Islam & Peace

The Kautilyan Perspective:
Islam & Peace
By U. Mahesh Prabhu

A man is judged not so much by his words, as by his actions. Similarly is the case with religion. It's judged, solely, by the action of its followers and leaders.

Over the internet I have come to know of a very interesting group of people who have with them but one agenda: of convincing masses of 'Islam is a religion of peace'. Frankly I have had no issues with them, whatsoever, initially. As a firm believer in mutual co-existence and free speech I found the issue, chosen by them, to be close to my heart and, also, to be the need of the hour.

I was, then, even relaxed to know that there were finally some men, that too within Islam itself, attempting to undo the blemish what those Wahhabis had brought to it. Though I never put in my written word of gratitude to them I was praying for them to be triumphant in their task. But today I am compelled to speak otherwise. Not without a fair and valid reason, for sure.

To ensure I realized and understood their intentions accurately, I resolutely kept an eye on their activities, rather closely, both on and off the internet, through my sources, for quiet some time. It didn't took me long to realize their true intent. They were attempting to deceive people and motive them to convert to Islam, of which they had their own version, in rather very roguish manner by resorting to Negations.

Honestly I am not critical of conversions. I solemnly deem that any person should be free to follow the religious conviction of his predilection, unreservedly. But it should be through a virtue and only after realization of facts by the person aspiring for conversion. I am indubitably against depraved, shady and unjust methods of conversion, like the ones these were attempting to.

Islam, as many may know, is youngest of Semitic religions known to the mankind. It has had no great cultural, diplomatic and scholarly legacy, when it commenced its voyage from the deserts of Arabia. To expand its influence it had to entirely rely on the military prowess of its Prophet. As any Islamic scholar will confirm, Prophet Muhammad wasn't a literate. However, that is not to say that he was 'unwise' as some unjust critics of Islam might say. His genius was unquestionably commendable.

Quran wasn't given to him by Allah in a 'ready to serve format'. As per Islamic traditions it was 'revealed to him over a period of time'. Understanding his illiterate background, to make the Quran possible in the form of book he had to obtain services of some educated men. But the way in which he ensured that those educated men didn't muddled with his words, that which he had received from Allah, he would verify and cross verify and counter verify it from time to time.

Given the aforesaid context, to spread 'the word of Allah' prophet had but one road– his sword. As you see there were no scholars in Arabia, especially Islamic scholars, at that point of time. And the only peaceful method by which you could convert is by the way of debates which was completely nonexistent. And the 'holy wars' or 'Jihad' spilled blood of millions.

Any historian will concur that conflict for dominance, between Islam and Christianity, has exterminated over 17 million people, or even more, until date. Given this, it becomes increasingly difficult for individuals, including me, to trust that Islam is a religion of peace. The same is pertinent with Christianity also.

What we see today in Middle-East is no dissimilar than the conflict of the times of yore. People often misconstrue that the present-day American administration to be a 'liberal' and 'nonreligious'. That's absolutely a travesty of fact. George Bush, the swaggering American President, whose presidency, thank god, is to come to an end shortly, calls himself as a 'Reborn Christian'. If there is but one discrepancy in between the wars in the middle-east, then and now, it's that: then it was exclusively for the control of religious places, Jerusalem in particular, and now it's for oil.

True, even in India, then called Bharath; we had several caste, creeds and sects who had a lot of disparity among themselves. But as some 'scholars' would like to say, there wasn't bloodshed for the expansion. Though there were wars, it was on the intellectual and not on the military level, as it is often misleadingly stated. It was with words and seldom with swords.

But both Christians and Muslims, of course, had no such options and for them Sword was the first and the final resort. My Muslim intellectuals may well differ, but they simply cannot negate the fact that any insult on Prophet Muhammad or Islam has resulted in the 'violence', and the same is true even to this day. Or can they?

