“Thus, a Muslim may incite his followers to violence, or indulge in it himself, but he still remains a pillar of the community as long as he performs ritual namaz, goes on Haj and abstains from pork. A Hindu may do likewise, but as long as he donates to temples, goes on pilgrimage, does not eat beef and holds bovine life more sacred than human, he will pass muster.”
So holds Lalit Mohan, in his article, “Understanding Terror, Religion Link,” published by Hindustan Times on January 13, 2009. [Read this article here]
It is nauseating to read and recollect how Mr. Mohan obnoxiously argues and tries to prove the point that terrorism is spelt by religion. It really failed and baffled my acumen to accept how such a myopic view can be held and published by a National Daily like the Hindustan Times. The article contains everything except substance and grounded logic. The article not only speaks of the indigent knowledge of Mr. Mohan about the religions but also narrates his poor logic. Terrorism is a vast issue, and a myopic view such as this would only hamper in our efforts to counter it.
Arguably, Mr. Mohan has adopted a quite inhibited view of terrorism. To elaborate, he hastily bellows on the terrorism that takes the form of conflicting religious interests, be it Kashmir, Ayodhya, Godhra, or Mumbai. What about the terrorism delineated in the form of LTTE, ULFA, Naxalism, and the likes? Which religion would Mr. Mohan ascribe to explain LTTE-based terrorism? What kind of religious convergence do the ULFA have? Or does he want to contend that these are no instances of terrorism? Surely, if he does so, it would defiantly stand against the national sentiments, since the Government of India has banned most of these terror organizations.
“If there was no religious divide, terrorists from across the border would not have come to ravage Mumbai because there would have been no border to cross between two regions that were once one India.” How does Mr. Mohan defend this thesis of his when it comes to LTTE, ULFA, and Naxalites? “So after ‘Islamic terrorism’ there is now ‘Hindu terrorism’, just as we once had ‘Sikh terrorism’ and Christian terrorism in Ireland.” By holding this estimation, Mr. Mohan is doing no good to any of the religions. One might agree to Mr. Mohan (just for the sake of argument) that maybe Islam promotes terrorism. So by saying that we have Hindu terrorism as we had Sikh terrorism and Christian terrorism, does Mr. Mohan want to portray that Hinduism, Sikhism, and Christianity, all promote terrorism? More than three-fourth of the world follows one religion or the other. So, does that mean three-fourth world population comes under the brand of terrorism?
To take a flip-side view, the term terrorism is actually contextual. Do we not recall how Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru were branded terrorists by the British Government, but were heroes in the eyes of every patriotic Indian? Can we afford to doubt the intent of the great Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and his role in India’s struggle for independence? Still, Netaji was never held in high regards, was in fact branded a terrorist by the British rulers. Similarly, LTTE is a hero organization for the Tamil Tigers, in spite of the fact that it’s declared a banned terror outfit in India. To ensure that I am not misconstrued, I would vehemently proclaim that I do not stand to justify or defend terrorism. The point that I want to set right is that the brand terrorists is contextual in most cases. Whatever said, no logic would ever be able to justify the atrocities and killings inflicted on innocents by any means.
Let me now give a rational religious point of view to this argument; taking the example from the great epic Ramayana. We know that Great Hanuman had dignified powers compared to others in his rank. However, he temporarily forgot his powers because he misused them. He was able to recall his powers when he set out with a virtuous intention to help Lord Ram. This applies to all religions as well. Every religion bestows great powers to its followers, but no religion teaches its followers to torture and kill innocents. Yes, religions do teach us to stand for justice; enforce by power if possible, stand for justice by way of words, and stand for justice by considering a wrong as a wrong. If; however, this power of enforcing justice and renouncing injustice is misused by few people, can we say that the roots terrorism lie with religions? “Terror is not a by-product of religion”; however, our myopic way of looking at religions is. What we need to fight is not religion, but the misuse of religion for vested interests, which is a vulnerable coerce with any religion. “This is the evil we must fight. Denial will not get us anywhere”.
Just to add for the information of Mr. Mohan, if a Muslim may incite his followers to violence, or indulge in it himself for an unjust cause, it is not condoned in Islam. For the Holy Quran states that if a person slays another person without any just reason [which has further been defined and elaborated in the Quran], it is as if he has killed the entire humankind; and if he resuscitates the life of another person, it is as if he has saved the entire humankind.
No comments:
Post a Comment