Let us sow Seeds of Secularism to weed out the Creed of Terrorism

Let us sow Seeds of Secularism to weed out the Creed of Terrorism

Dr. S.S.RANA


Terrorism has become the greatest scourge of civil society today the world over. But in India it has assumed very complex and awesome dimensions. Awesome dimensions, not because of the magnitude and frequency of terrorist driven acts and incidents, but because of the absence of a national consensus on the diagnosis of the reasons for the prevailing phenomenon and because of the almost bipolar nature of the remedies offered to cure the malaise. Whereas there are groups, in many cases organized as cultural fora and also as political entities, who sincerely believe it to be the product of civilisational (a cover for religious?) conflict, there are others who taking a kind view of the eras of religious excesses as things of the past to be buried plead for creating a new India where different religious and cultural identities could thrive together. But unfortunately both the above approaches are found least as societal concerns and most as state concerns. State concerns, both on the part of the groups in power and the groups aspiring for power. Societal ideology has almost become subservient to state concerns, which dominate most initiatives in any walk of life. The unending electoral syndrome has come to occupy disproportionate space in our national life and as a result we find hardly any time or occasion to sit back and talk of societal concerns transcending our smaller identities.
India has had a rich tradition of disputation and argumentation on individual level covering a wide range of human life and activities. In India of the glorious past the adversary real or feigned was almost a must for any serious discussion of an issue. Even where there was none the disputant had to invent one, as the purvapaksha (the opposite view).
But alas! Those, engaged in the state sphere today are not only oblivious of the possibility of the other view being the right view but also are aghast when confronted with the other view as they claim to exclusively possess the gospel. All issues of social justice and economic equity are seen through the divisive prism emitting colours of psudo secularism, appeasement or communalism. Things get worse when legitimacy of the fake is sought by manipulation of the electoral apparatus. In such an environment half-truths, rumours, muscle power and money power rule the roost, leaving the hapless moralists of all hues falling by the wayside. In some cases the contending parties when out of power, in desperation do not hesitate to indulge in what could be easily construed as anti national and subversive activities in pursuing a perceived view of patriotism.
In the context of India, the most disheartening aspect is the utter lack of communication between communities. Leaving apart the tradition of Sikhs which many Hindus, especially Punjabis, fondly follow there is appalling ignorance about each other’s religious beliefs and practices among the Hindus and the Muslims, excepting of course, the votaries of the composite culture, a contribution of the period of the great Mughals like Akbar and the Sufi tradition in Islamic annals. The hiatus prevails today in a more pronounced form reinforced by the contemporary trend of fragmentation of identities on grounds of religion, caste, language, region and even clans. The exclusiveness becomes more poignant when most of (or all of) the terrorists apprehended or killed turn out to be members of one particular community leading to a feeling of guilt or injured innocence. Those outside the community hasten to conclude to include the community as a whole as one responsible for the unfortunate incidents of terrorism. There are very few who can maintain a balance of approach towards the guilty and the innocent. Such an attitude can be cultivated only when we are intent upon arriving at the truth avoiding hasty conclusions driven by biases.
In this connection we can profitably recall what Ashoka the great had to say for bringing about communal harmony. Representing the state, he himself did not hesitate to reveal his own religious preferences, but at the same time he did not fail to appreciate the scenario of his empire being host to several religious and cultural communities. A fair deal to all was the summum bonum of his approach. “Let all sects live their own way (sarve pashandah vaseyuh )” was his basic premise to start with. He was aware that such a climate can be created only when we develop tolerance and respect for the tenets of others. So he went on to suggest the key for the same. It was restrain of speech ( vacho gupith) when it came to talking about affairs of the sects of others. According to Ashoka at the root of all religious strife was the unbridled criticism of other religion or an exaggerated exaltation of one’s own religion out of context, which he advised should be avoided (atma-pashanda-puja va para-pashanda-garha va na bhavet aprakarane,). A great pragmatist as he was, Ashoka did not fail to recognize the hard reality of this being not always possible. So he hastens to add that if the context in a particular case demands (in an academic discussion, for example) that criticism of others’ religion is necessary, one could proceed with circumspection avoiding extreme postures (laghuka va syat tasmin tasmin prakarane). At the same time he emphasizes that one should not forget to show respect for others’ religion wherever it was due (poojayitavyah eva para-pashandah). Acting otherwise was a sure way to harming one’s own religion. Ashoka has a word of advice on how to develop tolerance in religious matters. According to him the secret lies in learning more about the tenets of other religions. Possibly, a well-informed person was less likely to indulge in irresponsible behaviour in religious matters. Millenniums have gone by since Ashoka’s time but his words are relevant to our conditions today more than ever before.
Then there is the worrisome misconception of terrorism being a product of civilisational conflict as propounded by Huntington. Amartya Sen and following him farid Zakaria, have ably refuted the view. If terrorism was the product of civilisational conflict, as some would believe, we would not have seen its heinous face in Muslim countries like, Pakistan, Morocco, Malayasia, Indonesia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and that too perpetrated by outfits constituted of local breed. In case of India our prime Minister, with some sense of self elation had in a meeting with the American President last year observed that among the terrorist groups operating all over the world including those in India there was none who was an Indian national. Ironically, it did not take long to render this pious observation untrue. We have now a gallery of names among the terrorist organizations enlisting homegrown terrorists masquerading with Indian labels. The recent revelations by Delhi police attribute the links of a large number of the young terrorists to a small place in Azamgarh in Uttar Pradesh. Similar is the latest discovery of the Bombay police. And the most disturbing aspect of the new groups is the young age and good educational background