दो भारतीय और आप

October 15, 2019

नीचे दो भारतियों के शब्द-चित्र दिये हैं। एक रामचन्द्र और दूसरा अशरफ अली। दोनों के लिए सात एक-जैसे सवाल भी दिये हैं। समय होतो दोनों के बारे मेन पढ़लेन। फिर अपने विचार से नीचे के चार सवालों का जवाब मेन कुछ कहें:

  1. आज के कितने प्रतिशत हिन्दू रामचन्द्र के लिए सातों सवालों का जवाब हाँ में देंगे?
  2. आज के कितने प्रतिशत मुसलमान अशरफ के लिए सातों सवालों के जवाब हैं में देंगे?
  3. आज के कितने प्रतिशत हिन्दू अशरफ के लिए सातों सवालों के जवाब हाँ में देंगे?
  4. आज के कितने प्रतिशत मुसलमान रामचन्द्र के लिए सातों सवालों के जवाब हाँ में देंगे?

रामचन्द्र:

रामचन्द्र एक भारतीय है। सब भारतीयों के किसी धर्म-जाती-भाषा-प्रांत-लिंग आदि के भेदभाव के बिना समान अधिकार होने चाहियें, यह मानता है, इसी के अनुसार आचरण भी करता है। समाज में अन्याय और गैर बराबरी उसे बहुत अखरती है। समाज में सब विषयों पर खुलकर बे-हिचक बात होने और अभिव्यक्ती की स्वतन्त्रता का हिमायती है। उसे लगता है सभी राजनैतिक विचारधाराओं पर, धार्मिक मान्यताओं पर, स-तर्क विचार-विमर्श होना चाहिए। किताबों पर बंदिश को वह समाज को मूर्ख बनाने की साजिश मानता है। दूसरों की जिंदगी  में दखल नहीं देता, अपनी जिंदगी में दखल नहीं चाहता। राजनैतिक और सामाजिक कामों में समरसता और सहयोग का हिमायती है और ऐसा ही करता है।

वह हिन्दू परिवार में जन्मा है, अपने आपको हिन्दू ही मानता है। जहां जरूरत होती हैं वहाँ विभिन्न दस्तावेजों में और सामाजिक जीवन में भी। कभी मंदिर नहीं जाता, कोई पूजा नहीं करता। सभी हिन्दू त्योंहार उत्साह से मानता है, पर उनके किसी भी धार्मिक दृष्टिकोण को अपने लिए स्वीकार नहीं करता, बाकी जो चाहें करें, उसे कोई ऐतराज भी नहीं है। विवाह उसका हिन्दू रीति से हुआ है और अपने बच्चों का भी उसी रीति से करना चाहता है। अपनी मृत्यु पर उसके परिवार जन जो चाहें अपने मन की शांति के लिए करें, उसे इस की कुछ भी परवाह नहीं है। माता-पिता की अंतेष्ठी आम हिन्दू रीतिरिवाज से की है, पर सिर मुंडवाना, गो-दान, बारहवें पर भोज-ब्राह्मण-भोज आदि नहीं किए। बच्चों के नाम संस्कृत-हिन्दी शब्दों में रखे हैं।

सब भारतीय नागरिकों को बराबर मानता है। मनु-स्मृति के जाती वाले, धार्मिक क्रियाक्रम वाले, औरतों को बंदिश में रखने वाले, आदि हिस्सों को अस्वीकार करता है। पर उसके इस श्लोक जैसे हिस्सों को अपनी संस्कृति के अच्छे हिस्से मानता है। “धृतिः क्षमा दमोऽस्तेयं शौचं इन्द्रियनिग्रहः । धीर्विद्या सत्यं अक्रोधो दशकं धर्मलक्षणम् । ।” जाती-वर्ण को पूरी तरह अस्वीकार करता है। और उसे अन्याय-पूर्ण व्यवस्था मानता है। वेदों के बहुत से हिस्सों में उसे केवल अविकसित समाज के कर्म-कांड दिखते हैं, बहुत हिस्सों में अंधविश्वास दिखाता है, कई जगह गहन दार्शनिक विचार दिखते हैं, कई जगह आध्यात्मिक दृष्टि से ऊदात्त विचार दिखते हैं, कई जगह ऊंचे दर्जे की कविता दिखती है। ऐसे ही वह उपनिषदों को भी देखता है। न वेदों को अपौरुशीय मानता है न ही उपनिषदों को शुद्ध स्वर्णिम-अध्यात्म-ज्ञान के भंडार। सब बहुत मिलाजुला मानता है।

