a prostitute.Leave aside those great guys. To repeat no conqueror like Babar can be a role model .Consequently, a
mosque thus built by an invader on the ruins of a temple if ruined does not hurt even the Moslems. But since the place is hallowed with the memory of the nativity of Ram if it is used as anything else but
Ram Mandir it will hurt the sentiment of the Hindus in the large. If the western scholars are to be believed the Valmiki Ramayana was composed during third century BC . Since then Hindus all over India
have been worshipping the fiction called. There are numerous Ramayanas in Sanskrit . There are Ramayanas written in Pali and Prakrit.There is not a single vernacular in which Rama story has not been written.
There are thousands of Ramayanas. The Ramayana is the national epic of Indonesia where the majority of the population is Moslem . It is the national epic of Thailand where the majority of the people are
Buddhists. The Ramayana is read all over India . The intellectuals have not tasted of the Pierrian Spring If he is a physicist ask him what is chaos theory, nine out of ten of Msc’s of Physics does not know . Ask a lawyer whether he has read Best on evidence 90 out of hundred has not heard his name Ask an MBA whether he has read Peter Drucker he will at best that he read some excerpts from the same in the hand outs given by the college. How can the Ramayana ever. The illiterate masses however know the Ramayana by heart. It is they who crowd at the Ram jatra. That Ramayana is read all over India and that
Rama is loved and worshipped all over India is one of the cementing factors that welds the many languages castes and creeds into a nation True that nation is a myth created by the West. But as long as it is there why try to create fissures in it. Only to get into the lime light of media. For me I believe in sheer federalism and the right to secede. I believe that India is a concept as old as 1500 BC and Kashmir the cradle of Kashmiri Saivism , the birth place of Abhinava Gupta , the place of nativity of Rishi movement in Islam has been a part of the concept of India since time immemorial. When Arundhati
denies this she wants to be radical siding with so called Islam . Jyoti Basu of Bengal was once elected with explicit support from the Muslim League. He defeated Humayun Kabir who was an avowed secular .
When these communists seek to teach Indians secularism one cannot but laugh at them And Arundhati . Is she not playing in the hands of Muslim fundamentalists?Let Kasmir be Kashmir and Bengal . Different
states do not mean different nations There could be one nation called India made of 1000 sovereign states. But that India is India is because of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata and the like. Why try to
break it? Arundhati what do you get from it? Those who uphold the memory of Ramayana are in fact not fundamentalists but secular at heart. The intellectuals who have read of Hinduism via MaxMueller or
at best a Penguin best seller might look askance.
I n my last post I pointed out democracy cannot ignore public opinion. Public opinion is not necessarily the opinion of the majority. Public opinion could be the opinion of a single person provided it looks
forward to the benefit of one and all.It is singularly a happy coincidence when the majority opinion is the public opinion.And with those who have seated Ramachandra on the throne of their hearts and
seek to externalize the same at the Rammandir in Ayodhya Ramchandra stands for a way of life , a family thought , a political thought and a philosophy of life. This is not the place where we can discuss the Ramayana and compare the same with Iliad or Aeneid . Dr Sabita Chakrabarty has been kind enough to publish my Valmiki Ramayana Reconsidered in the columns of the Sefirah. Those who want to have adeeper awareness of what the Ramayana is from my point of view may go through it. Here suffice it to say that unlike the other literatures in the world it opens with the quest for good man . Every activity and every narrative in the world begins with a lack. And the Valmiki Ramayana opens with the lack of a good man. No other literature in no other language opens with the awareness of such a lack. You can change the system . But that does not always change the character of man. Hence the question is relevant even today.But where is a novel or a poem or a political thought that seeks a good man. However Rama is the goodman whom the world needs so much. Rama and Krisna are the two un
ique characters in the whole range of world literature who never took any intiative. They however acted tirelessly and acted impelled by their station and duties. The received image of Rama is that he is the
ideal son , ideal brother , ideal husband and an ideal prince. He did not go out to build empires. Wherever he went he fought the evil forces and mowed down them That is all But he did not seek to build an empire or to preach a religion thereby So that is the political philosophy for which he stands. But he did not thrust upon the masses his will or his personal beliefs Although he was fearsome even to the gods when he was engaged in war there was no one more humble to every Tom Dick and Harry . He said that he wouldnot take anything that he had not earned And although some claimed that he was god incarnate he firmly denied the same.He underwent all the groans that a mortal is subject to. Thus Rama stands for a world where every faith every religion every community could live together in perfect amity. This is the received image of Ramachandra among the so called illiterate masses. The pundits might dig hole in it.Because either their- knowledge is a review- of- the- Ramayana- deep or else they might choose a stray quote from the text to prove their point that may be Sri Rama was a bad person Ha Ha. There are the intellectuals who claim that there should be a separation of religion and politics for a smooth working of Democracy I have heard many radicals and Marxists to say this. It was originally
said by Jefferson in the context of Christianity. But it does not apply in the context of Hinduism . To teach a Hindu to be secular is a contradiction in terms. Rather Hinduism or Ramarajya is the only
religion or outlook or creed whatever you choose to earmark it that can serve as the firm foundation for secularism any where in the world This is a tall claim We will discuss about secularism in our next
post. No i assure i am not a fundamentalist or essentialist or reductionist.
