Faith: Instilling Unity
Ram Puniyani
One has heard that faith can move mountains, but currently one looks forward to see that it restores peace and justice in society. We have been hearing about various Inter Faith Dialogues from quite some time. One such high level dialogue took place in Mumbai in second week of June 2009. This was attended by top clergy from Hindu and Christian religions. It came to the understanding that there should be no violence against minorities, there should be no conversions and that religious organizations will pool together their resources for charity.
The need for interfaith dialogue has been felt very acutely in the light of violence in the name of religion, which has intensified during last couple of decades. Faith has been misused during this time to launch violence by vested interests. The aim of this use, nay abuse, of faith for political goals was a very well calculated move by vested interests to come to power. Surely interfaith dialogue is the best contribution the clergy can make for the peace of society. It is also true that it is not the clergy which is instrumental in misuse of faith.
In last three decades faith has been misused for political goals by US when it resorted to cultivating terror groups and then launched War on Terror, unleashed ‘crusade’ and attacked Afghanistan. Then the Al Qaeda, Taliban types liberally misused the word Jihad, Kafir in an insane manner to launch their ‘revenge’ offensive, apparently for the glory of their faith. In India the adverse effect of Al Qaeda violence added on to the misuse of faith here. At another level with Ram Rath Yatra, as it was riding on the chariot of faith and leaving behind the trail of blood, the misuse of faith for divisive politics tormented the society. Those blinded by lust for power saw the resurgence of faith around the chariot and ignored the spilling of blood in the back. It did achieve the purpose of sectarian forces occupying the seats of power for six long years.
The other misuse of faith was around defense of Hindu faith by organizations in Adivasi areas. A group of swamis descended in these Adivasi areas and dubbed the charity work done by section of missionaries as being a danger to Hindu faith and so burnt a Pastor from Australia working amongst Leprosy patients and backed it up by further misuse of faith in unleashing violence in the Adivasi belt from Dangs to Orissa.
The clergy’s effort in the direction of restoring peace is laudable. Though the problem is not of their making they do realize a large section of society looks up to them for guidance. The organizations of religion have a very different role to play in today’s World. True, in feudal times, clergy was associated with the kings and legitimized the system of economic exploitation, social subjugation of landed labor and women. Today when democracy is struggling to be the norm, clergy has to play a different role. It should not associate with powers that be to perpetuate the unjust social, economic system. They have to act as the soothing balm to the suffering humanity. It is in this direction that the meeting of Archbishops and Shankarachayas is a welcome move. With such dialogues the perpetuators of violence in the name of religion will loose their legitimacy after such pronouncements by the men of religion, and that will be a big step in curbing the violence, emasculating the politics deriving its legitimacy in the name of religion.
One point which strikes in the discourse of these holy people is their emphasis on spirituality. While Cardinal Gracias said ours is a spiritual country, Sri Sarswati went in to call that India should be declared as a spiritual state. There is some problem here. Being spiritual is a personal Endeavour, effort to discover oneself, to connect one self with the divine powers etc., is a personal matter, not the matter for state apparatus to deal with. The state cannot be and should not be declared spiritual. In modern times even religion which has visible aspects in the form of identity markers cannot be a state matter. Spirituality is an abstract concept, persons’ own path to be at peace in the universe. Many a mystics, saints adopted the path of spirituality as a way of life for themselves. Spirituality can be expressed, but not transferred. In democratic society as religion is a personal matter, spirituality is much more so. Individual path of spirituality of people cannot make the state as spiritual. State has to have its own norms of laws, schemes for welfare of material betterment of its citizens.
As such the formulation that India is a spiritual nation is not a new one. It began with British coming to India. They propounded that India is essentially a religious country and spiritualism is its core. This myth was started by British rulers who were consolidating their hegemony over India. The sole aim of such a fabrication was to dominate the political, social machinery, the 'material realm' of socie¬ty, while leaving the 'spiritual arena' for the Indians. The idea was to flatter the Indians away from the matters of civil and political society, where they wanted to establish unhindered hegemony.
