Dear Editor,
Ms Shabnam Ali and Mr Raymond Chickrie in their letter, ‘An inconsistent position on secularism,’ (SN, August 25), are guilty of a blatant use of fallacious analogy in seeking to connect the United Nations and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
Briefly, three points need to be taken into consideration, (a) unlike the OIC, the UN is not a religious organization; (b) no country is required as a condition of membership to genuflect before any religion, not to talk of the claim of the superiority of any religion; and (c) even if religion were a factor, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights treats all religions as equal which is a contradiction of the OIC’s stated position of the superiority of Islam. The analogy therefore does not apply.
To make the argument that Guyana should leave the UN because, like the OIC, it has member states that routinely butcher their people under the flimsiest pretext would be tantamount to saying that we should charter the next spaceship and head for Mars because the earth is filled with these horrible evil governments.
A new argument the authors make for membership of the OIC is that it can be used as a lobby forum, “should there happen to be any inter-religious conflicts in the future.” But Guyana has a constitution that guarantees equal protection for all its citizens and we have a legal system to which we can resort in the event of conflicts. In any case, isn’t this exactly what the United Nations is for?
It borders on the absurd to even suggest that the OIC be a lobby forum in the event of “inter-religious conflicts” when it is not used for the same purpose by Muslims themselves involved in the worst internecine bloodletting the world has seen for a long time, that is, the genocide unfolding before our very eyes in Iraq and for the mass extermination of Syrians. Why should anyone in their wildest imagination suppose that it can be a lobby forum for “inter-religious conflict” in Guyana?
Coming to India’s attempt to join the OIC, here is a country with the second largest Muslim population in the world, but I fully endorse the Pakistani veto. India’s application was yet another attempt at minority appeasement which has been the official policy of successive governments since the country was torn apart by demands for the creation of an Islamic state.
On the question of conversion, it is well known that I am an uncompromising advocate against this. If this makes one’s position on secularism inconsistent, then I am in good company, for Mahatma Gandhi himself, a staunch believer in the equality of all religions, was an inveterate foe of all forms of conversion.
But look who is talking about a people’s “free choice to convert to another religion”? If I subscribed to a religion that punishes its followers with death for converting to another religion, I could never, in good conscience, seek to demonise anyone who has a mere philosophical objection to this practice. Talking about double speak, Orwell himself would be put to shame.
Putting things together and looking at the death or Islam “free choice” given to the Christians of Mosul and the ancient Yazidi people, it seems that the Islamic position advocated by Ms Ali and Mr Chickrie is death for those leaving Islam but free choice for those who want to convert to it.
My concern is about secularism in Guyana. India, as far as we can tell, made a mockery of secularism. But, Ms Ali and Mr Chickrie now wish to present themselves as bleeding heart liberals and defenders of secularism, in which case the question may be asked, what after all, as Muslims, is their position on secularism especially when it is known that secularism is the very antithesis of the Islamic state? Unless they mean the Indian brand of secularism where it is possible to tax a majority to subsidize a minority pilgrimage to a foreign land!
It is not clear to me how, even if one were to accept the position, “Indianness is synonymous with Hinduness” how this constitutes “a clear violation of an individual’s basic human rights.” If the statement is taken to mean India becoming a Hindu theocratic state, does it not follow from this logic that all Islamic theocracies, by their very virtue of being theocracies, are also in “clear violation of an individual’s basic human rights”?
If Ms Ali and Mr Chickrie wish to become campaigners for human rights they will be well advised to turn their attention to places like Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Nigeria, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia where women are in danger of having their throat slit, in that macabre culture of death called honour killing; where pregnant women can be stoned to death on the steps of a nation’s ‘supreme court’ in front of onlookers, and where they can be flogged to call the ‘morality police’ liars.
It has now been announced that the United Nations has spoken of crimes, including targeted killings, forced conversions, sexual abuse and torture, being committed by Islamic State militants on “an unimaginable scale.” We are learning of the horrors of children belonging to targeted minorities being forcibly recruited and positioned on front lines to shield fighters, and of the persecution of Christians, Yazidis, Shia, and Turkmen, amounting to “ethnic and religious cleansing,” which constitutes crimes against humanity. Ms Ali and Mr Chickrie have their work cut out or them.
I would be happy to examine the claim that the RSS and the BJP are “intolerant of minorities.” Unfortunately, this is too broad and general an allegation. The writers need to expand on this statement. For example, are the RSS and BJP calling for the extermination of religious minorities as is the dreadful fate of the Hindus in some parts of Pakistan? Do they propose the relegation of any religious minority to the status of second class citizens as has happened to the Ahmadis in Pakistan or the Bah’ais in Iran? Or, do they give minorities the ISIS brand of “free choice” lopping off the heads of those who defy them?
Similarly, the charge that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) has been deemed “a right-wing Hindutva organization” is meaningless unless it can be further explained. I will be in a better position to respond to something specific.
It is a sad day indeed when a Muslim has to have recourse to a communist, in this case Prakash Karat, for support. But then again, any stratagem is permitted and any alliance is holy when the attack is aimed at the polytheistic, idol-worshipping, cow-protecting ‘infidel.’ If this party can sell out India as its members did when China invaded India in 1962, is anything really below them?
Yours faithfully,
Swami Aksharananda
