Thorn in the Conscience

Thorn in the Conscience

There is a Tamil proverb: Even though [heavy] rain stopped, drizzle continues. [Or though the earthquake ended, aftershocks continued].

The same is the case with Ram Mandir. After the inauguration of Ram [or Modi] Mandir in Ayodhya, the dispute never settled down.  Now more and more responses and reactions began to pour down.  As in expected line there is continuous support and opposition—this time not from Muslims [from India, though the Organization of Islamic states, to tell the world that they are still existing and relevant to the world, registered their opposition as per the expectation of Pakistan] but among the Hindu scholars [not common people] who have time and energy to waste.  We can say this is a traditional clash between Extremists and Moderates.  Who are the Extremists and who are the Moderates depends upon which camp you want to join.  As I support Ram Mandir others can put me in Extremists group but I am neither an extremist nor a moderator and I prefer not to live with any such labels which only others put on us giving their own interpretation.

Though I cannot present my views in such scholarly ways, still in my own little way I thought of registering my views [as I have plenty of time to waste].  Though I said that Ram Mandir now has done justice to one historical wrong, I would like to change it to remove one among the several thorns in the COLLECTIVE  CONSCIENCE OF HINDUS.  I will come later to see what the other thorns are.

So, when I read one article supporting Ram Mandir and another rebuttal to it, I thought that we need to rephrase our words to express our views correctly—like historical wrongs to thorn in conscience.  Giving valid points from around the world what the Islam has done to several faiths, the author at the end summarizing his views says:

What doesn’t belong to you, should not remain with you. Not forever anyway.

The temple in Ayodhya is a precedent.

That this reversal is possible.– CONGRATULATIONS BHARAT [I cannot give reference to this as only received this message]

In the rebuttal that I received, the counter argument is that if one faith has to return back what they took by force then the same logic applies to everyone.  For example, Hindus have to return back the Buddhist monasteries and temples that were destroyed by them and several people in the west have to vacate the land and return back to the native people from whom they snatched it [like in America and Australia].  But I see that there is no logic in such an argument.  Then there won’t be an end to this see and saw game and cycle of claiming and reclaiming. 

For example, the Buddhists were not as innocent as we think considering their basic tenant of ahimsa.  The present ethnic persecution and religious minorities in the so-called Buddhist countries proves this.  When they were sweeping Indian society with their influence that not only posed a serious threat to the social fabric of the stable society but also used the kings whom they managed to convert to their faith to do the same what later some Hindu kings have done to recover back in a very limited way.  Well after losing their battle in India—whatever could be the reason [again there are two views: they ebbed away as they cannot make further inroads because of their extreme life of asceticism that threatened the society.  Second: Brahminical conspiracy working from inside to destroy it.  [Brahmins or Brahmanism always remained a scapegoat for any crime in India].  Finally, Buddhism ebbed away from India. 

One of the major reasons for the failures of Saramanas to take complete control of Indian society is the serious threat they posed to the stable society.  As they encouraged young people to leave their responsibility and become monks, Hindus saw a serious threat not mainly to their faiths—thank God as there was no single Hindu faith to be destroyed by anyone at any time, but to social stability.  Hindus not only believed but strictly implemented a gradual step by step of progress in every area of life.  That is why they created the fourfold ashrama of Brahmachari, Grahastha, Vanaprastha and sannyasa.  Out of their long experience, they realized that any sudden jump from one stage to another extreme stage is not good for all or to any ideology—be it religious or any other area in life. Any jump pushes that kind of extreme leap, not only affects the individual, family but ultimately the society.  That’s why they opposed all kinds of extremism—even among themselves to Left Wing Tantric practices.  This was not limited to life on earth but they even extended this to Mukti to such an extent that they never closed the door to the opportunity within one birth but insisted on attaining it by working out in several births.  Even there were two margas known as ‘pravarthy’ [natural] and ‘nivarty’ [by renouncing] margas, the latter was reserved only for rare cases and not recommended for all.

So the Hindu opposition to Sramanas was not exclusive to faith but to safeguard their social fabric.  In this sense the Abrahamic faiths were not a serious threat to them as they, though disturbed the social fabric by ‘converting’ people from one community to another community, only made superficial cosmetic changes in the faith.  And to some extent the Abrahamic faiths also agreed with a balanced approach in life rather than leaping from one stage to another.  And only such a leap was allowed for limited people not promoted as the main tenant of their faith among them [to remain celibate].