The fact is, India was the cradle for multiple rich materi¬al pursuits: trade and commerce, which was well developed, Indian traders going far and wide for their business pursuits, crafts¬manship had reached its glorious heights in different professions. Art and architecture had a rich spectrum to offer from the paintings of Kangada Kalam, to temples of Khajuraho, to the majestic palaces of Kings to Taj Mahal. It was a comprehensive develop¬ment of all the faculties of society, spiritual and material. This civilization and culture had rich inputs from different cultures, which came and interacted with the local cultures. Starting from Aryans down to British, all those who came contributed to the culture of this land. Indian cul¬ture is a rich outcome of interaction of multiple cultures and syncretic traditions which not only left their deep mark on the ‘way of life' of the people but also a pleasant imprint on the social and cultural lie of society.
So while welcoming the move to understand each other, to shun from looking at the ‘other’ in a humiliating way, to having a pro-active affinity for each others’ positive values, one also hopes clergy tunes itself to the values of democratic society and democratic ethos rather than stick to formulations which are either borrowed from the practitioners of divisive politics or from the past, which have no relevance today.
--
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Restoring Green in Valley
Restoring Green in the Valley
Ram Puniyani
On 29th May night (2009) in Shopian in Kashmir, two girls Nilofer and Asiya were raped and murdered. The administration tried to prove that it was a case of death due to drowning. The valley erupted into severe protests. The favorite slogan of the protesters from last several years has been, Hamen Kya Chahiye-Azadi (what do we want-Freedom). Every act of trampling on the interests of the people of valley leads to the same. Last time it took place when the Amarnath agitation sparked by the faulty move of Pro BJP governor of Kashmir, to acquire vast stretch of land for the shrine.
The present incident is very disturbing. It shows the role of the army and para-military forces, the attitude of administration in toeing lines which are very much insulting to the people of Kashmir, which cover up the crimes of the forces. Also one should note the tragic plight of the Kashmiri’s and more so the Kashmiri women at the hands of the people with the gun, the militants and the army both. The rising militancy in Kashmir has led to the deployment of more and more forces in Kashmir. Last two decades in particular have seen the life drying out there, and the suffering of people caught in the cross fire between the militant-terrorist outfits and the Indian armed personnel.
The popular perception has been that the Kashmir issue is due to the separatism of Muslims, and that Islam and Jihad is the major culprit. Kashmir has been mired right from the beginning by the ultra nationalism of Hindu right pressuring the Indian government to abolish article 370 and fully merge Kashmir with India. After the tragic partition of India, Kashmir’s Raja Harisingh decided to remain independent. The Hindutva forces in valley said that a Hindu Kingdom Kashmir (since the king was a Hindu) should not merge with secular India. When Pakistan’s army, disguised as tribals, attacked Kashmir, the People of Kashmir as represented by the National Conference with its leader Sheikh Abdullah, did not want to merge with Pakistan.
In the face of aggression Maharaja Harising appealed to Indian government to send its army to protect Kashmir from the attack by Pakistan army. On the insistence of Sheikh Abdullah in particular, the army was sent after the treaty of accession was signed. With Indian army intervention, Kashmir’s 2/3 became part of India with all the clauses of autonomy, article 370. With general elections Sheikh Abdullah swept the polls and became the Prime Minister of Kashmir. Sheikh Abdullah must be credited as being one of the most progressive leaders of the time as he was determined to undertake land reforms, which he did once he came to power.