राम, कृष्ण आदि कोई अवतार नहीं मानता। देवि-देवता नहीं मानता, ईश्वर के अस्तित्व को भी नहीं मानता। पर गीता में बहुत कुछ नैतिक और दार्शनिक भी देखता है। महाभारत और रामायण को भारतीय संस्कृति के महत्वपूर्ण ग्रंथ और अच्छा साहित्य मानता है पर उनकी ऐतिहासिकता को स्वीकार नहीं करता। हालांकि उनके कुछ चरित्रों के कोई ऐतिहासिक व्यक्ती किसी रूप में हरे होने को भी पूरी तरह से अस्वीकार नहीं करता, पर अभी ऐसे कोई प्रमाण उसे नहीं दिखते। खान-पान में उसके लिए स्वास्थ्य और स्वाद ही मायने रखते हैं। जो सामने हो और अच्छा बना हो खा लेता है; मांस, मछली, मुर्गी, गौमांस, सूअर का मांस –जो भी मिलजाए।

भारतीय संस्कृति में बहुत कुछ ऊदात्त और महान स्वीकार करता है और बहुत कुछ सड़ा-गला, अन्याय-पूर्ण और अनैतिक भी देखता है। जैसे सभी संस्कृतियों में सदा ही होता है।

अब कुछ सवाल:

  1. क्या आप को रामचन्द्र के अपने आपको सार्वजनिक रूप से हिन्दू कहने पर कोई भी ऐतराज नहीं होगा?
  2. क्या आप रामचन्द्र को हिन्दू मानते हैं?
  3. मान लीजिये रामचन्द्र राजनीति को समझता है, वह कोई चुनाव लड़े तो क्या आप उसे अपना मत देंगे?
  4. वह आपका पड़ोसी हो तो क्या अपने बच्चों के उसके बच्चों के साथ खेलने देंगे?
  5. क्या रामचन्द्र आप को बुलाये तो आप उस के घर दावत में जाएँगे?
  6. क्या आप रामचन्द्र को कभी अपने घर दावत पर बुलाएँगे?
  7. रामचन्द्र का कुछ कुछ उसी के जैसा एक बेटा है, जो सदचरित्र है और अच्छी नौकरी भी करता है। रामचन्द्र उसका रिश्ता लेकर आपके घर आए तो क्या आप अपनी बेटी का रिश्ता उस से करेंगे?

 

अशरफ अली:

अशरफ अली एक भारतीय है। सब भारतीयों के किसी धर्म-जाती-भाषा-प्रांत-लिंग आदि के भेदभाव के बिना समान अधिकार होने चाहियें, यह मानता है, इसी के अनुसार आचरण भी करता है। समाज में अन्याय और गैर बराबरी उसे बहुत अखरती है। समाज में सब विषयों पर खुलकर बे-हिचक बात करने और अभिव्यक्ती की स्वतन्त्रता का हिमायती है। उसे लगता है सभी राजनैतिक विचारधाराओं पर, धार्मिक मान्यताओं पर, स-तर्क विचार-विमर्श होना चाहिए। किताबों पर बंदिश को वह समाज को मूर्ख बनाने की साजिश मानता है। दूसरों की जिंदगी  में दखल नहीं देता, अपनी जिंदगी में दखल नहीं चाहता। राजनैतिक और सामाजिक कामों में समरसता और सहयोग का हिमायती है और ऐसा ही करता है।

