Rohit Dhankar/रोहित धनकर
[This is a survey. Please give your opinion. यह एक सर्वेक्षण है. कृपया अपना मत बताइए.]
(इस पोस्ट का हिंदी अनुवाद नीचे है, स्क्रॉल करें.)
Facts:
According to a news item in The Indian Express on 4th October 2015 a “UP Homeguard spread beef rumour to instigate attack on father and son, says police.” The paper further says, “According to a senior police officer, Vinay [the homeguard] had a personal dispute with Akhlaq earlier and had been instigating a group of youths to attack his family, alleging that they were involved in cow slaughter.” (Emphasis added)
Let us take this news item as the truth. Actually it may or may not be true, but for the purpose of this little survey I want to run suppose that it is true. Rest of the analysis and questions all assume this statement to be the truth. Hope I do not need to repeat it any more.
Now my claim is: “If this is the truth then Hindu religion has to bear the blame for Dadri lynthing.”
What is your opinion? Please express below in the comments.
Arguments for and against:
- The claim made above is not justified. Because:
- The real reason is the personal enmity between the homeguard and Ikhlaq.
- The homeguard used Hindu religion to instigate public sentiment and lynch Ikhlaq.
- The homeguard most probably did not believe in the religious injunction on beef eating.
- He certainly did not believe that Ikhlaq has killed a calf or cow.
- His own sentiments had nothing to do with his religion, they were governed by his personal enmity with Ikhlaq.
- Therefore, it cannot be blamed on Hindu religion.
- The claim made above is justified. Because:
- Yes, there was enmity between the homeguard and Ikhlaq, and that certainly was one of the reasons for the situation that developed.
- But, the homeguard could instigate the Hindu mob because their religion has certain beliefs (at least according to the people in the mob) regarding not eating beef.
- And, their religion has created a community with a strong sense of belonging, and identity; and this identity is seen by the mob-members as opposed to Muslim identity.
- They believed that the Muslims insult their belief and disrespected cow. And they wanted to protect (either genuinely or pretentiously under the influence of mob-mentality) their own respect and respect for cow. Alternatively, because of the same Hindu-Muslim identity issue they wanted to establish Hindu supremacy.
- Which means that the Hindu religion has created a mind-set that was ready to be exploited by the homeguard.
- Therefore, the Hindu religion should be blamed.
What do you think? What are your arguments?
Please give your true opinion in the comments, however, you can give it anonymously if you like. Hoping to get a reasonable number of responses.
==================================
तथ्य:
अंग्रेजी अख़बार The Indian Epress में छपी ४ अक्टोबर २०१५ की एक खबर के अनुसार, “उत्तर प्रदेश के एक होमगार्ड ने पिता-पुत्र पर हमला करवाने के लिए यह अफवाह गोमांस की अफवाह फैलाई. ऐसा पुलिस का कहना है.” अख़बार आगे लिखता है: “एक वरिष्ठ पुलिस अधिकारी के अनुसार विनय [होमगार्ड] का इखलाक से कोई व्यक्तिगत विवाद था. और इस लिए वह युवाओं के एक समूह को इखलाक के परिवार पर हमला करने के लिए उकसा रहता, यह आरोप लगते हुए कि वे लोग (इखलाक के परिवार वाले) गौहत्या में लिप्त हैं.”
तर्क के लिए मान लीजिये कि यह खबर सत्य है. वास्तव में यह सच भी हो सकती है और झूठ भी. लेकिन मेरे इस छोटे से सर्वेक्षण के लिए मान लीजिये की यह सच है. यह तथ्य है. आगे का सारा विश्लेषण और सवाल इस खबर को सच मान के लिए गए हैं. आशा है की खबर को सच मानने की बात को आगे दोहराने की जरूरत नहीं है.
अब मेरा दावा (claim, मानना) यह है: “यदि यह खबर सच है तो दादरी ह्त्या-कांड के लिए हिन्दू धर्म दोषी है.”
आप का क्या मत है? कृपया अपना मत नीचे कमेंट्स में दीजिये.
पक्ष और विलाक्षा में तर्क:
- ऊपर हिन्दू धर्म के बारे में किया गया दवा अनुचित है, सिद्ध नहीं होता. क्यों कि:
- अशाली कारण होमगार्ड और इखलाक के बीच की दुश्मनी है.
- होमगार्ड ने हिन्दू धर्म का उपयोग जनभावनाओं को भड़काने के लिए किया.