There is several historical and textual [scriptural] evidence how the Sramanas also persecuted the Hindus.  The life of Thirunavukkarasar popularly known as Appar clearly demonstrates.  He even wrote several poems to record this event in his life. 1 I think he or Sambandar even sat a fast unto death when a Hindu temple was blocked by a Buddhist Monastery and finally the fast unto death forced the king to remove the monastery or the wall to open the Siva temple again.  At present I cannot give the evidence.  I read as well as heard when one Tamil Saiva Scholar was giving a scholarly talk about this incident in the life of Saiva Saints.  [I think it was by Dr. R. Selva Ganapati, an unbiased and objective Saiva scholar in his program: Arule Anandame in Podhigai, Tamil.  Still available on the Internet].

Finally, I am not sure how many Saramanas temples actually existed in India.  Compared to the landscape of India which is dotted with temples all over it, the Saramana structures were very few and mostly limited to urban centres.  Buddhism, heavily dependent on the support of Business community, existed in urban areas.  And they sought the support mostly for the monastery which also could have a Buddha Vihara within its premises.  Big monuments to remember some major events in the life of Buddha were erected [like Saranath].  So naturally when they failed to make much inroads in Indian [or Hindu] society to convert more people to their monastic way of life, naturally those monasteries along with the Viharas might have also disappeared or later used by the local Hindus as worshiping place for them by altering them as Temple. 

In general Hindus never try to demolish any religious structure though they were capable of it as they have reverence for all gods and respect for every form of faith.  For example, if they wished, taking a heavy risk they could have destroyed the religious structure of others in the famous disputed sights.  But they refrain from it as they never have demolished the religious structure of other faiths for religious reasons.  The demolition of Babar Masjid is an aberration and flared by politicians keeping their political interest, in which every political party has a share.  For example, the Congress government started the problem by allowing Silanyas2 and to do puja to Ram Lala in a makeshift tent near the disputed site.  So the claim that Hindus destroyed Buddhist temples and monasteries needs to be reconsidered with authentic historical evidence.  Though this is my lay man’s view, still it is sufficient for me to present my unscholarly view on this topic.

Regarding returning the grabbed lands back to the aboriginals and even though I am also supporting it, we don’t know whether the aborgin were the original children of the soil or like so many events in prehistoric time, they too grabbed that land from other tribes chasing them or annihilating them.  There is every possibility for this as several scholars have clearly demonstrated  [Early Indians, by Tony Joseph is one among the several scholarly books on this subject] migration people from one place to another both mingling and remaining exclusive communities with other people.

This being the prehistoric and historical reality, what Ram temple has done now is remove one among several or three main thorns from the collective conscience of the people.  This dispute is not about land or temple or faith  but a symbol that continues to hurt the sentiment of another.  For example, if you go to Mathura when you see the Masjid on top of Krishna temple, it will prick the conscience of a Hindu—how that structure clearly gives the message of religious violence perpetuated by one dominating faith [in that particular time] on the other. 

That’s why some serious rational right wing leaders, in order to address this issue at the same time knowing well that they cannot impose their Hindutva of India exclusively for Hindus, try to negotiate with the Muslims community to handover only three places which still remain the thorn in the collective conscience of the people.  We should not think that all the Right Wing people are fanatics and un-rationalistic.  They too are serious scholars with deep commitment to their ideologies.  There also exist two wings of extremists and moderates.  There were serious negotiations to settle this amicably and several neural Religious leaders in both sides tried their level best to achieve that.  But as usual it was the politicians, particularly the Pseudo-Secularists, particularly Congress, keeping only their political interest and not the nation, never allowed that to happen.  Finally, Modi managed to remove one thorn through a legal process.  Anyone can dispute even that in a democratic country.  Though there was an opportunity to file a Review petition, I think it was not done. 

There is no point in debating on the Supreme Court verdict or the which one is the Relevant Archaeological report which often changed, or quoting from scriptural texts or history.   Simple it is the article of faith to the Hindus.  Though I am not a legal expert I think even the Constitution recognizes the faith on religious matters, which need not be authenticated by any other evidence.  Hindu believe that this is where Rama was born and want it back to them.  They waited patiently for several hundred years and now Modi gave it back to them. 

That’s why some sensible Right Wing leaders also say that though there are several hundreds [or even thousands] of temple desecrated by Islam, we don’t want to fight for each and every one, knowing well that there is no point of going back to the past to open the wound again and again to bleed.  Or want to open the pandora box again.  If three temples based on the Faith of Hindus are handed back to us, then we will bring closer to this issue once for all and can live peacefully and in harmony in India side by side with each and every other religious community. 