वह मुसलमान परिवार में जन्मा है अपने आपको मुसलमान ही मानता है। जहां जरूरत होती हैं वहाँ विभिन्न दस्तावेजों में और सामाजिक जीवन में भी मुसलमान ही लिखता है, बताता है। कभी मस्जिद नहीं जाता, कोई नमाज नहीं पढ़ता, रोज़ा नहीं रखता। सभी इस्लामिक त्योंहार उत्साह से मानता है पर उनके किसी भी धार्मिक दृष्टिकोण को अपने लिए स्वीकार नहीं करता, बाकी जो चाहें करें, उसे कोई ऐतराज भी नहीं है। विवाह उसका मुस्लिम रीति से हुआ है और अपने बच्चों का भी उसी रीति से करना चाहता है। अपनी मृत्यु पर उसके परिवार जन जो चाहें अपने मन की शांति के लिए करें, उसे इस की कुछ भी परवाह नहीं है। माता-पिता की अंतेष्ठी आम इस्लामिक रीतिरिवाज से की है। बच्चों के नाम अरबी-फारसी शब्दों में रखे हैं।

कुरान की बहुत बातें उसे ठीक लगती है। पर अल्लाह के अलावा किसी और ईश्वर को मानोगे तो दोज़ख में जलोगे, आदि वह नहीं मानता। औरतों गैर बराबरी वाले हिस्सों को अस्वीकार करता है। इस्लाम में जाती आदि न होना, सब मुसलमानों को बराबर मानना, आदि उसे ठीक लगता है; पर न तो कुरान को ईश्वर की दी किताब मानता है ना ही मुहम्मद को पैगंबर मानता है। कुरान की बार बार अल्लाह को ना मानने पर दंड देने की धमकियाँ आदि उसे ऊल-जलूल बातें लगती हैं। हदीश और कुरान में जीवन की छोटी-छोटी बातों पर आदेश देना उसे बेमतलब दूसरों को नियंत्रित करने की कोशिश लगती है। कुरान और हदीश के बहुत हिस्सों में उसे केवल अविकसित समाज की परिपाटियाँ नजर आती हैं, बहुत हिस्सों में अंधविश्वास दिखाता है, कई जगह गहन दार्शनिक विचार दिखते हैं, कई जगह आध्यात्मिक दृष्टि से ऊदात्त विचार दिखते हैं। वह इनको शुद्ध-स्वर्णिम ज्ञान के भंडार के बजाय बहुत मिला-जुला मानता है।

कुरान में बताए गए पैगंबरों को नहीं मानता। मुहम्मद और उसके साथियों के जीवन में कई अच्छी बातें दीखती हैं उसे, और कई बुरी भी। वह उनको कोई आदर्श पुरुष नहीं मानता। कोई अल्लाह, देवदूत, जिन्न आदि भी नहीं मानता। खान-पान में उसके लिए स्वस्थय और स्वाद ही मायने रखते हैं। जो सामने हो और अच्छा बना हो खा लेता है; मांस, मछली, मुर्गी, गौमांस, सूअर का मांस –जो भी मिलजाए।

इस्लामिक संस्कृति में बहुत कुछ ऊदात्त और महान स्वीकार करता है, और बहुत कुछ सड़ा-गला, अन्याय-पूर्ण और अनैतिक भी देखता है। जैसा सभी संस्कृतियों में सदा ही होता है।

अब कुछ सवाल:

  1. क्या आप को अशरफ के अपने आपको सार्वजनिक रूप से मुसलमान कहने पर कोई भी ऐतराज नहीं होगा?
  2. क्या आप अशरफ को मुसलमान मानते हैं?
  3. मान लीजिये अशरफ राजनीति को समझता है, वह कोई चुनाव लड़े तो क्या आप उसे अपना मत देंगे?
  4. वह आपका पड़ोसी हो तो क्या अपने बच्चों को उसके बच्चों के साथ खेलने देंगे?
  5. क्या अशरफ आप को बुलाये तो आप उस के घर दावत में जाएँगे?
  6. क्या आप अशरफ को कभी अपने घर दावत पर बुलाएँगे?
  7. अशरफ का कुछ-कुछ उसी के जैसा एक बेटा है, जो सदचरित्र है और अच्छी नौकरी भी करता है। अशरफ उसका रिश्ता लेकर आपके घर आए तो क्या आप अपनी बेटी का रिश्ता उस से करेंगे?