Now here's my sincere question to the Islamic scholars: How are we, the 'Kafirs', to believe that 'Islam is a religion of peace' when the entire age of Islam was led by wars and bloodshed? This, let me assert, is not a point to enrage but to seek an honest and truthful answer. I hate neither Islam nor any other faith. I say that with forthrightness. I have no axe to grind.

Further, every time a prophet is insulted there is not a single soul in the Muslim world who talks of peace. They needed no evidence when the Indian born, and now British, author Salman Rushdie was issued a fatwa by a fanatic Imam of a theocratic Islamist state for his beheading! Not one among the protestors, to the best of my knowledge, had even read Rushdie's 'blasphemous' book - Satanic Versus. Every time such issue had cropped up my question to my Muslim brothers was increasingly simple 'How could ordinary mortals insult a great prophet or Allah himself?' Greatness is that which is attained by people when they are above the criticism. Isn't it?

Yes, the same is also true, but only to a certain extent, in Hinduism. To testify the difference let me help you recall the recent 'Ram-Sethu Saga', when the Congress led UPA government's appointed office bearers made a nasty attempt of questioning the existence of Lord Ram. How many do you think, among the saints and monastery heads of Hinduism issued a diktat to behead Karunanidhi? Any guesses? Just one! To add further, you only need to go through the annals to realize the way in which, and how critically, the Mahant was criticized for having issued the diktat. Contrary to this, how many of our 'intellectuals' did really criticize the Mullahs who called for beheading of Danish Cartoonist?

A man is judged not so much by his words, as by his actions. Similarly is the case with religion. It's judged, solely, by the action of its followers and leaders. Given the people are aware of the fact that the number of people killed in the name of 'Allah!' we non-Muslims are certainly, and are very much, sceptical of affirming the statement of 'Islam being a religion of peace'.

Before I conclude, let me avow here that I live by a code, which is 'I may not love all, but I shall hate none.' I am an ardent advocate of Vedic principle that 'Hatred begets nothing, but destruction.' So it may be understood that my words here are sincere presentation of fact. I am not glum basher of Islam. I have no personal interest in bashing any religion for that matter.

Let the Muslims be free to propagate their religion, I am not perturbed by that. But my earnest appeal to them is to present truth and drop depraved, shady and unjust methods of conversion.

I am convinced that had Prophet Muhammad had a team of scholars like my distinguished intellectual friends like MJ Akbar he would have seldom retorted to wars. But the fact that he resorted to sword, which was his only available option, is a historical fact, and that which can seldom be negated.

The Ritual of Recommendation

The Ritual of Recommendation
By Mubasshir Mushtaq

Is there any difference between an enemy and an unfaithful friend?

If communalism is BJP's base, appeasement is a Congress tradition. If BJP has been hostile towards Muslims, Congress has been indifferent. If BJP pours its venom of communalism openly, Congress keeps that venom afloat and takes out when there is any need for political display. To an Indian Muslim, BJP is an open enemy while Congress has been an unfaithful friend.
Is there any difference between an enemy and an unfaithful friend?

In the eighties and nineties, BJP became visible from negligible because of its anti-Muslim politics and the so called "old wound" on Indian civilization: Babri Masjid. For Congress, Babri Masjid was a game of hide-and-seek. It flirted with the Hindus as well as the Muslims. If Rajiv Gandhi did not understand the seriousness of Masjid-Mandir politics, Narsimha Rao was well aware of its consequences yet he believed in the official art of winking! That fateful day, he did not wink, he was in fact sleeping!

If Hindu fanatics of RSS, Bajranj Dal and BJP brought down Babri Masjid, secular men of Congress gave us Liberhan commission; the country's longest running inquiry commission yet to submit its report after 16 years! If BJP demolished Babri Masjid in a day, Congress indecision has taken 16 years. If BJP has physically desecrated the Muslim heritage, Congress has mentally raped Indian Muslims for 16 years.

Is there any difference between an enemy and an unfaithful friend?