Immediately after the treaty was signed Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, the leader of Hindu Mahasabha, started campaigning for abolishing the clauses of autonomy and to forcibly merge it with India. This pressure had its effect and the attitude of Indian Government, over a period of time, hardened towards the autonomy clauses. With such attitude developing, Sheikh felt regret for his decision for accession, started loud rethinking and started talking to other countries, including the US and China. With this the Indian Govt. declared him as anti National and he was imprisoned for long years. This in turn led to the alienation of Kashmir people. As such on one hand Kashmir has been the victim of global imperialist policy on one hand and the attempts to go back from the promise of autonomy, on the other. US was clear that in the geographically crucial area, Kashmir, which has its border with many countries, cannot be left alone and so its stooge Pakistan did all possible to help the disgruntled elements in Kashmir. The later events showed the attitude of India and Pakistan as powers trying to take hold of the real Estate called Kashmir. Kashmir was seen not as constituted by people with their own aspirations but as a piece of property.
In all fairness it must be said till Nehru was alive he cautioned restraint and believed in winning over the hearts and minds of the people of Kashmir. Even at his time the pressure of Ultra Nationalists inside and outside the Government kept going up and gradually army was projected as the answer to the ‘problem of Kashmir.’ Ironically Pakistan which so far has been in the chains of the rule of Army, Mullahs and America, named the part of Kashmir, under its control as Azad Kashmir (Independent Kashmir)! And freedom for Kashmir has been the favorite theme of most of the dictators ruling the roost, of course with due support from Uncle Sam. What an irony; Dictators talking of Freedom! The trajectory of events is long, how after Sheikh Abdullah’s concern of autonomy changed over to Independence in the decades of 1970s, and in 1980-1990 to armed struggle for Azad Kashmir.
Interestingly after the defeat of Al Qaeda elements in Afghanistan, many of them turned their attention to Kashmir and partly communalized the issue. Mostly the theme of the Kashmir struggle has been Kashmiriyat, a concept which incorporates the values of Vedanta, Buddha and Sufis.
India kept sending more and more armed personnel to ‘solve’ the problem. There has been one Indian soldier for every 6-7 Kashmiris. What can be the life under such circumstances? Army is meant to fight the enemies, and not for any prolonged stay in any area. The army stay, domination in an area creates different type of vested interests. Army is no holy cow! From times immemorial army has been plundering and raping apart form other things. While it will be wrong to tar all the armed personnel with single brush, it is also true that section of army’s attitude to women has not been any thing good to write about. Be it the case of Manorama in the North East or the present case of Nilofer and Asiya, the tale is tragic.
The good news from Kashmir has been that last tow lections have been conducted fairly democratically, and even the separatists like Sajjad Lone are now opting for the democratic system with changed equation in Pakistan, with democracy struggling to come in there, the portents are healthy. It is time that army is withdrawn at a rapid pace, democratic process is deepened, guilty of violence against women and their protectors are punished and army rests in barracks rather than dictating terms in Kashmir. Hope Mr. Chidambaram promise in this direction does not remain merely on paper.
Ram Puniyani
On 29th May night (2009) in Shopian in Kashmir, two girls Nilofer and Asiya were raped and murdered. The administration tried to prove that it was a case of death due to drowning. The valley erupted into severe protests. The favorite slogan of the protesters from last several years has been, Hamen Kya Chahiye-Azadi (what do we want-Freedom). Every act of trampling on the interests of the people of valley leads to the same. Last time it took place when the Amarnath agitation sparked by the faulty move of Pro BJP governor of Kashmir, to acquire vast stretch of land for the shrine.
The present incident is very disturbing. It shows the role of the army and para-military forces, the attitude of administration in toeing lines which are very much insulting to the people of Kashmir, which cover up the crimes of the forces. Also one should note the tragic plight of the Kashmiri’s and more so the Kashmiri women at the hands of the people with the gun, the militants and the army both. The rising militancy in Kashmir has led to the deployment of more and more forces in Kashmir. Last two decades in particular have seen the life drying out there, and the suffering of people caught in the cross fire between the militant-terrorist outfits and the Indian armed personnel.