- बहुत संभव है कि होमगार्ड तो गौमांस खाने के धार्मिक निषेध में विश्वास ही ना करता हो.
- यह तय है कि वह यह नहीं मानता था कि इखलाक ने गौवध किया है (क्यों की उसे तो सच्चाई का पता था).
- होमगार्ड की स्वयं की भावनाओं का धर्म से कोई लेना-देना नहीं था, वह तो व्यक्तिगत दुश्मनी से संचालित था.
- अतः, इस के लिए हिन्दू धर्म को दोषी नहीं ठहराया जा सकता.
- ऊपर क्या गया दवा उचित है (सिध्ह है), क्यों कि:
- निसंदेह होमगार्ड और इखलाक के बीच दुश्मनी थी, और निसंदेह जो परिस्थियां बनाई गई उस के पीछे यह एक महत्वपूर्ण कारण था.
- पर होमगार्ड हिन्दू-भीड़ को भड़काने में सफल हुआ ही इसलिए कि उनके धर्म में गौमांस खाने को पाप माना जाता है, कम से कम उस भीड़ के अनुसार.
- और, उनके धर्म ने एक समुदाय बनाने में मदद की है जिसमें लोगों में ‘उस समुदाय का सदस्य’ होने का एक प्रबल भाव है, एक अस्मिता भी बनाई है; और इस अस्मिता का ‘मुसलिम-अस्मिता’ से विरोध है, ऐसा भीड़ के लोग मानते थे.
- वे यह भी मानते थे कि मुसलमान उनके विश्वासों का और गाय का अपमान कर रहे थे. और वे लोग अपने विश्वासों और गाय के लिए सामान को कायम करना चाहते थे, (या तो वास्तव में या भीड़-संचालित मानसिकता में.) या फिर, इसी हिन्दू-मुसलिम अस्मिता से संचालित हो कर वे मुसलामानों पर हिन्दू प्रभुत्व स्थापित करना चाहते थे.
- इस का अर्थ यह हुआ कि हिन्दू धर्म ने ऎसी मानसिकता बनाई जो होमगार्ड द्वारा उपयोग किये जाने के लिए तैयार थी.
- अतः, इस घटना के लिए हिन्दू धर्म ही दोषी है.
आप का क्या मत है? और उसके पीछे अप्प के क्या तर्क हैं?
कृपया कमेंट्स में अपना असली मत दीजिये, चाहें तो नाम ना दें. आशा है समुचित संख्या में लोगों के विचार आयेंगे.
*******
Thinking Aloud 
Dear Rohitji,
Although this philosophical survey and intellectual exercise is not going to bring any relief to the family of the lynched person, neither can it bring him back to life, I can understand what do you mean to establish by this reasoning.
In my opinion, your claim that “If this is the truth then Hindu religion has to bear the blame for Dadri lynching”, is not valid. It should better be stated as “If this is the truth then the people involved in the heinous act–the so called ‘Hindu’ have to be held responsible for Dadri lynching and must be hanged (not only blamed for that).”
In my opinion, the Hindu religion can never be blamed for this. Because, in any case, Hinduism is not what these so called ‘rakshaks of Hindu asmita’ have done in Dadri or what they have been doing since several decades in the name of religion.
Thank you very much.
J. Saahir
LikeLike
Hinduism cannot blamed merely because it has been used wrongly to kill. What needs to happen is to bring the criminal to justice. Such incidents are happening because the state is not serious to implement the law. We know how rioters are promoted to power. So in my opinion Hindus Who were involved in this ghastly attack is to be blamed not the Hinduism per se.
LikeLike
I think no religion teach people to kill people. Eating or not eating beef is the second question and again its a matter of CHOICE.
LikeLike
Agree with u minakshi.
LikeLike
One little QUESTION emerges: one claim is that ‘what the mob in this case thought about sacredness of cows, of cow killing and of punishment to cow-killer(s) is THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION, IT IS NOT TRUE RELIGION’. We can extend this argument: what people think about worshipping, gods, insult to gods, protection of respect for gods, and behaviour with those who do not respect all this, is nothing to do with religion. it is peoples’ own interpretation.So far so good.
Then what is religion? if it is not the beliefs of those who are followers of RELIGION X, then what is ‘true’ religion X?
If religion X (say, X=Hindu-religion, here) is not what those who call themselves Hindus think, then what is it?
Suppose 5% Hindus think that: THOSE WHO KILL COWS SHOULD BE KILLED.