One version of secularism claims that there should be a wall between religion and politics. As I have already pointed out it were Madison and Jefferson who voiced this opinion when American constitution was in the making. Consequently, America did not have any state religion. But it did not banish religion from the public realm. This is not all. The first Congress appointed a chaplain for the army. George Washingtons inaugural culminated in a service at Saint Pauls chapel. And Washington took his oath with the Bible in hand. The Supreme Court in America commenced with a prayer saying—God save the US and this honourable court.
On the surface separation of religion and the state means that the state must not interfere with the activities of any religion whatever. But what did America do? I will here give two instances A Potlatch is a festival ceremony observed by such tribes as Haida Nuxal Tingit and the like . There amidst song and dance people who have surplus wealth distribute the same among their fellowmen. With these people the man who has riches has no social status. The man gives away riches is most respected. These give us the vision of alternative societies or how the world could be made. Canada banned this practice in 1885. America also banned this practice in the 19th century . Those who would participate in it would be put to jail.Why ? Because the Christian Fathers said that if such festivals continued they could not disseminate the teachings of Christ Besides such festivals are wastage. When Obama comes to India may be a crore of rupees is spent every fifteen minutes. But Potlatch is wastage, The so called illiterate tribals continued their traditional festival despite the red eyes of the state. The ban has been repealed only in 1951. Then come to another instance. The indigenous people of America were used to circle dance and other likely rituals. In 1989 Jack Wilson taught them Ghost Dance based on their traditional rituals.. It was first introduced among the indigenous people of Nevada. What was Ghost Dance about? Jack Wilson told them if this dance is observed it will automatically resist the expansion of white power in the continent The dance ritual spread all over the western coast of America. Jack Wilson prescribed nonviolence peace truthfulness and honesty for those who would take part in the dance. The American Govt. deployed army and killed 153 natives among whom children and women were the majority And do you know how the civilized colonizers of America sought to kill the Red Indians by giving them contaminated rugs? The postscript in the letter from Amherst to Bouquet, written several months after Ecuyer had handed out two smallpox blankets at Fort Pitt, stated, "Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those
disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them." Bouquet replied that he would try and use infected blankets as a means of introducing the disease among the Indians, but was wary of the effects that it would have on his own men...at least twenty-five percent or more of Bouquet's soldiers would have been susceptible to the smallpox virus. (FROM http://www.thefurtrapper.com/indian_smallpox.htm) Dear Readers history of the spread of western civilization or what we call civilization is in pity. But let me not digress This is what American secularism meant in practice Now a days just as the intellectuals clamour for separation of state
and religion so do some ask for separation of economic forces and state. And on another count they ask for holistic studies. These intellectuals are the real clowns in the robes of a professor or a scientist or a social worker or political thinkers. The question of separation of state and religion popped up in Europe and among the Americans in the context of their peculiar history.