Those who want to believe that Islam spread not by violence but only through slow persuasion are not doing justice to history.  Forget about the past, even the recent Mopila2 incident shows what they have done and could do.  That’s why though several National leaders whole heartedly stood with Mahatma Gandhiji in his struggle for freedom, when it came to Khilafat3 he never received that kind of support from the Hindus even among the freedom fighters in his camp.  This is one area even I don’t agree with Mahatmaji as he tried to twist the hands of the British to do something outside India about which so many other Muslims countries of that time least bothered.4  For both Mopila crises and Khilafat one can get all kinds of information from the Internet. Regarding Gandhi’s views, one can get lots of information from the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi [see specifically volumes 21 to 27].

Having shared my view, I am not sure how the two other thorns in the collective conscience of Hindus could be removed.  If I were a Muslim I would happily hand them to the Hindus.  At the same time as a Hindu, I wouldn’t mind if the two other places [Mathura and Kashi] kept the same status quo.  Because it will one way demonstrate what actually happened in Indian history and Hindu tolerance.  If you slap one cheek we are ready to show the other.  If you snatch our warm cloth for your needs, then we are ready even to give our shirts.  This thorn is not limited only in the collective conscience of Hindus.  There are several thorns all over the world in the collective conscience of so many people—like Holocaust, Khilafat, colonization, looting by the colonial power of artifacts etc. etc.  And if they are removed, only the record will remain in history but not the Symbol.  For example I would prefer the Kohinoor diamond to remain with the British as it will demonstrate their loot in the past.  When I visited the British Museum and saw Kohinoor diamond, automatically and unconsciously I muttered ‘thieves’. So every symbol communicates a strong message—both positive and negative.  And it depends upon each and every individual how she interprets it.  

24-1-2024

Notes

1 Religious persecution by Sramanas

Padikam 4:1

சொல்-துணை வேதியன், சோதி வானவன்,
பொன்-துணைத் திருந்து அடி பொருந்தக் கைதொழ,
கல்-துணைப் பூட்டி ஓர் கடலில் பாய்ச்சினும்,
நல்-துணை ஆவது நமச்சிவாயவே!

the first cause who is the Vētam-s which are in the form of words

[[Civaṉ is the meaning of those words]]

the supreme being, the light divine.

who is the world of salvation which knows no destruction.

as I worship with joined hands, the heart to hold the feet, and the feet to hold the heart, the feet which are perfect, two in number and as valuable as gold.

though I was bound to a stone pillar and thrown into the sea; namaccivāya is the companion which will grant salvation.—Appar after he was thrown in the sea tied with stone by the Pallava king as per the instruction of the Jains to kill him.  About this in another song he says:

Though I was thrown in the sea tied with a stone by the name of Siva I am able to survive. [a rough translation by me in Tirunilakkuti, 7]

கல்லினோடெனைப்பூட்டியமண்கையர், ஒல்லை நீர்புகநூக்கவெண்வாக்கினால், நெல்லு நீள்வயனீலக்குடியரன், நல்ல நாம நவிற்றியுய்ந்தேனன்றே (nāvukkaracar, tirunilakkuti, 7)]]

In the following one when the [Buddhist] Pallava king invites Appar to come to him to sing songs praising him, refusing to accept this invitation Appar said: I am not a citizen of anyone; won’t fear death, I won’t suffer in hell, etc.  One can find the complete history of Appar how he first became a Jain and then returned back to his original faith as a Saitive and how he was persecuted for this by the Jains.  Sambandar launched a constant war against Saramanas throughout his life which one can find in most of his songs where he calls them as devils, demons in his Thevaram songs. 

நாமார்க்குங் குடியல்லோம் நமனை யஞ்சோம்
நரகத்தி லிடர்ப்படோம் நடலை யில்லோம்
ஏமாப்போம் பிணியறியோம் பணிவோ மல்லோம்
இன்பமே எந்நாளுந் துன்ப மில்லை
தாமார்க்குங் குடியல்லாத் தன்மை யான
சங்கரனற் சங்கவெண் குழையோர் காதிற்
கோமாற்கே நாமென்றும் மீளா ஆளாய்க்
கொய்ம்மலர்ச்சே வடியிணையே குறுகி னோமே. 1

Thirutaandaham, 1.