THEN does Hindu religion ‘teaches’ ‘killing of cow-killers’? Now supposed 95% Hindus think that THOSE WHO KILL COWS SHOULD BE KILLED. Then? Does the Hindu religion teaches killing of cow-killers then?
If one says, “NO. even if 95% believe that cow-killers should be killed, still the religion does not teach killing”.
Then what shall be the test? When will you say that the religion teaches killing cow-killers?
LikeLike
No religion is true because all are founded on false premises. Religion may not directly teach killing but it contributes immensely towards making the believers intellectually retarded.
LikeLike
2d
LikeLike
The claim you have made based on the premises that you have constructed goes in favour of the statement being justified. However, I strongly believe that the number of Such people who understand Hindu religion this way is very small. It is a dangerous situation which reminds me of Yeats’ lines – The worst are full of passion/And the best lack all conviction. My fear, which I hope to be proved baseless, will get confirmed in the next parliamentary elections. If the present dispensation is voted into power once again, it will prove that majority of Hindus understand their religion this way – I believe it to be not true.
LikeLike
रोहित जी इस घटना के लिए हिन्दू धर्म ही दोषी है l मेरा मत है कि हिन्दू धर्म में गाय को मारे जाने पर गो-हत्या कहा जाता है l जबकि अन्य किसी जानवर को मारे जाने पर उसको हत्या की श्रेणी में नहीं नहीं रखा जाता है l जब हत्या हो गयी या की गयी की मानसिकता बना दी गयी है तो लोगों की धार्मिक भावनाओं को आसानी से भड़काया जा सकता है l
LikeLiked by 1 person
होमगार्ड को हिंदुओं ने ऐसा सिखाया या उसने सबक सिखाने के लिये ऐसा किया ? विचार कीजियेगा।
LikeLike
While all religions have unanimously continued to reject the theory of evolution, the science is just leaping forward with an indifferent attitude towards instances like gene editing. I don’t hesitate to blame the religious institutions for keeping large section of the population in dark about scientific method and thought. Current issues with regard to sexuality, dietary habits, rights of humans or animals does not end with simple debates like what is wrong or right. It has become ever more difficult to find an absolute answer.
In such a complex scenario we can’t afford to ignore any school of thought or disciplinary knowledge. Science gives simple answers to many social issues and same with the different disciplines of social sciences and humanities. But no single discipline of knowledge is sufficient to answer all our questions.
So let us be ready to accept questions that might remain unanswered. This again should not stop us from exploring different disciplines, ideas and arguments. Instead of carrying too many unanswered questions let us make sure to reduce the burden. Blind belief in religions based upon superstitions will not help in any manner to reduce this burden instead it either keeps it intact or helps it increase.
I am eagerly looking for resources, individuals, and institutions with expertise in inter-disciplinary knowledge who can help me philosophise on current issues.
LikeLike
इस मामले में अपने प्रतिद्वंदी को सबक सिखाने के लिये हिन्दू भावनाओं को उभारा गया है इसलिए धर्म का दोष नहीं है। यह व्यक्ति विशेष के आपराधिक चरित्र का दोष है। मुझे लगता है कि दोनों धर्मों के लोगों को पारस्परिक मान्यताओं के प्रति सम्मान की कमी है जो अशिक्षा के कारण है। इसलिए मूल में अशिक्षा है।
LikeLike
Am just going further with the discussion and sharing my opinion in the process.
When we say “Hindu religion is to blame” even if it is the interpretation of a percentage of people professing to be Hindus, there has to be a basis for this interpretation. I find it unlikely that a significant number of people (whether they are 5% of the Hindus or 95%) invented this out of thin air. It has to be in some text or has come to us over time orally or an existing tradition. There has to be some source somewhere that can, within reasonable limits, be interpreted as “Beef eating is wrong”.
If we accept this, one can also say that even the existence of any other source that is called Hindu and has a contrary statement (Beef-eating is not wrong.) still is not enough. That only proves that this religion is self-contradictory. But one particular version or belief is reigning in the minds of people professing to follow this religion, even if it is ignorance of the other text.
So whether religion resides in people’s minds or religion is an independent truth, the conclusion that “Hindu religion is to blame” seems justified.
LikeLike
Dear Rohit ji,
Thank you for reaching out to the world with these arguments and seeking an opinion.
1) I want to start by saying that it will be very difficult for us to blame a particular religion, Hindu, Islam, Christianity or otherwise. The reason I’m saying this is because religion is something that dwells in the abstract, people effectuate religion, religious practices and beliefs in our everyday life. This is what brings religion to life. If you want to blame religion, then, you will have to engage in an abstract discussion.