Although Christ God the Son died to expiate the sins of mankind although he was all love Christianity was first recognized by the king of Byzantium only when he conquered his enemies in bloody war and
expanded his kingdom . Thereafter Christianity went on converting peoples and thereby conquering territories. Kings and princes of Europe embraced Christianity . And during the 7th century the church held one third of the land of Europe as its property. And no wonder church became all powerful in the medieval Europe. In those days Europe was not an anarchy of nations but one world known as Christendom God the Father used to rule it with two swords in church and the king. Since there were many kings but one church and since the church owned more land than any king had the kings were as it were subordinates to the Church. Machiavelli saw that the interference of the church stood in the way of kings who could deliver peace and justice to their subjects. Italy was then a mere geographical expression torn into small states tied to the rolling chariot wheels of exploitation by the church . Hence Machiavelli asked the prince to get rid of the apron strings of church. He wanted that the king should be all powerful so that he could do justice to his subjects . In the meantime chaos theory operated in the course of history. A kings caprice brought about a revolutiuon. King Henry was enamoured of Anne Boleyn . He sought that his marriage with Catherine of Spain be dissolved. Divorce was never usual with Christianity. Divorce was only granted by Pope. By 14 th century there were a number of powerful kings and Pope had to balance between them to keep up his power and position . So the Pope being scared of the king of Spain did not grant Henry 8 divorce . Henry 8 of England took fire and drove away the bishop of Rome and established the English church. And mind you the king became the head of the church. Thus the king became the ruler of both mundane and spiritual life of every one of his subjects. There was a revolution The state became separated from the church. But no political thinker or philosopher or prophet , no mass movement no slogan no poster effected it.. It was an arrogant kings sheer lust
for a woman that changed the course of history. No one remembers the lovely lady Anne Boleyn It was Helens beauty that led to the burning of Troy and it were Anne Boleyns tresses and their maddening smell that caused the Roman Catholic Church to lose its absolute power. Those who want separation of religion and the state in India must find out a church here which compares with the Church of Rome of the Middle Age Europe . Secondly there must be a king full of lust Thirdly Anne Boleyn must be conjured . What happened with the separation of church and the state in Europe? The kings claimed divine right to rule. Louis the 14 used to sit looking at the altar. His courtiers used to look at the king with the altar at their back.In other words the king was the god of his subjects and courtiers God was the god of the king. This is what the separation of the church and king meant. With the advent of Protestantism there was great persecution of the protestants at the outset. Because the kings in large numbers sided with the Pope . Consequently many of the protestants fled to America. It were they who were the first colonists in America . No wonder that they would not accept any interference of the Pope in their state. And hence they cried for the separation of the state from the church . We have however already seen how tolerant and loving and secular these Jefferson and Madison and their tribe have been . By the by I must appreciate their greatness. Every American is not bad . Particularly the wife of Madison was an angel . Do you know that it was the wife of Madison who first discovered icecream . I read it somewhere. May be in the history of America by Commanger If this is true we must be grateful to Madison for marrying a great woman. Is nt it? Those who donot have any veneration for women should know that Anne Boleyn was responsible for the creation of English Church and Madisons wife for ICE CREAM.
As we have already observed the Western civilization is in fact still trying to be secular . But when Hindus are asked to become secular it is indeed a capital joke. Because when the whole world becomes secular the world will be a Hindu world . Do you smile on the other side of the face hearing me. Well come. Hinduism is what Judaism or Christianity or Islam is not. Each one of those semitic religions
refer to one great book as sacred . Any deviation from the aforesaid book would mean sacrilege.But where is such a book in Hinduism ? There are thousand and thousand books in Hinduism . And different sects refer to different books as the source of their religious belief. And any one can write another book and it might be deemed by his followers as the only sacred book under the sun. He will remain a Hindu. So where is the harm if Koran or Talmud or the Bible are added to all those countless scriptures? England became Christian in the 6THcentury. When the Englishmen came to India they saw to their utter dismay that there were Christians already in India.In fact India is one of the oldest Christian countries in the world . Indians became Christians as early as in the 1st century.But that made no difference. There was no bloodshed no riot. Just as there are Saivism and Vaisnavism and Pasupata cult and so on so is Christianity there. In fact there is nothing called Hinduism . The sanatana dharma or the
religion eternal alone exists. And name whatever religion it is but the part of this religion eternal of which Hinduism is a corrupted version.Hinduism or its genus the sanatana dharma worships thousands
and thousand gods and goddesses . Everyone doesnot worship all of them . Some worship Manasa the presiding deity of the snakes Some again worship Visnu Others Lord Rama. Let another worship Allah or
Ahur Mazda . The Indians would exclaim—Where is the harm! Those who worship Manasa might say she is the god of gods . Others might call Visnu the god of gods.And of course some Vaisnavas might think that the world should learn to worship Lord Visnu . But killing the heathens has never been the creed accepted in Hinduism . But the received interpretation of a significant section of the semitic religions of their holy books is that it is a great virtue to kill the nonbelievers.Their zest for putting the non believers on the blade of a sword has united the so called nonbelievers under an um brella. Hinduism could be called an umbrella term of a number of so called religions that are so called non believers in the light of semitic religions in the Indian context.. And may be there could be an outfit call them the BJP or RSS or Bajrangdal who might behave like aggressive Hindus.But one thing let me tell you, no Hindu can say that
it is a virtue to kill the nonbelievers. True that some of the Hindu fanatics might refer to the Gita and point out that everyone must take part in a crusade or dharma yuddha. But in the dharmayuddha as