******

15 अक्तूबर 2019

 

6 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by rdhankar

Fasting against a right decision does not make it wrong, Ms. Dutt

October 11, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

“Gandhi would be fasting against India’s discriminatory new citizenship law” declares Ms. Barkha Dutt in Washington Post (where else?) on 8th October 2019. There is a lot of concern regarding Home Ministers repeated statements regarding giving citizenship to Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Parsis and Christians coming from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh; and keeping Muslims out of this list. Ms. Barkha Dutt has written on the same issue and calls this anti-Muslim and “an Islamophobic campaign”. In her wisdom she proclaims “Even if the proposed new law does nothing to diminish their [Indian Muslims’] rights, there is great humiliation in just one religion — their religion — being kept out of the mix”. And most confidently declares that if Gandhi “were alive today, he would most certainly have been sitting on a “satyagraha” against citizenship laws that discriminate on the basis of religion”. Well, let us grant that she knows her Gandhi and he would have been as predictable as she concludes.

But, one, fasting against something, even with the name ‘satyagrah’, does not make it morally and legally wrong. And, two, we should examine her charges of discrimination against Muslims and Islamophobia seriously.

The bill (which was placed in the Lok Sabha and expired before being placed in the Rajya Sabha) she refers to is called “The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2016”, Shah has said many times that it will be brought before the parliament again. One, what this bill was supposed to do is to change the definition of “illegal migrant”. According to the Citizenship Act 1955 any one entering India without passport or other travel documents or staying beyond the permitted time period is an illegal migrant. As per the new bill “Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan … shall not be treated as illegal migrants”. Note that the list of exempted communities does not include Muslims.

The second change, relevant to the present discussion, it makes is that of duration of naturalization from 12 years to 7 years, again for “persons belonging to minority communities, namely, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan”, Muslims are not part of the list.

The bill also makes changes regarding “Overseas Citizen of India Cardholders” but that is not of interest in the present discussion.

The issue is: do these changes in the Citizenship Act, 1955 constitute unwarranted discrimination against Muslims and “Islamophobic campaign” as Ms. Dutt claims?

Ms. Dutt admits that “every country has the absolute right to control immigration”, please pay attention the terms “absolute right”. Thus, her objection is not “control of immigration” as such; but, according to her “the basis to accept one population and reject another cannot be religion”.

First, let us note that the bill is not about giving citizenship directly, it is about ‘making people of minority communities’ in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh ‘eligible’ to apply for citizenship without legal travel documents and/or with expired travel documents; and reducing the naturalisation period from 12 years to 7 years. The Muslims who are coming from these countries can apply if they have valid travel documents only, otherwise will be considered illegal immigrants. Also, Muslims from these counties will have to wait for 12 years to become naturalised citizens.

What is the basis for this preferential treatment to “Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians”? It is not religion, though they are identified by their religion. And this identification by ‘religion’ is made by “Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh” through systematic and sustained persecution of these communities in their countries. India is only offering to make things easier for these oppressed people.

Ms. Dutt understands this, but she objects to “the assumption that in the South Asian neighborhood only Hindus, Christians or Buddhists are at the receiving end of oppressive Islamist regimes”. Her argument is that “Shiites, Ahmadis, Balochis — all Muslims — have faced violence and disenfranchisement. And what of the Rohingya? Targeted ethnic cleansing of this Muslim community in Myanmar makes them the textbook examples of persecuted minorities in their country”.

This is a good and worth examining argument. But before that, let us note that the citizenship law as it is can be used by all these communities, all that is being done for the oppressed minorities in the three neighbouring counties is making it easier for them. But still, why not make it easier for the communities Ms. Dutt mentions? First, let us understand that there is a difference between operation due to political struggle and systemic oppression due to one’s religion. The Balochis are fighting a political battle. If India agrees with their political position then can consider it for granting refugee status or political asylum. And then they can go through the normal citizenship procedure. For Shiites and Ahmadis one has to first see if they are fleeing the countries in question like the six religious communities mentioned in the bill. There seem to be no significant cases of such phenomena. If it becomes as bad as the six communities mentioned in the bill the government may think about it. At the present moment their persecution looks like the internal rift of Muslim communities, which they should resolve in their own country.