2) Having said the above, I would also like to state that religion influences our everyday modes of being, this is because it captures mind and body, through thought and physical practices. This not only carries significance in an individual’s life, but has often carried significance in politics, state and society as institutions. Delinking religion from any of these institutional factors almost seems impossible given the way in which it has embedded itself everywhere.
3) Having said points 1 & 2, I also want to say that we have given thought and effect to religion of any kind. We have consciously evolved norms and practices along which religious groups come together or organise themselves.
4) Keeping 1, 2, and 3 in mind, it is important for us to recognise that given diverse and pluralistic societies organised by different factors, we have also given effect certain political, social, economic and cultural modes of organisation in such a way that we are able to live together. The state is a creature of this project, as much as secularism or egalitarianism or democracy is. Again these include institutions, norms and principles that have evolved over time, which to some degree can explain why religion is so entangled with all these spheres.
5) These other modes of organisation (secular, democratic, egalitarian, etc) have lead to the building, shaping and constant reshaping of what can be called a public morality.
6) Religious or other norms and practices are and can only be effected through individual or collection action. Let us assume that this requires both thought and action, whether rational or not.
7) Now coming to your question – is Hindu religion to be blamed? Now the State took upon itself to promote one particular religious ideology in what is supposed to be a “secular” and “democratic” society, essentially a plural one. The state again is manifested in particular individuals. Also, it is not as though these principles completely evade the social space, they do get in contact with the social space and interact with it in many ways. It would be difficult to claim that democracy does not the individual, or that someone living in a democratic country does not know that he lives in a democracy, regardless of his views of what type of a democracy it is.
8) The killing of Ikhlaq was done by a particular individual or a particular social group. The grounds for this was the fact the homeguard or the mob thought they had reason to believe that Ikhlaq stored, cooked and ate a prohibited substance- beef and that eating beef or killing a cow assaults a particular religious identity (according to the assumption of truth you haves asked us to make).
In this particular case, given the fact that the killing was based on individual/collective action and that this action was based on individual/collective interpretation or reinterpretation or misinterpretation (whatever it may be) of religious norms. Also, what needs to be stated here is that religion in india does not exist independently of laws that govern human action. Most laws are applicable to all citizens, particularly those that relate to assault, battery and murder. These particular laws don’t make an exception for any religious groups. Therefore, despite the existence of religion, there is a higher order norm with legal force that exists and applies to everybody.
Given all of this I find it hard to blame an ‘abstract’ set of values such as religion, for me, the blame lies with
1) the individuals who banned beef in the first place (they, who know that we live in a secular democratic society that has not figured out an answer to the problem of tension between religious groups), and
2) those who were an active part of the lynching or incidents that led up to the lynching (they, who knew that this was legally punishable).
I’m not sure if this helps your survey.
LikeLike
I wish I could edit the post. Apologies for the bad editing, but the idea is captured.
LikeLike
Blaming Hindu religion or Hindus for the lynching would be as good as blaming the deceased (peace be on him) for having followed Islam or having been a Muslim, all the above arguments withstanding.
I strongly recommend replacing “Hindu religion” with “Hindutva” in the null hypothesis. On having made this replacement, it is far intuitive as well as rational to me to blame a derailed and extreme version of the Hindu religion for playing a frenzied mob into the hands of rabble rousers, leading to the grisly turn of events.
Consider an analogy of a car engine propelling a vehicle forward. The hate speech and rabble rousing was the ignition, the fuel was Hindutva, the engine was the communal tension and beef politics prevalent these days and the miscreants were the kick starters. Crediting an ignition or a kick start for the motion of a vehicle makes no sense to me, it is the engine and the fuel that are to be credited for the simple reason that a simple ignition system with stones was the first discovery humans made and the cavemen were well endowed with kicking skills yet it took humans millennia to make automated vehicle. Likewise the skills of rabble rousing and their proficient exponents have been around and will always be, it is the discovery of fuel and engine that led to automobiles.
I am in no way absolving the perpetrators of the crime of blunting the gravity of their actions by invoking collective responsibility. I firmly be field that this should be categorised as a rarest of the rare crimes and commensurate punishments shoulder be rolled out. But, the pivotal reason for occurrence such events is not individual actions but deepening communal divide, vote bank politics and inaction on the part of the educated and tolerant section of the society.
LikeLike