depicted in the Mahabharata one and all died except the five brothers and Asvatthama And it is claimed that whoever died in the battle field soared to the heaven . Those who were left to rue for the devastation had to trek hard to go higher up to heaven. So the Hindu fanatics cannot claim that those who do not believe in their religion are sure to go to hell.Again the Hindu fanaticas cannot claim that it
is a religious duty to kill the non believers No where in the Indian scriptures such ideas are there.Of course the corpus of Indian scriptures is vast and variegated and the present author cannot claim
that he has read even an iota of the same.,Be that as it may the received Hinduism has never claimed that it is a virtue to kill a nonbeliever. It is however a virtue to defend the weak against the oppressed or looter murderer and so on.Just recall what havoc was wreaked upon the Indians by the invading Moslems and Christians. The right to self defence of the Hindus might generate a bunch of Hindu fanatics . But they cannot remain fanatics for long because so called Hinduism does not promise any reward for the fanatic. The Quran or the Bible speaks of the Day of Judgement and eternal heaven and hell . They have only one life here on earth . In this short span of one life if one could earn enough merit to redeem himself before the judging eyes of God. So one might be a jihadi in the surface sense of the
term . But Hinduism says that heavens and hells are not eternal. They are also transitory. And eternal heaven is seldom possible. Furthermore one good act does not qualify one for eternal heaven. Heaven might be a temporary resting place a comfortable inn for a journeying soul. But every Hindu knows that he has to journey through myriads of births and deaths before he attains liberation . So since there is no short cut to eternal heaven by killing a non believer and since every Hindu knows that one swallow does not make a summer Hindu extremists are half hearted ones. Their extremism is more a response to the crusading stance of other religions and they cannot go far. Curiously there are a handful of so called Hindu intellectuals who cry fowl at these poor Hindu fanatics and think that they have done the greatest humanitarian deed under the sun . Touchstone used to ride the pony of tomfoolery to shoot arrows of wit therefrom . Some clowns ride the horse of intellect only to throw explosive clownery to unsettle
the hopes of nomos if any. Was it not a clownery to support Chinese invaders when our jawans were dying for the so called mother land known as Indians . And the clowns only strutted and fretted to thatin their party plenums and went to jail . Because theuy knew that in India a short prison term would be all that they would face Had it been China or Soviet Russia or anywhere in the world they would beinstantly shot dead . But India doesnot pay heed to these offenders . They climb the top of JNU or some other institution, enjoy five star comforts and continue preaching their anti Indian theories which try to prove that Hinduism is a fundamentalist religion.
In my last post I dwelled on the numerous Hindu gods and goddesses. One could add Jehovah or God the Father to that pantheon . That will make no difference. And it must be full well understood that those who worship Visnu think that he is the god of gods Those who worship Siva think that he is the god of gods. Yet there has been no crusade between the Vaisnavas and the Saivas. It is said that Hinduism has thirty three crores of deities. No wonder that each deity has a network of myths as its backdrop that justifies its divinity to men . Hence there is a vast gamut of myths often conflicting among them that constitute the backdrop of the Sanatana dharma.Milton a computer engineer observed that fresh myths have to be forged to cater to the demands of time . Well Milton is apparently right and he is not right especially in the context of Sanatan dharma . Myth is always being made . When anything is reported it becomes the constituent of a myth . Everything whatever that science narrates is myth. Einstein ism myth Darwin is myth. Even the world that we perceive with our eyes and ears is a myth. Because our perception with the sense organs is also indirect perception. Of late Sankar Mukherjee has contributed an elaborate discourse on nervous system in the columns of Sefirah. It supports my contention. And I assure you Sanatan dharma can accommodate any myth whatever into its gamut.Islam is very much incorporated in the Sanatan dharma. There is an Upanisad that dwells on Allah the Almighty.Besides countless Hindus worship the Muslim saints all over India—the pirs. If official Islam had acknowledged them as devotees then there would be no fight between Hindus and Muslims .Milton is a mystic who looks upon his computer as something living. The Polynesians think that everything whatever you perceive animate or inanimate is pervaded by mana. The Vedas worship mortar and pestle as gods. In Banabhattas Kadambari Chandrapid worships the horse that he rides. And hence having a mystic veneration for computer could be also a part of the Sanatana dharma. Indeed everything whatever is a mystery to a man with open mind. To him the meanest flower that blows, andthe most trifling product of techno;ogy could give thoughts to deep for tears . And unlike other religions Hinduism does not ask everyonre to believe in god even. Every true Muslim must affirm the one ness of God and the status of the Holy Koran. But there are religions which does not ask you to believe in any god whatever. Coming in contact with Buddhism and Jainism Durkheim posited that there could be religions without any god whatever. And indeed even if you do not believe in god you might remain a Hindu. In fact the major Hindu philosophies could be rather called godless It seems to me that ancient Indian philosophy has a unique in the gamut of world philosophy. Why ? While the philosophy of Islam or Christianity is rather locked up in the exegesis of the Holy Koran or the Holy Bible , the major schools of ancient Indian philosophy do not engage themselves in explicating any common text common to all. They differ from one another widely. So do Greek philosophers and Chinese philosophers. But the Greek philosophers were not incorporated into the then Greek religion. Confucius and Lao Tse were not that way integrated with the then Chinese religion and in fact Confucianism and Taoism became religions themselves like Buddhism or Jainism. But ancient Indian philosophical systems though widely differing from one another are as it were organically related Hindu religion. While Buddhism is centred around Buddha of Kapilavatthu its chief fulcrum being the Buddhavacana known as Tripitaka Sanatana Dharma is loaded with various cargo of thoughts of many a great mind . No one saint or no one book is at the centre of the Sanatana Dharma.And surely no one philosophy is at the centre of the Sanatana Dharma. Chinese philosophy is unique in the sense that it does not revel in metaphysics.