of their members professing Osama Bin Laden as their role model. To call them misguided innocent youth would be a self-defeating strategy to combat terrorism. But it would be a gross fallacy to paint the whole lot of Muslim youth with the same brush. If we consider the possible number among them engaging themselves in terror linked activities we may find its ratio to total Muslim population in India on a negligible low. Therefore, we must take utmost care in handling the phenomena. Whereas it is legitimate to apprehend, arrest and bring the terrorists to book through the process of law, we should make sure that we do not alienate our Muslim compatriots by generalizations and assumptions of guilt. If it were a religious activity we would not have seen many Muslims among the victims of the dastardly acts of terrorism. Alienation of a community does not contribute to the good health of a nation. The majority community has the onus to lessen the pain of minority syndrome in any given situation. The seize within, among the Muslim community post Gujarat massacre needs to be understood in a historical perspective. The well being of a neighhbour is a surety of our own well being.
The example of America is before us to learn a lot from. The Muslims in America are not radicalized since they are well assimilated as Americans. In a recent poll as low a percentage as 13 justified the suicide bombings. The secular, middle class moderate profile of the American Muslim was certainly a factor not to be ignored in the reckoning of the pattern. We in India therefore, must work for creating conditions for the average Muslim to be counted not merely for his vote but for his own rights as a citizen of this common wealth, that is India. And for this we have to sow the seeds of secularism through our daily ordinary acts.
It is generally alleged that the alienation of the Muslim community is self-imposed as they huddle together in almost all walks of life. They prefer to live in exclusively Muslim enclaves, especially in cities, is cited as an argument. But we conveniently overlook the spectrum of Muslims in general not accepted as tenants in non Muslim neighbourhoods. It is imperative that the syndrome of exclusivity, summed up by an Urdu poet in the lines- ham se bulaya na gaya, un se aya na gaya-needs to be broken. What right some suspect groups have to appropriate to themselves the right to represent Hinduism or Hindustan?, one may ask. Talks like- Bharat nein agar rahna hoga, vande mataram kahna hoga- are as injurious to the health of the nation as terrorism. Such attitude, unwittingly go to justify the religious excesses committed during Aurangzeb’s hey days. It has to be remembered that there need be no contradiction between the Indian identity and the Muslim identity of the Indian Muslims as they could be (or should be) both at the same time. It should not be forgotten that Hinduism has the resilience to thrive in the midst of diverse identities. It is well known but scarcely highlighted that rural India serves as a bulwark against the monster of communalism. A few lessons could be learnt from such communities. The saddest part of our national life is that the media by and large highlights the negativities, which mostly represent the urban phenomenon and white-collar attitudes.
The Muslims on their part have no less a responsibility, which I believe they are generally shouldering, to nurture the plant of communal amity. In this context the recent report (Times of India 7 October) of Bombay Police commissioner Hasan Gafoor should not go unnoticed. The report gives credit to ordinary citizens, especially those from the Muslim community, for providing key information that led to the arrest of 11 suspected ‘Indian Mujahideen’ terrorists from Pune, Mangalore and Mumbai. It will be more helpful if our Muslim brethren overlooked the religious identity of a terrorist and separated him from the community as they would any other criminal no matter what his motives are stated to be. No terrorist has a right to swear by his religious identity to harm his own country. No true Muslim would think of taking the life of innocents. Islam stands for peace. The Quran and also the Hadith amply bear this out
Similar is the Christian question hogging anxious attention in some parts of our country. The self appointed troopers parading the tribal areas for the avowed purpose of resurrecting Hinduism need to be reined in. Coercion in any form to reconvert the tribal people is as condemnable as the original act of forcible conversion. At this juncture it is for the tribal people as individuals or in groups to themselves decide how they would like to shape their religious life. The missionaries on their part must realize that charities and social service when stringed to conversions bring their own reprisals. These are not the times of creating monolithic religious communities. Hinduism has not only tolerated multiplicity of beliefs but has also created environment for the growth of variety in the manner of the Rigvedic dictum- ekam sad viprah bahudha vadanti- the same one truth has been represented by the learned in variety of ways.
The last but not the least to be emphasized is the need for building a consensus on nationalism transcending all communal oncerns. The past should be seen in the light of such a consensus and not from the coloured eyes of political partisanism. Every nation has the right and privilege to glorify its heroes and their deeds of valour and sacrifices, but if attempts are made to fix political labels of today on them with an eye on votes serious trouble is likely to arise. Discreet approach is a must in revisiting their activities, however patriotic, lest the same should provide legitimacy to the creed of terrorism, albeit retrospectively. Gandhi Ji had fought the non-violent war for India’s Independence not without a deep philosophical motive. Let us go back in history and hearken Buddha and Ashoka the Great. The secret of secularism lies at the tip of our tongue. Let us master it.
The ghastly killings by foreign terrorists –reportedly coming from Pakistan- in dastardly attacks in Bombay stating November 26 are not only unprecedented but also fall in a class apart. Mercifully the terrorists have since been eliminated. The Nation is in shock but ready to deal with the menace in the most appropriate and mature manner. The lone survivor among the terrorists, captured by our valiant forces should serve as a rich mine of information in solving many a knots in the terror tangle. It is heartening that Indian Muslim clerics have reportedly decided not to perform burial rites for the killed terrorists on Indian soil. This report should not go unnoticed. Further the fact, that among the more than 180 innocent lives lost during the terror ordeal no less than forty were Muslims, should suffice for us to say that the terrorists were not fighting for Indian Muslims or for that matter for any Muslim. One can hope that our agony and anger over the tragic happenings, though legitimately expressed in outbursts against the ruling class, would in due course of time find channels, which would go to strengthen national solidarity and nurture secularism without fighting over the semantics of the term.