Rohingyas is another case that is mentioned by Ms. Dutt and also debated by many skewed-secularists[1]. In using the “absolute right” of a country, which Ms. Dutt accepts, one also has to think of pragmatic grounds for granting citizenship to illegal immigrants. Such arguments could be one’s economic condition, population pressure or capacity of the country to handle the problem. In the case of Rohingyas one has to analyse the history of Rohingya unrest in Myanmar very carefully. There are two versions of their history. One, preferred by the skewed-secularist, is that they are the oppressed minority. The other, is that they have been a serious problem for Myanmar, have demanded Shariya rule in their little pocket of majority, have created violent unrest to merge with Bangladesh, have unleashed a campaign of terror, murders, abduction and rape on Rakhine population. All I would say is that before granting special favours to Rohingyas one has to understand all this and see what problems such favours may create for India.

Looking from this angle (which will surely invite the charge of being communal or at the least of being skewed-secularist for me) there is no reason to see any “humiliation” (Ms. Dutt’s word) for Indian Muslims. And I am not sure if they do see any humiliation in this. The grounds for granting the favour for the six religious communities from three countries are all sound, rational and consistent with secular ethics. Ms. Dutt’s charges of discrimination, “Islamophobic” and “humiliation” are all either due to lack of understanding or due to deliberate undue criticism for some interest of her own. I do not know which, but would like to consider due to “lack of understanding” so that no debate is curbed.

Ms. Dutt also repeats a chant one often hears from skewed-secularists and Muslim leaders like Mr. Owaisi. It is “when given a choice in 1947, this is a community that chose India’s pluralism over Pakistan’s narrow linking of Islam to nationhood”. This is unnecessary comment to create a certain unjustified perception. My suggestion would be that people like Ms. Dutt and Mr. Owaisi should refrain from chanting this. For two good reasons. One, because it is only a half truth. It is true that Indian Muslims did have a choice and chose pluralistic India over Islamic Pakistan. But before they made this choice, they voted overwhelmingly in favour of creating Islamic Pakistan. This is the unmentioned part of the truth, and that is what makes it a half truth.  

The claim that Muslims voted overwhelmingly in favour of Pakistan can be easily substantiated on the basis of elections held in 1945 and 1946. We must remember that these elections were held on the basis of separate electorates for Hindus and Muslims. Muslim voters could vote only for Muslim candidates. Congress and Muslim League were the two main parties. Congress did field candidates in Muslim constituency. And the elections were almost entirely on the issue of partition.

For the Central Legislative Assembly, the “Muslim League won all Muslim constituencies”.[2] The results of the provincial elections held in January 1946 are given in the table below.[3]

Province Muslim Seats Muslim League % Of Muslim Seats won by Muslim League
Assam 34 33 97%
Bengal 119 113 95%
Bihar 40 34 85%
Bombay 30 30 100%
Central Provinces 14 13 93%
Madras 29 29 100%
North West Frontier Province 38 17 45%
Orissa 4 4 100%
Punjab 86 74 86%
Sind 34 28 82%
United Provinces 66 54 82%
Total 494 429 87%

That does not leave much doubt regarding Muslim opinion on partition at the time of these elections; that is, they favoured creating a Muslim state of Pakistan. A spurious argument against this logic is that: the voting rights were restricted to a very small percentage of population (perhaps around 2.5%?), to only those who had property and paid a certain amount of tax. This is a very weak argument. The political leaders who could take tax paying voters along them could as easily would have taken less privileged people along them. Therefore, yes, the forefathers of Indian Muslims chose to stay back in pluralistic India, but before that they voted to partition India.

 Repeating this chant of choosing India over Pakistan will also invite another politically incorrect statement, which the skewed-secularists and Muslims will not like. That is, it were the majority Hindus who chose to keep this nation pluralistic and secular even after partition on the basis of Religion. Had it been otherwise there were no chances of a secular India.