Confucius did not discuss whether there is any god or not . He believed in ancestor worship and other gods too Lao Tse was also reticent about the reality. With him Tao is not Tao when it is delineated. The chief theme of the Chinese philosophers like Confucius or Mohists or Legalists or Lao Tse was human nature. Is human nature basically good –that is the question in Chinese. But Indian philosophies were focussed on metaphysics And mark, the founders of ancient philosophies are all revered as great saints. Buddhism posits that the gods worship a man like who is taller than gods.The Hindu myths portray a number of saints whom even the gods fear. And the founders of the ancient Indian philosophical systems are either god incarnates or saints of whom even gods are scared. For example Gautama
the founder of Nyaya system cursed Indra the lord of the heaven. Indra had to suffer consequently. The founder of Sankhya philosophy the sage Kapil is deemed to be the incarnation of Sun god and Narayana. But curiously enough Kapil a god incarnate though posits that God cannot be proved. He flatly asks whether God is free or in bonds. If he were free how could he have the desire to create the universe? If he were limited by his desire how could he create the unlimited universe? The Yoga system also is not woven around any notion of God Patanjali the founder of the system says that those who want achieve yoga could do well if they worshipped God . But God is not the subject matter of Patanjalis philosophy. Sankhya said that out of nothing nothing comes.Naasato sat jayate.Sankar posits that that which exists or sat cannot generate. The sat alone is there. Call him Brahman. We wonder if Brahman alone is does he exist at all? When God alone exist he does not exist too. With Vedanta God or the Brahman is infinite and simple. Hence from it compounds cannot emerge. Therefore the world that we perceive is a
myth or Maya. When God alone is he is not there. Vedanta claims that God being infinite and simple cannot have any attribute . Despite that he is consciousness—unqualified consciousness. But mark, the Naasadiya Sukta of the Vedas asks—Is God conscious or unconscious?Who knows? The sukta further asks—Does God himself know the answer? The Purva Mimamsa is rather atheistic. It doesnot worry as to God It investigates dharma or the principles that rule the human society. It revels in rituals to be observed.It doesnot hold out asceticism or mysticism . Early Naiyayikas were not focused on God. Nyaya is more focused on logic . The later Naiyayikas dwelled on God . Their views are comparablre to those of Fred Hoyle of today.The Vaisesikas are pluralists and atheists in a sense. They did not describe God as a category.
According to early Vaisesikas god is a soul or atma. Indian philosophy is vast and boundless. It is not possible for anyone to survey the same in a lifetime. Let us now switch to Srimad Bhagavadgita. Dr. Sabita Chakrabarti a philosopher in her own right has been kind enough to publish my readings of the Gita in the columns of Sefirah. A few remarks of Lord Krisna in this great book should be noted here.