The popular perception has been that the Kashmir issue is due to the separatism of Muslims, and that Islam and Jihad is the major culprit. Kashmir has been mired right from the beginning by the ultra nationalism of Hindu right pressuring the Indian government to abolish article 370 and fully merge Kashmir with India. After the tragic partition of India, Kashmir’s Raja Harisingh decided to remain independent. The Hindutva forces in valley said that a Hindu Kingdom Kashmir (since the king was a Hindu) should not merge with secular India. When Pakistan’s army, disguised as tribals, attacked Kashmir, the People of Kashmir as represented by the National Conference with its leader Sheikh Abdullah, did not want to merge with Pakistan.
In the face of aggression Maharaja Harising appealed to Indian government to send its army to protect Kashmir from the attack by Pakistan army. On the insistence of Sheikh Abdullah in particular, the army was sent after the treaty of accession was signed. With Indian army intervention, Kashmir’s 2/3 became part of India with all the clauses of autonomy, article 370. With general elections Sheikh Abdullah swept the polls and became the Prime Minister of Kashmir. Sheikh Abdullah must be credited as being one of the most progressive leaders of the time as he was determined to undertake land reforms, which he did once he came to power.
Immediately after the treaty was signed Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, the leader of Hindu Mahasabha, started campaigning for abolishing the clauses of autonomy and to forcibly merge it with India. This pressure had its effect and the attitude of Indian Government, over a period of time, hardened towards the autonomy clauses. With such attitude developing, Sheikh felt regret for his decision for accession, started loud rethinking and started talking to other countries, including the US and China. With this the Indian Govt. declared him as anti National and he was imprisoned for long years. This in turn led to the alienation of Kashmir people. As such on one hand Kashmir has been the victim of global imperialist policy on one hand and the attempts to go back from the promise of autonomy, on the other. US was clear that in the geographically crucial area, Kashmir, which has its border with many countries, cannot be left alone and so its stooge Pakistan did all possible to help the disgruntled elements in Kashmir. The later events showed the attitude of India and Pakistan as powers trying to take hold of the real Estate called Kashmir. Kashmir was seen not as constituted by people with their own aspirations but as a piece of property.
In all fairness it must be said till Nehru was alive he cautioned restraint and believed in winning over the hearts and minds of the people of Kashmir. Even at his time the pressure of Ultra Nationalists inside and outside the Government kept going up and gradually army was projected as the answer to the ‘problem of Kashmir.’ Ironically Pakistan which so far has been in the chains of the rule of Army, Mullahs and America, named the part of Kashmir, under its control as Azad Kashmir (Independent Kashmir)! And freedom for Kashmir has been the favorite theme of most of the dictators ruling the roost, of course with due support from Uncle Sam. What an irony; Dictators talking of Freedom! The trajectory of events is long, how after Sheikh Abdullah’s concern of autonomy changed over to Independence in the decades of 1970s, and in 1980-1990 to armed struggle for Azad Kashmir.
Interestingly after the defeat of Al Qaeda elements in Afghanistan, many of them turned their attention to Kashmir and partly communalized the issue. Mostly the theme of the Kashmir struggle has been Kashmiriyat, a concept which incorporates the values of Vedanta, Buddha and Sufis.
India kept sending more and more armed personnel to ‘solve’ the problem. There has been one Indian soldier for every 6-7 Kashmiris. What can be the life under such circumstances? Army is meant to fight the enemies, and not for any prolonged stay in any area. The army stay, domination in an area creates different type of vested interests. Army is no holy cow! From times immemorial army has been plundering and raping apart form other things. While it will be wrong to tar all the armed personnel with single brush, it is also true that section of army’s attitude to women has not been any thing good to write about. Be it the case of Manorama in the North East or the present case of Nilofer and Asiya, the tale is tragic.
The good news from Kashmir has been that last tow lections have been conducted fairly democratically, and even the separatists like Sajjad Lone are now opting for the democratic system with changed equation in Pakistan, with democracy struggling to come in there, the portents are healthy. It is time that army is withdrawn at a rapid pace, democratic process is deepened, guilty of violence against women and their protectors are punished and army rests in barracks rather than dictating terms in Kashmir. Hope Mr. Chidambaram promise in this direction does not remain merely on paper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)