Dear Editor,
Worse than caricaturing a person’s beliefs, religious or otherwise, is the attempt to dehumanize him. There is a difference between the views that persons may espouse and the persons themselves. We are allowed to disagree with ideas and beliefs, as vehemently as possible, but the sanctity of the person must remain intact. Mr Abu Bakr is a careful and skilful writer who chooses his words deliberately and does not come across as a person who suffers from an impoverished vocabulary.
So, the use of metaphor “howling” (‘This distortionof Islam… SN, May 6 ), which he applies to me, was meant precisely to deprecate and dehumanize. Again, on Mr Abu Bakr’s use of language, he states that my real concern is with the “terror of proselytism”, which “has … released” many Hindus from the “millennial dharma”. It is true that I have never sought to conceal my disgust at the idea of proselytism. It signifies men trying to complete and perfect God’s work.
But in a sense, truer words have rarely been spoken, as proselytism, in one form or another, has “released” untold millions of Hindus. Ask Aurangzeb’s own chroniclers and historians. It is estimated that he may have “released” as many as 4.6 million Hindus during his bloody reign sending them to hell, and so reserving for himself a ticket to heaven.
Proselytism has also “released” tens of millions of native Americans as the population was literally decimated within a few years of the arrival of Columbus. The blessings of a higher civilization and culture, according to Mr Bakr. And, what about the “release” occasioned by the proselytization of Africa? That too is another sordid tale, unparalleled in human suffering and shame because, as we see enacting before our very eyes, Africa is trapped between two proselytizing ideologies that threaten the obliteration of the last vestiges of her traditional spirituality.
His dehumanizing characterization apart, Mr Abu Bakr has strangely found it prudent to drag me into the complexities of Indian politics, and to demand of me explanations of events in India which I feel no obligation to do any more than he may have in explaining atrocities committed against “polytheists, animists, and other non-Muslims” in dozens of countries across the world.
He express nothing short of righteous indignation that, as he sees it, I dare question his “right to share” his faith with me as a Hindu. “Sharing” seems such an innocent concept, one wonders who would have an objection to it. However, in our understanding sharing has to be a mutual exchange of ideas in order to create a new body of knowledge.
But his idea “sharing”, which is also part of the evangelical lexicon, is nothing short of a blatant imposition, as if to say, “Accept my gifts or else …” It is not surprising that the Hindu has experienced this kind of sharing in much the same way as Mr Bakr understands “the French contact with some of the Muslim world”, as a “relationship of conquest and domination”. Far from being ambivalent, I reject it as a shameless, paternalistic, arrogant, condescending and imperialistic attitude. Spare us your gifts.
Quite predictably, Mr Bakr draws our attention to “Hindu induced violence in India” and certifies that it is more than the violence in Pakistan and Egypt. Really? How far back in history should we go to determine this? Not to engage in a tit-for-tat, but since he is in the area shouldn’t some concern be shown for the Muslim-on-Muslim violence in Pakistan.
It will surprise no one that more Muslims are killed by fellow Muslims in Pakistan (and elsewhere) in a routine mayhem and, as we have seen in the past and are likely to see again, the time best reserved for this slaughter is in the month of Ramadan. And as far as Christians are concerned, the bloodbath is usually scheduled to coincide with Christmas.
Perhaps unintentionally, Mr Bakr raised a problem that has dogged and divided the Muslim community in many parts of the world especially in Europe and the United States, as he sought to compare the violence of various European outfits to the “attacks in Europe by self-proclaimed Muslims”. We know that this is a deflection tactic used when the question of violence in the name of Islam is discussed. The violence is perpetrated by “so-called Muslims”, “self-proclaimed Muslims”, “radicalized Muslims” and so on.
Mr Bakr in his wisdom is prepared to condemn other Muslims as “self-proclaimed”. But is there really such a person as a “self-proclaimed Muslim”? I wonder on what ground is a person deemed to be a “self-proclaimed Muslim”? Who are the authentic ones? Is there a certifying body within Islam to adjudicate on this matter? Though the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has declared Ahmadis as “non-Muslims”, as far as I am aware, there is no authority in Islam to pronounce on a distinction between “self-proclaimed” and other Muslims.
Yours faithfully,
Swami Aksharananda