Post-Babri demolition, Congress continued its policy of hide-and-seek. It is altogether a different matter that Congress does not know the trick to hide and the sense to seek. It is a party whose fate is always in a state of permanent confusion. When at the Centre, it keeps dangling between right and left. Pendulum politics has been eating up its electoral share. When will Congress learn to be in the centre?

BJP, on the other hand, has always been a right-wing party but like Congress it too does not enjoy consistency and political permanence. When it comes to power, it quietly changes its colour from saffron to green. Green is not the colour of Islam it is a colour of peace. BJP advocates peaceful negotiation of Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir dispute. It undresses its violent robes and dons the dress of masses. Can an Indian survive for 16 years on a one-meal-called Ayodhya? BJP knows that Ayodhya can't feed India's farmers so it's better to talk about governance. Good governance is better than Lord Ram!

Good governance is good but trumpeting good governance is bad! BJP learned this political lesson when it slipped on India shining campaign.

Congress which benefited from BJP's debacle thought it obligatory to reward its Muslim vote-bank. It was indeed an honourable intention. Congress, India's oldest party, is yet to learn how to reward loyalty. One should pay royalty to reward loyalty! Alas, Congress continued its old and grand tradition of going into stone-age. It stuck to its old tools of appeasement: Committee and Commission; the 2cs which have become the destiny of Indian Muslims.

It's like using telex in an age of internet!

First it was the Sachar committee report. Then came the mute Ministry of Minority Affairs. It is a crawling ministry whose only function is to distribute fallen crumbs after the cream has been licked by the upper crust. BJP behaved like a barking dog. The Indian Muslim was caught in this crossfire and felt guilty of being 'appeasement.' Fallen crumbs don't fill a community's stomach.
Congress was so pleased with its crumb-distributing ceremony at the Centre that it decided to set up one such state ministry in Maharashtra!

Sachar committee was not enough! On May 11, Vilasrao Deshmukh announced formation of a six-member research committee to analyse social, educational and economic conditions of Muslims in Maharashtra. Dr. Mahmud-ur-Rahman, a former Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University, is the chairman of the committee which will submit its provisional report on June 30.
When this columnist asked the chairman (who was in Malegaon recently) why do we need a separate committee when Sachar Committee has already done the job assigned to this committee, he said, "Sachar has only diagnosed the disease. We will offer prescription in the form of policy and schemes."

Will the findings and recommendations of this committee have a binding on the state government? The answer is obviously no. If the Congress-NCP alliance is really sincere in uplifting Muslims, they should follow the example of Shahu Maharaja of Akola, the father of social reform. He did a lot to uplift lower castes way back in the first quarter of 19th Century. And he did not need any committee to do that. He only believed in one word: legislation.
The day average Muslims realize the fundamental difference between recommendation and legislation, Congress will never ever come back to power again.

So is there any difference between an enemy and an unfaithful friend?

The Reactionary Hinduism

The Reactionary Hinduism
By U. Mahesh Prabhu

We, the Hindus, have based our whole existence, mostly, on God and therefore, it is credible that Hindu Society has developed in an all-comprehensive manner, with a perplexing variety of phases and forms, but with one lace of integration running intrinsically through the whole host of its expressions and manifestations. All the sects, diverse castes in the Hindu fold can be defined, but the expression 'Hindu' cannot.

It's virtually impossible to describe the word 'Hindu'. You can define Muslim, Christian and people of other faiths quiet accurately, but not Hindu.

Many deem that all Hindus are idolaters - that's certainly not true. Arya and Brahma Samajis are also Hindus, but are completely critical of Idol Worship. If you assume that Hindus are the one who adhere to Bhagavad-Gita as the ultimate Holy Scripture - Shaivas, followers of Shiva, would beg with you to differ. Sincerely, there is no description which can accurately depict Hindu. We can define the cosmos, spirit, earth and all that, but not Hinduism. But just because we cannot define it, does it mean that it doesn't exist? Certainly not!

We, the Hindus, have based our whole existence, mostly, on God and therefore, it is credible that Hindu Society has developed in an all-comprehensive manner, with a perplexing variety of phases and forms, but with one lace of integration running intrinsically through the whole host of its expressions and manifestations. All the sects, diverse castes in the Hindu fold can be defined, but the expression 'Hindu' cannot.

