Dear Editor,
Tuesday, October 2, was the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi and United Nations, in commemorating Gandhi’s contribution to our understanding and practice of non-violence or ahimsa, declared October 2 as world non-violence day.
This is a significant decision not only because the achievement of Gandhi in this regard needs to be remembered, but because also of the steep rise of violence world-wide. Many would argue that our own society has become much more violent in recent years.
Violence is typically the violence of the strong against the weak, and there are many manifestations of this in our society. In most societies women and children are generally the weakest and are the worst victims of violence. We shudder at the number of women who are daily mutilated and murdered by their spouses and partners and are horrified by the violence in our schools against children. What is perhaps even more frightening is the defence of this violence against children.
However, given their protestations of peace, love, and belief in a compassionate and merciful God, violence practised by the religions of the world, must be seen as truly diabolical. The slogan, “Islam stands for peace. Kill anyone who insults the prophet,” which is often heard when the fury and frenzy are unleashed as is usually the case, sums up the point. According to Christopher Hitchens God is not Great.
Recently the world received a rude awakening from the present pope, Benedict XVI, who sought to establish the authentic church versus the inauthentic one, and this among people who all profess to be Christians. One wonders what horrible fate awaits those outside Christianity.
The basis of violence spawned by religions lies in the dichotomy they create between the believers, the saved, the chosen on the one hand and the infidel, unbeliever, sinner, heathen the pagan on the other.
The locus classicus of this demonisation of the “unbeliever” in Christianity is the Gospel of John 3:18 which states, “Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” (The HarperCollins Study Bible).
Reminiscent of John 3:18 is chapter 47 of the Qur’an. The first eleven verses are clear what should happen to those who disbelieve. For example, we are told, “For those who disbelieve, for them is destruction, and He will destroy their works.” (Translation by Maulana Muhammad Ali). Indeed in note 2295 (page 961) on verse four, the translator assures us that God could have punished the enemies of Islam but He wants them to be punished by the hands of Muslims.
If God condemns the unbeliever, as we have seen, and men are called upon to do the will of God, is it any wonder that there has been and continues to be so much intolerance and killing in the name of God at the hands of believers? As Sam Harris tells us in his most sobering of books, Letter to a Christian Nation, “One of the enduring pathologies of human culture is the tendency to raise children to fear and demonize other human beings on the basis of religious faith.”
But this distinction between right and wrong belief is not confined to the absolute outsider. Within faiths also there may be variations (some would say heresies) of beliefs with deadly consequence. The implications of Benedict XVI’s pronouncements are evident. Even Christians who do not believe as Roman Catholics do will face the wrath of God that the Gospel of John speaks about.
The Sunni-Shia bloody conflict, arguably the longest and most fatal intra-religious conflict the world has seen that is almost co-terminous with the history of Islam itself is a living testimony of what even a slight variation in belief can lead to.
But what of Hinduism? The dharmas of the east, principally Hinduism, have their own unique brand of violence. Social oppression within the society is causing tremendous upheavals. Large sections of the Hindu society called the untouchables are routinely subjected to a menial status with historically entrenched discriminations. While over the years through the work of Gandhi, Ambedkar, and Narayan Guru and other great reformers there has been considerable amelioration, as seen in the Government of India’s affirmative action (quota system) programme, the potential for conflict continues to be very real.
But this is not all for India. With the division of India on religious lines, with the extirpation of the native Hindu population from the Kashmir valley, the attacks and reprisals in Gujarat, the attack on the Askardham temple, the invasion of the Indian parliament, and the frequent terrorist bombings across the country, all these spring from the same source of in-group and out-group mentality where people are differentiated, rewarded and punished, simply on their religious belief. It is the pagans, polytheists, and idolators, all abominations in the sight of the one true God, who must be eradicated.
The question for India and the rest of the world is what is the relevance of Mahatma Gandhi? Does his vision bring hope for humanity? For Gandhi as long as religions harbour designs of world conquest, designs to convert conflict and violence will persist. The basis of all attempts to convert lies in the believer-unbeliever dichotomy that secures salvation for some and ensures damnation for others.
In his philosophy (or theology) Gandhi replaces the idea of God with the idea of Truth. He tells us, for example, “Of late instead of saying ‘God is Truth,’ I have been saying ‘Truth is God’ in order to more fully define my Religion. Denial of God we have known. Denial of Truth we have not known.” And, according to him the surest sign that one is deviating from the path to Truth is the claim that one’s group has an exclusive claim on it.” It is this exclusive claim that leads to the evil of conversion. “Revelation is the exclusive property of no nation, no tribe.”
Gandhi was bold and clear enough to declare, “I do not believe in conversion by human agency
