The death of a single Sikh from a misdirected hate crime in America has compelled noted columnist Khushwant Singh to recognize that “Islam has more ghazis and jehadis than others… motivated…more by hate of infidels… Amongst their many targets is India because it is predominantly non-Muslim. What can we do but to defend ourselves as best as we can without poisoning our minds with hate?” (Hindustan Times, 22 September 2001).
With this skillful admonition, Singh has brushed aside his post-1984 animosity towards Hindus and belief in the affinity between Sikhism and Islam. He has also highlighted what we ignore at our peril – that jihad is a basic principle of Islam, not an extreme position of fringe groups. Islam accords special respect, even a special title, to those who kill non-believers who do not convert to the faith (ghazi). This is a living concept even today, and is motivating Muslim youth across countries to confront America, even as their governments run for cover before Uncle Sam’s awesome military might.
In my view, the events following the attack on the World Trade Centre in New York beckon us to abandon our civilizational neutrality and anchor our nationhood in our ancient ethos. Indeed, this is what the United States did instinctively even as it reeled under the shock of the unfolding tragedy. On the face of it, a multi-cultural nation unitedly condemned the barbarity and swore vengeance, but few in that hour of crisis doubted which group, religion and culture constituted the “core” of American nationhood.
The white Christian, mainly Protestant, immigrants from Europe and Britain are the heart of America; they give the nation it’s identity and ethos. They wrote a ‘secular’ constitution to avoid sectarian strife among the Protestant groups, but Christian values deeply pervade the national ethos. Their values of freedom, equality, capitalism, and democracy constitute the American way of life. Other citizens – Afro-Americans, Hispanics, Jews, Arabs, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, position themselves around this core, enjoy equality before law and full benefits of citizenship.
Concerned Indians, specially the diaspora which is making heroic adjustments with other national cultures, should ponder if it is natural and appropriate that a dominant religion and culture define the contours of nationhood in a land. If so, may we conclude that such a religion and culture is a valid, indeed valuable, component of nationhood, and legitimately constitutes its foundational ethos?
I am reminded of a conversation with Prof. Arvind Sharma, renowned scholar of Hinduism (McGill University, Montreal). Attending a lecture on philosophy as a student in the US, he asked the speaker to explain the difference between religion and culture. The speaker asked his country of origin, and learning he was from India, remarked, “for you there is no difference, your religion and culture derive from the same source. For us (the west), we take our religion from the Middle East and culture from ancient Greece and Rome.”
As heir to the world’s greatest living religion-culture-civilization that has survived centuries of assault, India should be free to determine her nationhood in terms of her own genius. India’s dharma (way of life) is inspired by the ideal of universal welfare of all beings. It shuns absolutism and renews itself eternally in response to changing times, and is compatible with the values of the modern world. India is innately secular and has never denied recognition and space to other religious and ethnic groups, as witnessed by the freedom enjoyed by Parsis, Jews, Christians, Muslims and Bahais. The hallmark of dharma is its non-monotheistic character; it does not view others as intolerable.
I believe that continued failure to properly honour its dominant cultural-civilizational ethos will be destructive for India, especially for the diaspora which is anxious to present a non-threatening identity to the “core tradition” of its adopted lands. Already a disturbing number of Sikhs, even children, have been attacked in the US, and Hindu and Jain temples damaged in the US and Canada. Diaspora Indians, anxious to explain that they are not Arabs or Muslims, will have to position themselves on the dharmic continuum; but this spectrum will hold only if India upholds it.
Sikhs, for instance, represent the best of India’s dharmic traditions. Created as the sword-arm of dharma during a painful epoch, they are renowned equally for their valour and peacetime qualities as hard-working, law-abiding citizens. As such, they epitomize the eternal Hindu edict – ahima parmo dharma, dharma himsa thathaiva cha (non-violence is the highest dharma; violence in the defence of dharma is equally dharma). Indians are not impressed by the plea that Sikhs can be mistaken for Arabs and assaulted by white goons. President Bush has promised to ensure their safety; he has a special duty to protect innocent non-Muslims from white fury, failing which he should consider reparations on the lines recently suggested at Durban.
Within India, we must not permit Leftists, secularists and Muslim intellectuals to demonize the innocent Hindu community in order to turn the spotlight away from Islam. As world attention focuses on the American response to the “unseen enemy” (which, though not an identifiable nation, consists of concentric groups of terrorists of a specific religious persuasion), I would like to draw attention to some disturbing incidents the secular press has tried to downplay.
Two days after the Manhattan carnage, terrorists shot at and injured nine-year-old Akshaya Sikarvar at school in Agra, and left behind a note warning India not to support the US “otherwise no Hindu will survive” (The Times of India, 14 Sept. 2001). The next day, ten-year-old Koushik Dey was hospitalized in Birbhum, West Bengal, after his Urdu teacher thrashed him severely for criticizing Osama bin Laden during a discussion on the terrorist attack. Not one Muslim has acknowledged these incidents; not one Hindu has dared seek an explanation.
Apologists of Islam have perfected a two-pronged defence. When a crime is committed (Manhattan, Kashmir), they say there is no single, unified Islam, and hence Islam should not be demonized as a violent faith. But when a Muslim group is seen as being victimized (Palestine, Iraq) they coalesce into a unified group. Post-Manhattan, this strategy of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds is no longer acceptable.
Ibn Warraq, a Pakistani Muslim who has left the faith, has advised Muslims to honestly examine why their faith lends itself to violence and extremism. Indeed, it is legitimate to ask that if violence, suicide, and killing innocents is un-Islamic, why has not a single mullah issued a fatwa (religious decree) against bin Laden and his followers?
Given the importance of religion in the lives of human beings and nations alike, I feel the United Nations should take the initiative to ensure that all religions are consistent with the goals of human rights, especially the right to life. Muslim countries, especially those in which Islam is the official state religion, should be encouraged to take a more enlightened view and disregard portions of the Koran dealing with jihad and attack on kafirs (non-believers). Unless this is done, the world will remain at the mercy of fanatical ulema and madrasas (religious schools). India, a long-suffering victim of Islamic fundamentalism, could take the lead in this respect, but Mr. Vajpayee’s geriatric regime is not up to the task. However, the courts and the Constitutional Review Committee could ponder whether preaching religious hatred is consistent with the constitutional right to freedom of religion.
The Pioneer, 25 September 2001