Of course, countless efforts have been made to bring forth a viable definition, but all have proved to be simply imperfect, inaccurate. It is but normal in the case of people who have been growing and evolving for the last so many centuries. The Hindu society is a living reality, which all of us feel, in every drop of our blood. But although we cannot define it, we can, and must be able to, appreciate the exceptional features which mark out the Hindus as a distinct people.

We cannot say that, merely because a particular individual is not a Muslim or a Christian, he is a Hindu by the process of riddance. I have met several thinkers who often refer 'Hindu' as 'a non-Muslim'. That is, unquestionably, not a hale and hearty way of understanding our unfeigned nature. Hindu is not a negative person.

But off late the pessimism in the Hindu psyche is mounting powerfully, and is extremely visible. In his book Bunch of Thoughts Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh's second Sarasanghacharak MS Golwalkar, better known Guruji, had warned about this situation fairly in advance.

'To give an example,' said Guruji in the book 'our workers once approached a prominent Hindu leader during the signature collection campaign demanding ban on the slaughter of cows. But they were greatly shocked to hear him saying, "What is the use of preventing the slaughter of useless cattle? Let them die. What does it matter? After all, one animal is as good as the other. But, since the Muslims are hell bent upon cow-slaughter, we should make this an issue. And so, I give you my signature." What does this show? We are to protect the cow not because the cow has been, for ages, an emblem of Hindu devotion but because the Muslims kill it!'

This Hinduism, born out of reaction, was termed by Guruji as 'negative Hinduism' or 'reactionary Hinduism'. For many in the BJP, today, the word 'Hindu' is of use only to serve political objectives. Simply for the reason that a Congressman or a Socialist or someone thinks in term of 'composite culture', they stand up and claim a 'pure Hindu' culture.

Stranger than this is the cry of 'Hindu Communism'! A Hindu, to the best of my knowledge, can either be a Hindu or Communist. He can by no means be both. According to Guruji 'It only means that those who shout about "Hindu Communism" know neither Communism nor Hinduism.'

Guruji was once asked as to 'whether RSS was organizing Hindus in order to counteract the various activities of the Muslims.' For this his riposte was 'Even if Prophet Mohammad had not been born and Islam had not come into existence, we would have taken up this work just as we are doing it today, if we had found Hindus in the same disorganized, self-forgetful condition as at present.' adding 'Until the positive conviction that "this is my nation, this is my dharma, is my philosophy which I have to work for and set as standard for all other nations to follow-well" becomes the solid basis for Hindu organization.'

But what we observe with most of the reigning 'Hindu' politicians of the BJP is absolutely paradoxical to these ideas and ideals of Hinduism. Oblivious of the very fundamental nature of Hinduism, and its illustrious legacy, these shady political mongers swear by its spiritual traditions only to gather votes and gain power to further the sleaze in the foundation of our vibrant democracy. Let me assure you all that this is not a healthy development.

Washington Temptation

Washington Temptation
By Seema Mustafa

Who is the one person, or actually the two persons, who are clear about going ahead with the nuclear deal? The Prime Minister and his deputy, Deputy chairman of the Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia. For them the government does not matter, the elections are irrelevant, so long as Dr Manmohan Singh can emerge from his prime ministership with the laurels he is looking towards Washington for. A personal victory, in their analysis, far outweighs a national defeat.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has gone into a sulk. He does this periodically to convince his mentors in the United States that he remains completely committed to the nuclear deal, and in the off chance that this will work as pressure on the Congress leadership. Of course when the storm blows over, as it has several times in the past couple of years, and the Congress decides not to pursue the nuclear deal, the PM emerges from the sulk with his aides insisting that contrary to their own of the record briefings earlier, Dr Singh had never even thought of resigning.