Firstly the God incarnate here says that anyone who becomes aware of godhead becomes god himself. God lurks in every heart , Once one realizes his divine self one becomes god. Krisna says that one who
sees Krisna in everything and everything in Krisna becomes Krisna himself. Krisna further observes that Krisna appears in the form of the object of worship of a devotee. If one is a Christian Krisna appears before him in the shape of Christ. Besides Krisna observes that one need not even believe in God. If only he looks upon a Brahmin a cow an elephant a dog and an outcast with same reverence one attains
godhood. We donot want to discuss Hindu Philosophy at a greater length. But whatever little we have discussed about the different schools of Hindu philosophy shows that Hinduism is not a fundamentalist religion. It is a federation of different faiths and different philosophies. When Protestantism raised its head in the realm of Christianity there was lot of bloodshed. It has not stopped yet. Newspapers abound with the quarrel between Shias and Sunnis. But has anybody heard a battle between the Saivas and Vaisnavas? Why ? Because since time immemorial religion in India did not meddle in politics though religion is all pervading in India. Why? Because here a Saiva has veneration for a Vaisnav and Vaisnav has veneration for Saiva . Hence no king being a Saiva took up arms against another king on the ground that he is a Vaisnav. And Indian masses have never taken up arms against Muslim conquerors or Christian conquerors on the ground that they are heathens non Hindus. It is said that when the Vaisnavas visit Siva temple they meditate on Siva as an incarnation of Visnu. When a Saiva visits a temple of Lord Visnu he thinks that Visnu is an incarnation of Lord Siva . And it is over and over again said by Lord Siva in the Puranas that those who donot venerate Visnu or Brahma are never blessed by Siva himself. At the same time Lord Visnu says in the Puranas that those who donot worship Lord Siva shall not get the blessings of Lord Visnu.Ancient Jews worshipped many gods . But in course of time Jehovah became all in all and all the gods disappeared This is not the case with Indian gods.And add Christ Virgin Mary to the Hindu crowd of gods There is no harm. I look upon Christ as an incarnation of Lord Krisna. And it is said that any fictitious god whatever if worshipped with reverence becomes real and gets his or her office in heaven and remains there for a kalpa. Hindu religion is queer. Even gods here are not permanent . They also retire like IAS or WBCS officers. Is it not clear from the above discussion that Hinduism is free from any foundationalism essentialism and foundationalism. And thus Hinduism is the only religion or Sanatana dharma which includes in it all other religions. Seen from this standpoint all other religions are but denominations that belong to the u set of Hindu religion. Hindu religion can alone show the world
how to become secular. Those who seek to teach secularism to the Hindus are known as progressive and fools . The world is wiser than the moderns. Let us now be focussed on Islam. Because about 25% of the country’s population are the followers Islam or Moslems in India. They are the largest minority here. And of course India has more Moslems than any other country except Indonesia and Bangladesh.
It was prophet Mahammad who founded Islam.From his childhood he was famous for his truthfulness.When he attained god-realisation he spoke out his views. The Establishment did not approve of his views. They believed in many gods unlike the prophet who was a monotheist. The
Establishment conspired to kill him.The prophet with his followers fled to Madina for life. There the followers of the prophet asked the prophet to become law unto them. Thus the first Islamic state wasraised. Just think of India. Indians are in practice polytheist. But had Mahammad said no to polytheism and preached monotheism would there be anyone to dispute his right and the right of the followers to worship one god? And the Islamic state would not be there. It should be however noted that there were Jews and Christians also at Madina . The looked upon the prophet as their ruler. And the prophetwas tolerant to them . He did not want to exterminate them. In the Holy Koran also it is said that God sends a prophet to each nation. But the received import of the Holy Koran and the prophets preachingsby the Islamic Establishment has been different According to Islam a Muslim is one who has submitted himself wholly to God. One wonders how many of us can achieve that. Guru Nanak told the
Qazi that he was thinking of the calf in his household while reciting the prayers. A Muslim however has to observe five things.Firstly he must read the kalimah which says that god is one and His Holiness Mahammad was the last of his prophets. Secondly he must say his daily prayers or namaaz. Thirdly he must give alms to the poor. It is zakaat. Fourthly he should go to Mecca on Idul Hazha if possible. And fifthly he should wage relentless war on the nonbelievers. It is known as jihad. By the by Indian Moslems do not believe in jihad unlike the Moslems of some other countries As we have noted earlier the prophets life was endangered by the conspiring Establishment. Hence he gave the clarion call to fight to
the finish. But when the nonbelivers let everyone to follow his or her religion the notion of jihad without is of little use. When the battle without ends the battle within begins. It is the battle with ones desires that lead one astray from the tao or the road to god. It is then that one becomes as holy as Ibrahim who was ready to sacrifice his son at the altar of god.The day when he went to sacrifice his dear child at the altar of god is known as Idul Hazha. When one is ready to sacrifice his or her everything at the altar of god he is no longer an idol worshipper.
Let us now be focussed on Islam. Because about 25% of the country’s population are the followers Islam or Moslems in India.They are the largest minority here. And of course India has more Moslems than any
other country except Indonesia and Bangladesh. It was prophet Mahammad who founded Islam.From his childhood he was famous for his truthfulness.When he attained godrealisation he spoke out his views. The Establishment did not approve of his views. They believed in many gods unlike the prophet who was a monotheist. The Establishment conspired to kill him.The prophet with his followersfled to Madina for life. There the followers of the prophet asked the prophet to become law unto them. Thus the first Islamic state was raised.
Just think of India. Indians are in practice polytheist. But had Mahammad said no to polytheism and preached monotheism would there be anyone to dispute his right and the right of the followers to worship one god? And the Islamic state would not be there. It should be however noted that there were Jews and Christians also at Madina . The looked upon the prophet as their ruler. And the prophet was tolerant to them . He did not want to exterminate them. In the Holy Koran also it is said that God sends a prophet to each nation. But the received import of the Holy Koran and the prophets preachingsby the Islamic Establishment has been different According to Islam a Muslim is one who has submitted himself wholly to God. One wonders how many of us can achieve that. Guru Nanak told the Qazi that he was thinking of the calf in his household while reciting the prayers.