Therefore, Ms. Dutt’s charges of discrimination, humiliation and Islamophobic campaign can not be sustained at the least on the basis of this proposed legislation. Ms. Dutt knows Gandhi better. I am not sure, but he might have sat on a fast. However, the facts and arguments can not be refuted by a fast any more than they can be refuted by holding a gun to one’s temple. Yes, they can be unreasonably and undemocratically trampled under feet through fasting by someone as respected and popular as Gandhi. I am not sure if Gandhi would have committed this crime, as Ms. Dutt imagines.

******

11th Oct 2019

[1] Definition: skewed-secularist is someone who applies principles of secularism in a biased manner to favour a certain community.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Indian_general_election I am looking for a more reliable source, if any one has please forward to me.

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1946_Indian_provincial_elections as said above looking for more reliable source.

3 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by rdhankar

Who is a patriot?

October 8, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

Whether Godse was a patriot or not is a question of heated and acrimonious debate today. The debate runs solely on the emotional reactions and aggressive brandishing pre-determined positions. For those who consider themselves liberal intellectuals, even raising the question as to whether Godse can be seen as a patriot is a mortal sin. For the nincompoops masquerading as ‘nationalists’ and ever ready to brand all sane India antinational, Godse is a bigger patriot than Gandhi.

Is it possible to think a little more coolly in such a volatile atmosphere? Let us first ask: who is a patriot?

The Oxford Dictionary of Current English informs us that a patriot is a “person devoted to and ready to defend his or her country”. Marriam-Webster dictionary defines a patriot as “one who loves and supports his or her country”. Cambridge dictionary defines a patriot as “a person who loves their country and, if necessary, will fight for it”. Encyclopaedia of social sciences tells us that “patriots are citizens joined by a love of country and a readiness to sacrifice, perhaps even die, for their country”.

What is common here is: 1. Some devotion and/or love for one’s country, and 2. Commitment to defend and/or support and/or fight for that country.

A patriot is also defined as one who exhibits or has “patriotism” in his feelings and character. Therefore, it will be useful to look at some definitions of patriotism as well.

As per Cambridge Dictionary patriotism is “the feeling of loving your country more than any others and being proud of it”. For encyclopedia Britannica patriotism is the “feeling of attachment and commitment to a country, nation, or political community”.

To my mind, a very clear and comprehensive definition of patriotism is given in the entry on “Patriotism” in Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, with reference to Stephen Nathanson who “defines patriotism as involving:

  1. Special affection for one’s own country
  2. A sense of personal identification with the country
  3. Special concern for the well-being of the country
  4. Willingness to sacrifice to promote the country’s good.”

It seems to me that we can create a definition of a patriot on the basis of this characterisation of ‘patriotism’, which is likely to be clearer and more comprehensive. Such a definition would be: ‘A patriot is a person who has

  1. Special affection for one’s own country
  2. A sense of personal identification with the country
  3. Special concern for the well-being of the country
  4. Willingness to sacrifice to promote the country’s good.’

To examine whether a particular person satisfies the fourfold criteria of being a patriot or not, we have to make sense of the term “country” which occurs in all these criteria and is the central concept in defining patriotism and a patriot. Let’s take country to mean a “a politically organized body of people under a single government and living in a defined geographical territory”. This definition makes it clear that country is made-up of people; no people no country. Today a patriot has also to fulfil another condition: that of democracy and therefore considering all as enjoying equal citizenship rights. Two hundred years ago, we did not have an idea of democracy, and therefore, it was possible for someone to fulfil the above four criteria in a manner where equality of rights did not figure. But during freedom movement and imagining the presentday India ‘concern for well-being of country’ has to include all its people, without discrimination.

This analysis demands that “special affection”, “personal identification”, “concern for wellbeing” and “willingness to sacrifice” are all directed to the good of the “all people of the country”. That leads us into a very serious analysis of multiple imaginations of the nation and country.