Of course the Congress and its prime minister does not care that each time the nation is plunged into a crisis. Hundreds of man hours have been lost in the process with paralysis overtaking the non performing government as ministers and allies rush around trying to break the impasse. Files are not cleared, as the country is placed into election mode because of the petulance of one person, and a Congress leadership that is unable to take a political call. This despite the near unanimous decision of Parliament that the nuclear deal was not in consonance with national interests, and the government would do best to throw it out of the window. In the process it might have to throw the baby (read PM) out with the bath water, but then sometimes these decisions are necessary.

Dr Singh throws a little tantrum almost on every eve of the UPA-Left meeting on the nuclear deal. One wonders why he does not do so in the intervening period, but that is a question that can await an answer. So this time too he let Sonia Gandhi know----and this might have been denied by the Congress but certainly not by the PMO that spread the rumour in the first place----that he would resign if the Left was not halted in its tracks, and the government not allowed to take the safeguards agreement to the IAEA. The same issues and the same debate was reopened, and to cut a long story short, it was made clear to the government that the Left was not prepared to budge. And that CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat was categorical that the IAEA safeguards agreement should be discussed in its entirety by the committee and ratification by the Board of Governors could not be on the government cards until then.

The government went into pressure mode that took the following form: PM will resign; elections are inevitable; Samajwadi party will support the Congress; there is no question of the government backing off from its intenational commitments; the allies are with the Congress and so on so forth. If the picture was as clear cut as this, the Congress should have taken the decision by now, going full steam ahead into the elections. But obviously there is a big gap between the rhetoric and the reality. The Samajwadi party is hedging its bets, the allies do not want snap polls as all of them face defeat in their home states and would like to party a little longer, and the Congress party leaders are bitterly divided about going ahead with polls at a time when inflation is hitting double figures, and the poor are collapsing under the weight of the UPA's economic policies.

So who is the one person, or actually the two persons, who are clear about going ahead with the nuclear deal? The Prime Minister and his deputy, Deputy chairman of the Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia. For them the government does not matter, the elections are irrelevant, so long as Dr Manmohan Singh can emerge from his prime ministership with the laurels he is looking towards Washington for. A personal victory, in their analysis, far outweighs a national defeat. For lets face it, Dr Singh is not likely to be prime minister again and has a reputation to maintain with the US. For if this was not so, the government today would not be playing old games over the nuclear deal but would be rushing to implement measures to contain inflation, and during the interim period bring relief to the poor. However, all this has been put on the side table while the Prime Minister pushes the US case for a deal that has been effectively rejected by Parliament.

Unlike the Congress that is flaying wildly, the Left is hitting back with some well aimed punches. The first punch was rendered when it made it clear that it would not allow the government to go to the IAEA Board of Governors with the safeguards agreement that it had not seen. Repeated attempts by minister Pranab Mukherjee proved futile, and it soon became clear to even the fools in the Congress party that the Left did mean business, and had actually meant business all along. The government then started maintaining that the Left might withdraw support but would not vote with the BJP against it in Parliament. Then came the second punch. The Left let it be known that once it withdrew support it was "on the other side" and would happily vote out the government. This would ensure a roadblock for the deal in the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The third punch was delivered quietly to the Samajwadi party whose leaders Mulayam Singh Yadav and Amar Singh have been flirting openly with the Congress. These unscrupulous UP leaders were told that they could get out of any third front options that the Left would explore in the future, if they decided at this stage to support the Congress.

The Prime Minister disappeared through it all. He is not well, his aides said in a manner that encourage the media to further promote the sulk theory. Sulking and throwing tantrums is perhaps an inherent component of the PMs personality. If that be so, his advisors should encourage him to use the sulks to ensure more respect from the Congress and his colleagues in the cabinet. And if he needs issues to exercise this option, he could throw an occasional tantrum for the poor farmers still without relief, for the Bhopal victims still struggling for compensation, for the thousands inGujarat living as second class citizens…the list would fill a column. There is no dearth of issues in India as the Prime Minister will find once he moves his gaze away from Washington.