“There is no doubt in my mind that in the majority of quarrels the Hindus come out second best. My own experience but confirms the opinion that the Musalman as a rule is a bully, and the Hindu as rule is a coward. I have noticed this in railways, trains, on public roads, and in the quarrels which I have had the privilege of setting. Need the Hindu blame the Musalman for his cowardice?
Quarrels must break out so long as the Hindus continue to be seized with fear. Bullies are always to be found where there are cowards. The Hindus must understand no one can afford them protection if they go on hugging fear”. – M K Gandhi, “Hindu-Muslim Tension: Its Cause and Cure”, Young India,
May 29, 1924
The controversy over the BJP spokesperson quoting Hadith verses in response to the mocking of Shivaling by a self-proclaimed Islamic scholar in a television debate erupted into protests and violence. The provocation and internationalisation of the issue by some Islamists masquerading as fact-checkers and columnists used these developments to defame Bharat over the communal lines. The Muslim Ummah systematically used the timing of the Vice-President’s visit to Qatar to vitiate the atmosphere further. The BJP spokesperson is suspended from the party, and an inquiry has been initiated. But what will happen to the voices that did not spare a single chance to mock the Shivling-like structure found at the Gyanvapi complex? Their instigation led to the Kanpur violence. Yet, the fundamental questions that have erupted out of these events about the veto of violence used by the Islamists remain unanswered.
Christopher Hitchens remarked, “Those who are determined to be ‘offended’ will discover a provocation somewhere”. This quote cannot be more true about the Islamists worldwide. Scrutinising, questioning and even desecrating other faiths practised for centuries have led to the destruction of numerous places of worship is a historical fact, which Islamists, along with their Left-Liberal friends, try to whitewash. From the Americas to East Asia, the veto of violence used in the name of ‘faith’ by Islamists is the same, whether they are in the majority or minority. How long will the sane world tolerate these double standards over religious sentiments remains to be seen?
As one of the most erudite scholars of comparative civilisations, Sita Ram Goelji had argued that out our intelligentsia is not even aware that Islam has imposed an Emergency on India. No one has the right to insult someone’s faith, and we have enough legal provisions to curb such tendencies. At the same time, religious freedom and scientific temper are two cardinal principles enshrined in our Constitution. Can Sar Tan Se Juda (separating the head from the body) mindset prevail over the democratic Constitution for the alleged blasphemy and apostasy? Are we starting at Sharia or violence as options in the long run?
‘The Muslim invaders, no doubt,’ writes Ambedkar, ‘came to India singing a hymn of hate against the Hindus.’ He also concludes in his book on Partition, “Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin”. The Muslim society led by religious clergies is, again and again, putting itself to the test by acting as per Dr Ambedkar’s prediction. Can any independent and sovereign country afford any community putting pan-religious ideas like Ummah over the nation?
The Islamic world has prohibited any critical inquiry into the doctrine and history of Islam. Everyone has the perfect liberty to praise the fundamentals that allow justification for violence, even on a minor pretext. We have seen that in the pre-Independence era, even the fateful story of Partition of the beloved motherland could not stop it.
Reconnecting to the common roots of ancestry and culture, as suggested by the RSS Sarsanghchalak Dr Mohan Bhagwat, is the only option to get rid of separatism and the tendency to use veto of violence. While calling Hindus not to look for a Shivling in each mosque, he advised Muslims to understand the sensitivities of the Hindu society about particular places, which are symbols of aggression. While pitching for the futuristic course of action, he emphasised the dialogue or court judgements as the options to resolve the historical disputes. Instead of suppressing the historical truths, we should be open to them for social peace, harmony and prosperity. Similarly, we must address the challenging but essential questions over the ideology of Islamism.