Do we accept existence of multiple political ideologies in a country? If yes, anyone who imagines the country as per his ideology should be considered a patriot. Say Mr. Gender-Equality imagines country as free from patriarchy and equality of sexes. He also thinks that the ‘good’ of patriarchs is in accepting the ideology of gender-equality, and they need to be changed to this idea. Say there is also Miss. Manu and she thinks that good of women is in being in protection and being directed by the men. Can they both be patriots?

Now imagine three people, very concerned about the country: Mr. Sanatan, Mr. Shariya and Mr. Iishprem.

Mr. Sanatan thinks that all should respect Vedic culture, and still better, become Hindus. And that will be good for the country as well as for those who do not respect Vedic culture and are not Hindus. He does not mind equal rights to all but actually works only for those who consider themselves Vedic and Hindus, and on converting everyone to Hinduism. He also sees Hinduism under attack and wants to organise them to defend themselves against Islam and Christianity.

Mr. Shariya thinks that good of all lies in becoming Muslims. He also does not mind equal rights to all but focusses only on Muslims’ welfare, and converting everyone to Islam. He also sees Islam under attack and wants to organise them to defend themselves against Hinduism and Christianity.

Mr. Iishprem too thinks that good of all and of the country is in becoming Christians. He too grants equal rights to all but works only for Christians and converting all to Christianity. He also sees Christianity under attack and wants to organise them to defend themselves against Hinduism and Islam.

Can these three gentlemen be patriots? If you think yes, then if Godse granted equal citizenship rights to all, he was a patriot. But did he? If you say no, then he was not a patriot but then many Indians today will be excluded from being patriots. But, what was Godse’s position on equal rights to all? If he thought of special status to Hindus and limiting citizenship rights of Muslims, he was not a patriot. This also will exclude many who seek special rights for themselves from the register of patriots.

India is a multicultural, multi-ethnic, multireligious country. It is bound to have multiple imaginations of the nation, of ‘good of the nation’ and of ‘good of its people’. This country and the imagination we all have of it is also not shaped by any one particular person, only one section of population or only one ideology. Many people have contributed to that imagination, many sections of the population have contributed.

We, of course, have our own imagination of the country and its good. But we will have to extend that right to others as well. Being exclusive: only our imagination is correct and all others are not patriots is ‘patriotic bigotry’.

I would consider all three gentlemen described above as patriots if they fulfil the above mentioned four conditions. Though, I would also consider them all to be misguided. And would want them to ‘convert’ to my ides where religion is irrelevant to the wellbeing of the nation and all its people. And that none of their religions should be given any quarter in the public space. But even if I am not able to convert them, I will still consider them patriots.

Dayanand severely criticised ritualistic Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, and all other sects; often with faulty logic and offensive language. He worked for reform of Hinduism and to organise Hindus. But he also wanted India for Indians and did spread nationalistic ideas. I think he was a patriot, as I am not aware that he objected to equal citizenship rights to anyone.

Savarkar did not grant equal rights to all. Therefore, he was a patriot to ‘imagined Hindu Rashtra’ but not to democratic India where all are equal.

Also, one may commit a crime, a murder, a theft and still be a patriot. Such a person may not be a good patriot to be emulated, may not even be a good human being. But if fulfils the above mentioned four conditions can be a patriot.

Godse, then, was a seriously wrong and misguided murderer. He murdered the greatest apostle of peace and harmony in the world at that time, but if you go by Godse’s available court statement, he was also motivated by patriotic feeling. But he also was a patriot to ‘imagined Hindu Rashtra’ and not to a democratic India.

By this criterion anyone who wants a Hindu-rashtra or Islamic State is not a patriot as far as democratic India is concerned. And if you can peep into the depths of hearts of Indians, you will find many who are not patriots in this light. Fortunately, they are not the majority even now.

And now a politically incorrect statement, which will send all liberals through the roof: India would not have been a secular country after partition if it were not a Hindu majority country. The majority of Indians of all religions are still secular as far as the state policies go. And I would like to believe that they will hold their own even in the current muddles political ‘samudra-manthan’ and will emerge with pure nectar of secularism and democratic values from this poisonous debate.

******

8th Oct. 2019

5 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by rdhankar