Black and White
What I posted earlier seems to have generated a lot of friction among some of my friends and I have been insinuated of partisanship, of taking sides with a particular religion.
Following is a comment which I received for my earlier post and here I am sharing the same with you all. Even though this comment had been sent by only one person but almost everyone else seems to in sync with this. I will try my best to answer or should I say, put myself in right perspective.
“I take a different view on this. You are right that we are not what we are by choice. Its the way we have been raised. yes the people may have different ideology and everyone is entitled to hold to his view point. but we are also left with no choice when something is foisted upon ourselves. history will tell you that the civilisations which did not stand and fight for them got razed from the face of the earth. hinduism is a wonderful ideology and i am proud to be one. we were brought up with the virtues taught to us like patience and pluck. we have always been accommodating to all the religions. the fact that proves is the contrasting studies of the minorities. you dont need to look miles. just a glance across the border will tell you that. hindus bore the brunt of brutalities for centuries and said nothing (we were busy fighting ourselves), this is the repercussion of the anger and frustration that has festered the generations. every elastic body has its limits. i know as always you wont agree, but even a mild creature like cow will hit you back if you pester it beyond limits. and if you think again that no ideology is bad, i wud like to see following islam yourself. we practice before we preach.”
Before I answer, I would like to thank you for taking out your time to read and then still having the patience to comment, and that too on a subject which not many people find interesting. I sincerely appreciate your effort.
My opinion (without associating myself with any identity)
The way the above comment has been made, gives us a clear impression of the state of mind of the person who actually wrote it. For to use the words such as, ‘we’ and ‘they’, easily suggests his chauvinism with his own developed sense of identity, which if called in proper sense, is nothing but “deluded sense of belongingness”. It seems apparently true that he had judged the case before-hand.
I agree with him unequivocally for the first three lines of his comment (nullifying the very first line). Then suddenly in his fourth line, he says, “but we are also left with no choice when something is foisted upon ourselves”. As much as I can infer from this statement, he is here justifying the demolition of Babri Masjid itself based on his belief that "something was foisted upon ourselves". What that was he does not make it clear.
And, in his sixth line he exhibits himself as a history student by making a comment about the conflict of civilizations, that those who did not fight got razed. I seriously do not understand this conclusion of his; being applied for the situation which was prevailing then, for it had been almost 45 years since we have been constituted as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and the general ideas of justice, liberty(of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship) and equality were present at that time. I do not understand this theory being used here. Were we living in a monarchy where religion was sanctioned by the King? And, when kingdoms fought each other for the sustenance of their religion, culture, customs, belief, etc. No, we were not.
In rest of his lines, first he celebrates the virtues of Hinduism, and then forgetting the same ‘virtues’ he manifestly justifies the demolition as the “repercussion of the anger and frustration that has festered the generations” for the brutalities that, in his opinion, only Hindus bore for centuries meekly. He clearly seems unaware of the atrocities which were committed by both sides on each other during the partition, with a larger share of that crime falling into the hands of the larger party, I need not mention that.
And, then is there, this “contrasting studies of the minorities” being evoked, again in order to celebrate the ‘virtues’ of Hinduism. Is he unaware of the carnage that followed, in Gujarat, after the Godhra incident, which might well have been an accident as suggested by the forensic evidence available at that time? More than 2000 Muslims were killed, and at least 50 times that number (feel it, it is 1, 00,000) rendered homeless, forced to live in refugee camps under pitiable conditions. And the conditions are no better even now.
And, did he forget the Hindu-Sikh riots of 1984, in which innocent Sikhs were butchered. And that too, who were in no way connected to the Sikhs who killed Mrs. Gandhi.
Anyone who is intelligible enough will see that minorities (not only Muslims or Hindus) are not safe in any country. Be it largely Hindu populated India or predominately Muslim populated Pakistan.
The last lines again seem to have been spoken out of a mind which has lost all its equanimity and tranquility, for making personal accusations only suggests that. The statement, ‘i know as always you wont agree’, speaks a lot about his frustration of having not been able to convince me, to his viewpoint, on previous occasions. And to vent that frustration, he comes up with a statement, ‘i wud like to see following islam yourself. we practice before we preach’, which to him appears as an ace argument.
In order to answer above, I have to resume my Identity of being a Hindu
Let me be honest here, I am an imperfect Hindu and he is asking me to practice Islam. Let me follow one religion first and perfect it. As for practice of Islam, let me ask him one question, has he heard of Ramakrishna Paramhans? Hmmm…..
I can only advise him to abandon this thinking of Black and White.
P.S: Though I have only used, ‘he’, ‘him’ and ‘his’, in above statements, my opinion presented here, is for everyone who preaches parochialism.