2 Shilanyas:

  …The Congress (I) government now appeared willing to adhere less firmly to its secularist principles; it had given way to orthodox Muslim opinion in its handling of the Shah  Bano affair, it had condoned the decision to unseal the disputed structure in Ayodhya, and it had allowed the shilanyas ceremony to go ahead.  The Congress no longer had either the will or the means to uphold secular ideals.  In the 1950s and ‘60s, local Congressmen did not hesitate to use communal appeals while the central leadership maintained a secular profile.  However, in the 1980s it was the central government which resorted to a communalised form of politics which gave much more prominence to the alleged rights of religious groups, with the result that debate about ethnic questions became commonplace.  To some extent the Hindu nationalist discourse was legitimised.  In addition, the mainstream opposition, though antagonised by the revival of Hindu militancy, agreed to form an anti-Congress (I) alliance with the BJP in the late 1980s.  The BJP was thus presented with ideal conditions for the launch of a ‘mixed strategy’ in which instrumentalism was centred on manipulation of the symbol of Ramjanmabhoomi ….— Christophe Jaffrelot, The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics 1925 to the 1990s With a New Afterword, Penguin Books, 1999, p.527

3 Moplahs:

10. HINDUS AND MOPLAHS

Though the letters on the Moplah trouble and the Mussulman attitude by Messrs Keshav Menon and others have already appeared in the Press, contrary to my wont I publish the two communications² for

     2.Not reproduced here. The following are some excerpts from these:

“The resolution passed by the Khilafat Conference at Ahmedabad about the Moplahs of Malabar, and the telegram . . . by Maulana Abdul Bari Sahib . . .

published in the Servant of Calcutta on 20th December, compel one to doubt if the Mohammedans or even Hindus outside Malabar have any correct knowledge of the happenings in this unhappy district. . . one would have expected a kind word from our Mohammedan friends for the unfortunate Hindu victhns of the Moplah atrocities….

the Khilafat Conference, while congratulating the Moplahs for the sacrifices of their lives in the cause of their religion, has not a word of condemnation for the atrocities committed by them on the Hindus . . . a true satyagrahi has no option but to proclaim the truth . . . Truth is infinitely of more paramount importance than Hindu-Muslim

(p. 24)

the importance that attaches to them. Possibly the fact of their publication in the pages of Young India will be some balm for the wounds that the Moplah madness has inflicted on the Hindu heart. The writers were entitled to give vent to their pent up feelings.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani is one of our most courageous men. He is strong and unbending. He is frank to a fault. In his insensate hatred of the English Government and possibly even of Englishmen in general, he has seen nothing wrong in anything that the Moplahs have done. Everything is fair in love and war with the Maulana. He has made up his mind that the Moplahs have fought for their religion. And that fact (in his estimation) practically absolves the Moplahs from all blame. That is no doubt a travesty of religion and morality. But to do irreligion for the sake of religion is the religious creed of Maulana Hasrat Mohani. I know it has no warrant in Islam. I have talked to several learned Mussulmans. They do not defend Hasrat Mohani’s attitude.

I advise my Malabar friends not to mind the Maulana. In spite of his amazingly crude views about religion, there is no greater nationalist nor a greater lover of Hindu-Muslim unity than the Maulana. His heart is sound and superior to his intellect, which, in my humble opinion, has suffered aberration.

The Malabar friends arc wrong in thinking that the Mussulmans in general have not condemned or have in any way approved of the various crimes committed by the Moplahs. Islam protects, even in war, women, children and old men from molestation. Islam does not justify jehad except under well-defined conditions. So far as I know the law of Islam, the Moplahs could not, on their own initiative, declare jehad. Maulana Abdul Bari has certainly condemned the Moplah excesses.

But what though the Mussulmans did not condemn them? Hindu-Muslim friendship is not a bargain. The very word friendship

Error! Filename not specified.

unity or swaraj . . . atrocities committed by the Moplahs on the Hindus are unfortunately too true . . . A few prominent Mussulman leaders, it is true, have condemned the Moplahs atrocities . . . But, how far have the Mussulmans in general, exerted to undo the wrongs committed by their co-religionists in Maiabar?”

