I wrote an essay on what happens when terrorists take over religious places and received a rather interesting comment by email. It is a fair comment and I believe it is worthwhile to answer it.
How many terrorists have holed up in a temple or a church? And how many in a mosque?
How many temples (belonging to Hinduism, Buddhists,etc.) were attacked by the non-Hindus, non-Buddhists, etc.?
How many churches were attacked by non-Christians, and who were the attackers?How many mosques were attacked by non-Muslims?
How many mosques were attacked by Muslims of another sect?
The problem with many analysts is that they use the equivalence tactics when it comes to Islamic terrorists. So, you have to say that the Tamil Tigers are Hindu terrorists, even though the Tigers say that theirs is an ethnic struggle. And you have to bring in the issue of Christian terrorism of more than 200 years ago, without telling that today there is very little Christian terrorism, especially one that is directed against Islam.
Re the mention of the Babri structure. It was a monument of the slavery of the Hindus, and to give it a religious significance is to continue the strategy of trampling on Hindu sentiments. Furthermore, serious attempts were made by the Hindus to get it back peacefully. And when all these failed the Hindus had to act on their own. It is similar to the attempts made by Shri Krishna to get a peaceful settlement for justice to the Pandavas, and when they failed the battle at Kurukshetra took place.
Bhaskarji talks about Mosque bombings in India. The way it is juxtaposed one would get an impression that it was carried out by the Hindus.
Bhaskarji will, of course, say that it was not his intention. And that is why I said 'they way it is juxtaposed'.
We are currently dealing with a situation that more often than not, in India, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, UK, some mosques are actually turning out to be hotbeds of terrorism. Not all, but then the problem is not with all, the problem is with that tiny minority. Also, most of the attacks on temples have been carried out by Islamist terrorists. Agreed. How many mosques were attacked by non-Muslims? comparatively less, much less. How many mosques were attacked by Muslims of another sect?Many more than have been attacked by other religions (proviso, depends upon how you define attacks, some would say that they were innocently gathering arms and ammo, and just preaching jihad, while they were innocently attacked by crusaders in Iraq or by the muslims under the control of the crusaders in the case of Lal Masjid, etc.). Tamil Tigers are Hindu's, Christians and the lot but their ideology is not Hinduism, but
Actually, christian terrorism is quite a lot. Take anti abortion terrorists. Now you can quibble whether that's terrorism or whether that's crime, but that is driven by christian ideology. Also, a significant proportion of the Muslim world believes that Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel and other places is christian crusader terrorism. So yes, that does happen to a very large degree. Also let us not forget the Christianity driven ideology of several north eastern Indian terrorist groups.
That said, when deciding public policy, you need to establish rules which apply across the board. The fact that Christian terrorism did not happen in Israel does not mean that it cannot happen. So while the numbers mean that you keep a beady eye out on the Muslim Mosques, the lessons are applicable everywhere.
Finally, the Babri Masjid. Well, the problem with that is that the author seems to be talking about All Hindu's. No, the South Indian Hindu's didnt have anything to do with it. The Hindus of the east didnt have anything to do with it. If they did care about it, then the BJP's attempts to use the Ram Janmabhoomi aspect would have played a much higher role in the last parliamentary elections which they lost. So it was political, ideological and scarecely religious, which makes it frankly contemptible. Secondly, the idea of trying to explain human actions by pointing to Gods cuts both ways.
By going against the law of the land, they are violating a load of moral statements. By worshipping idols, they are violating the strictures given in the upanishads, by talking about the Gita, they are assuming that they are speaking with the same voice as Sri Krishna.
Unfortunately, that is a big leap. The famous words in the Gita are being violated, you keep on doing your work and let the result be in the hands of the Brahman. By taking action of destroying the mosque, by breaking laws, by doing cheap theatrical tricks and using religion for cheap political purposes, they are certainly not doing God's work, and certainly they arent doing what the Gita said. The battle of kurukshetra actually and very unfortunately is rather against them, in other words, the vandals are the Kauravs, I am afraid. And there are many more shloka's that I can quote which can give direct support to the fact that violating laws is wrong. So, using religious scriptures to back up actions is not really recommended. Even the devil can quote scripture to back up his actions! but I will close with just one quote which perhaps might help!
Chapter 14, text 16. Bhagwad Gita.
PS: I do not comment on sins of omission! :)
No comments:
Post a Comment