A Muslim however has to observe five things. Firstly he must read the kalimah which says that god is one and His Holiness Mahammad was the last of his prophets. Secondly he must say his daily prayers ornamaaz. Thirdly he must give alms to the poor. It is zakaat. Fourthly he should go to Mecca on Idul Hazha if possible. And fifthly he should wage relentless war on the nonbelievers. It is known as jihad.By the by Indian Moslems do not believe in jihad unlike the Moslems of some other countries As we have noted earlier the prophets life was endangered by the conspiring Establishment. Hence he gave the clarion call to fight to the finish. But when the non-belivers let everyone to follow his or her religion the notion of jihad without is of little use. When the battle without ends the battle within begins. It is the battle with ones desires that lead one astray from the tao or the road to god. It is then that one becomes as holy as Ibrahim who was ready to sacrifice his son at the altar of god. The day when he went to sacrifice his dear child at the altar of god is known as Idul Hazha. When one is ready to sacrifice his or her everything at the altar of god he is no longer an idol worshipper. The first Moslems perhaps came to Kerala. They were the Arab traders and they married Malayali women and settled in Kerala. They are known as Mapillahs. Islam however came to India as a political force in 712 AD when they conquered Sind. There the Moslem conquerors had to adjust with the nonmuslims. Then in the 10 th century Sultan Mahmud of Gazni repeatedly attacked India and looted the the Somenath temple over and over again . Finally in the 1328 AD Muslim power was more or less all in all in India. And how did they behave? Their rule in India has been one of the bloodiest in human history. To give some samples of the way they behaved, Sultan Mahmood of Ghazni killed 50000 Indians at Somenath during one of his invasions. Mahammad Bin Tughlaq used to have mounds of the corpses of Hindus in front of his palace constantly. Sultan Ahmed Shah ordered three days’ feasts when 20000 Hindus were killed I will not linger on such bloody incidents for long. In the name of religion 80 millions of Hindus were killed during the Muslim rule India between 1000AD AND 1500 AD if Muslim historians of the Middle Ages are to be believed. If I can rightly remember may I read in Abul Fazal, that the Muslim tax collector used to spit into the mouth of the Hindu farmer first and then he would accept the tax from him. Superb!!! And what kind of men these Moslem rulers were? Well Mahammad bin Tughlaq made the wife of one of his rebel nephews eat the flesh of her husband. But how have the Hindus reacted? Go to France. The Song of Roland is their national epic. It dwells on how Christians destroyed the Muslim invaders. Go to Italy. You will find Dante saying that His Holiness Muhammad toils in hell. Go to Spain. Read their epic Cid. It sings the victory over the Moors. But is there a single narrative of this kind in India written by a Hindu . That shows the tolerance of the Hindus. No where in world history such tolerance is found. And despite ruthless state Islamic terrorism for 800 years only 13% of the countrys population is Muslim in India. This proves how indestructible and noble Hinduism is Hinduism has survived only because Hinduism and secularism aresynonymous Those who preach secularism to Hindus are totalitarian in the main . They are chiefly communists. And what happened in Russia during Stalin. The Stalin constitution of 1935 banned the preaching of every other religion except communism And they used to sacrifice chickens in front of Stalins portrait.They praised Stalin as their father and mother. They said that Stalin put the earth inits diurnal motion in hymns published in Izvestia. What happens to false gods, when Pharaohs claim themselves as gods has been delineated in the Holy Koran. And Stalins deadbody was removed from his grave.It is a pity when the communist children of Stalin the Mac Stalins cry foul at the stance of the Hindus on the Babri Masjid issue. Presently after the demise of the Holy Prophet Mahammad there wasschism in the Islamic religion and it broke into two denominations in Sunni and Shia. It was Abu Bakr who became the caliph or leader of Islam after the prophets demise. Ali was chosen the caliph at a later stage. He was the fourth caliph of Islam. Those who accept what happened as alright are Sunnis. But there were some who wanted that presently after the prophets demise Ali should have been the caliph.