“. . . Maulana Mohani justifies the looting of Hindus by Moplahs as lawful by way of commandeering in a war between the latter and the Government . . . Maulana perhaps does not know that .-. . There was no adversary to the Moplahs at the time whom the Hindus could possibly have helped or invited, and the attack on them was most wanton and unprovoked. . . Maulana justifies the other barbarities committed by the rebels on the ground that they were more by way of retaliation on the Hindus who were suspected to have invited the military or aided them…. Does not the Maulana realize that such opinions emanating from him are bound to have disastrous

consequences?”
	(p.25)

excludes any such idea. If we have acquired the national habit, the Moplah is every whit a countryman as a Hindu. Hindus may not attach greater weight to Moplah fanaticism than to Hindu fanaticism. If instead of the Moplahs, Hindus had violated Hindu homes in Malabar, against whom would the complaint be lodged? Hindus have to find out a remedy against such occurrences, as much as the Mussulmans. When a Hindu or a Mussulman does evil, it is evil done by an Indian to an Indian, and each one of us must personally share the blame and try to remove the evil. There is no other meaning to unity than this. Nationalism is nothing, if it is not at least this. Nationalism is greater than sectarianism. And in that sense we are Indians first and Hindus, Mussulmans, Parsis, Christians after.

Critics may say, “All this is sheer nonsense, because it is so inconsistent with facts. It is visionary.” But my contention is that we shall never achieve solidarity unless new facts are made to suit the principle, instead of performing the impossible feat of changing the principle to suit existing facts. I see nothing impossible in Hindus, as Indians, trying to wean the Moplahs, as Indians, from their error. I see nothing impossible in asking the Hindus to develop courage and strength to die before accepting forced conversion. I was delighted to be told that there were Hindus who did prefer the Moplah hatchet to forced conversion. If these have died without anger or malice, they have died as truest Hindus because they were truest among Indians and men. And thus would these men have died even if their persecutors had been Hindus instead of Mussulmans. Hindu-Muslim unity will be a very cheap and tawdry affair, if it has to depend upon mere reciprocation. Is a husband’s loyalty dependent upon the wife’s, or may a wife be faithless because the husband is a rake? Marriage will be a sordid thing when the partners treat their conduct as a matter of exchange, pure and simple. Unity is like marriage. It is more necessary for a husband to draw closer to his wife when she is about to fall. Then is the time for a double outpouring of love.  Even so is it more necessary for a Hindu to love the Moplah and the Mussulman more, when the latter is likely to injure him or has already injured him. Unity to be real must stand the severest strain without breaking. It must be an indissoluble tie.

And I   hold  that   what  I  have  put  before  the    country  in  the

(p.26)

foregoing lines is . simple selfish idea. Does a Hindu love his religion and country more than himself? If he does, it follows that he must not quarrel with an ignorant Mussulman who neither knows country nor religion. The process is like that of the world-famed woman who professed to give up her child to her rival instead of dividing it with the latter—a performance that would have suited the latter admirably.

Let us assume (which is not the fact) that the Mussulmans really approve of all that the Moplahs have done. Is the compact, then, to be dissolved? And when it is dissolved, will the Hindus be any better off for the dissolution? Will they revenge themselves upon the Moplahs by getting foreign assistance to destroy them and their fellow Mussulmans, and be content to be for ever slaves ?

Non-co-operation is a universal doctrine, because it is as applicable to family relations as to any other. It is a process of evolving strength and self-reliance. Both the Hindus and Mussulmans must learn to stand alone and against the whole world, before they become really united. This unity is not to be between weak parties, but between men who are conscious of their strength. It will be an evil day for Mussulmans if, where they are in a minority, they have to depend for the observance of their religion upon Hindu goodwill and vice versa. Non-co-operation is a process of self-realization.

…It would be a sad day for Islam if the defence of the Khilafat was to depend upon Hindu help. Hindu help is at the disposal of the Mussulmans, because it is the duty of the Hindus, as neighbours, to give it. And whilst Mussulmans accept help so ungrudgingly given, their final reliance is and must be upon God. He is the never-failing and sole Help of the helpless. And so let it be with the Hindus of Malabar.

Young India, 26-1-1922, CWMG, vol. 26.

4 Khilafat:

               The Government has never been able to explain what is impossible in the demand about the Khilafat. Its impossibility lies wholly in the Government’s guilty intention, its unwillingness to grant the demand. What is there impossible in the British vacating Arabia? What impossibility or obstacle can there be in returning its territory to Turkey? If the British people cannot tolerate this, then India will have to consider whether she should not sever the British connection completely. The Government’s unwillingness to satisfy the Khilafat demand certainly cannot be advanced as a valid argument.—Navajivan, 29-1-1922, CWMG, vol. 26, p. 30

5 For full details of Khilafat and Moplahs see the Internet.