Their followers still linger. And they are Shias.Abu Bakr and Ali are now enjoying themselves in heaven . But the quarrel between the Sunnis and Shias have been continuing through the centuries since the demise of the prophet Mahammad. This is a unique instance in human history. And if we survey the Moslem states ranging from Pakistan to Lebanon we will find that constant fight between the Shias and Sunnis rock them. Everywhere mosques are being bombed, women and children are being and
so on. Shias are approximately only 15 percent of the total Muslim population of the world. Commonly they have been persecuted by the majority Sunnis. But the Shia rise to power in Iran has changed the
equilibrium among the Muslims. In India there have been serious Shia and Sunni conflict during the British period. During the Islamic rule the Shias were repeatedly persecuted in Kashmir. Thus a Muslim
denomination is very much intolerant of another denomination of the same faith.. (The same is the story with the Christians.)No wonder that the Muslim rulers would be intolerant with their Hindu subjects in India. But the secular Hindus had the moral strength through the power of toleration and hence the majority of them were not converted to fundamentalists. And Akbar Badsah showed up in course of history. Official history seeks to prove him to be a tolerant Mughal king. But one should remember that he killed some thirty thousand plus peasants after the fall of Chitor. He had 300 wives and 5000 concubines. Sunni Islam would not allow more than four wives . So the Sunni ulama was
removed and a Shia ulama was invoked. Later Akbar gave up Islam perhaps to continue with his 300 wives. Thus Akbar had some affinity to Henry 8 of England . Henry 8 s English Church however continued. But Akbars Din Elahi did not. Be that as it may Akbar did abolish jijya tax on the non believers. That was great no doubt . But the truly religious guy in the line of the Mughals was Dara Shikoh. Dara Shikohs life and works need special study.He was a seer . For our purpose suffice it to say that he wrote numerous biographies of Sufi saints. He translated the Upanishads the Yogavasistha and the Bhagavadgita into Persian . He tried to show that the ideas of the Holy Koran see eye to eye with that of the Upanisads. He despised the ulemas and the ulemas despised him. Dara Shikoh was killed . But in Dara Shikoh do we find how Hindu secularism could help Islam navigate and become respectful to other religions in India.. Dara Shikoh here it should be remembered was a devout Muslim believing in one God True that Dara was killed by his power greedy brother Aurangzeb he was not merely a martyr . He was the voice of truly Indian Islam. And with the rolling of time it is being proved that the dead Dara is stronger in India than the hordes of heartless and cruel Muslim rulers of Medieval India and there fundamentalist flagbearers of today. Yes Dara did not covet the throne. Pursued by the Mughal army he took refuge for a time with the then Sikh guru. He told the latter that he was not at all interested in the throne. And Dara represented the Muslim community of India. May be some nonbelievers voluntarily opted for Islam to reach the corridors of power. May be the fear of being killed and raped and looted led some in India to embrace Islam. May some poor people accepted conversion to avoid religious tax. But the majority of the Indians who embraced were converted by the Sufi mystiques . Dara himself was a great Sufi philosopher. We had better now tarry a while to dwell on Sufism. Idries Shah claims that Sufism predates the prophet Mahammad. But on the surface it was a kind of protestant movement in Islam that showed up in the 8th century only in reaction to the highly worldly and materialistic way of life of the Caliphs. Sufism is a cover term for a whole range of philosophical and mystical thoughts . The Naqshbandi school traces its origin to Abu Bakr. Other Sufi schools trace their origin to Ali. The Shiaas also proclaim that Ali was the true exponent of the thoughts of prophet Mahammad. Hence there is a kinship between the the Shias and the Sufis Ali was learned and wise. It seems to me that Ali felt that it is the wise men and the friends of gods who can show the tao.Mere study of the sacred texts or observation of rituals cannot lead one from the encircling gloom . Ali always insisted on the cleansing of the heart and advocated the superiority of intellect. It is with the intellect that one can overcome one’s desires. That is Ali . The Sufis claim that Ali was their predecessor. The believe in the Holy Quran and the prophet Mahammad (peace be upon him). But they interpret the Quran and the Prophet differently from the Sunnis.Official Islam does not acknowledge a woman saint. But the Sufis acknowledge Rabia as a saint par excellence . Official Islam bans song and dance . But many of the Sufi saints sing the glory ofGod and plunge into. ecstatic dance . Islam has prohibited drinking . But the Sufi poets often describe the ecstatic state charged with love of God as comparable to the state when one is drunk. Sufis often look forward to communion with God . But according to the official Islam Prophet Mahammad was the last man to communicate with God . After Prophet Mahammad (may peace be upon him) no one can have any direct commerce with God. The Indian scholar R M Zaehneer points out that the philosophy of
Persian Sufi Abu Yazid who visited Delhi sees eye to eye with the philosophy of Sankaracharyya. He speaks of universal consciousness which agrees with the notion of Brahma. He also advocates the death of the ego . This notion corresponds to the notion of moksa. Centuries later Mazhar Jan in Janan of Delhi (1699 -1780s) who was in charge of all the Sufi cults in India observed in a letter to his disciple that
the Vedas were the first utterance of God http://www.ww4report.com/node/2151 Besides he further reminds us in the letter that the Hol y Quran states that God sends his prophets to every country and culture.