Secularism cannot be a one way traffic

Someone objected to my last post. This is my response :

 If I write against persecution of Muslim minority I am right, but if I write, as Taslima bravely did, against persecution of Hindu minority it is wrong. So she is wajib-al-qatl, isnt she ? Some Indian Muslims are very concerned about persecution of Palestinians or Burmese Muslims. I share their views on this. But is a lock placed on their lips when the tiny Hindu/Christian/Sikh/Ahmadi and larger Shia minority is persecuted in Pakistan ? I do not hear many Muslim voices protesting against this.

My own opinion is that no one, particularly, minorities should be persecuted. Once when I was in Allahabad I told a Muslim friend of mine that whenever there is any atrocity on Muslims Markandey Katju is among the first to speak out against it. But surely Muslims should also speak out against the persecution of Kashmiri Pandits. He said that he will write against persecution of Kashmiri Pandits in a letter to the editor in a local newspaper, but he never did.

Secularism cannot be a one way traffic. It does not mean condemnation of atrocities against Muslims alone. Atrocities on all must be condemned.

We must respect all religions

I have repeatedly said that we must stand up for freedom of religion, and respect all religions.

At the same time, my own personal belief ( and I am not trying to impose this on anyone ) is that there is no such thing as God or soul or angels or ghosts or fairies or witches or resurrection or transmigration. These are all figments of the imagination, and have no real existence. The only reality is matter, which is in motion according to certain laws which can be discovered by scientific research ( see my article ' Religion and Science' on fb and on my blog justicekatju.blogspot.in )

 To those who ask : who created matter ? the answer is no one created it. Matter came from matter.

  I believe that all religions are superstititions, and the truth lies in science, though it is still developing.

 Now many people may find this contradictory. On the one hand I say that all religions are superstitions, and on the other hand I say that we must respect all religions and insist on religious freedom.

 However there is no contradiction.

Although I am an atheist, I also know that 99% or more people believe in God. Why do they believe in God ? It is for two reasons :

1.Poor people believe in God because their lives are so miserable that they find temporary solace in religion. Without religion to give them some comfort and psychological support they would go mad

2. Even people who are not so poor, e.g. businessmen, need religion because the chance factor is so powerful in our lives that we can never be sure of the future, and cannot control our lives.. We often plan something, but something else happens. The cause for this is the low development of science till today, as compared to what it will be 100 or 200 years hence. So we start believing in some supernatural forces which control our destiny.

 Religion cannot be abolished by decree. In fact religious persecution makes people more bigoted.

The need for religion and God will disappear when the social and economic factors which give rise to religion disappear. And this will only happen when science is so highly developed that we are able to control our lives. Then there will be no need of God or religion.

 Till that happens, and that will take a very long time ( maybe 100 or 200 years from now ), we must insist on religious freedom, tolerance and secularism.

 So when I say that we must respect all religions, I do not mean that I believe in the metaphysical truth of religions. I mean that since most people are religious we must not hurt their religious feelings, and insist on freedom to profess or practise any religion, but with the  

proviso that the state will have no religion.

India and Pakistan

It is my firm belief that India and Pakistan (and Bangladesh) must reunite under a strong secular modern minded government which does not tolerate religious extremism, and crushes it with an iron hand. I know this will not happen in the near future, because those who divided us will not let us easily reunite. But I am planting a seed which will grow up into a tree and bear fruit in 15-20 years. It will not bear fruit immediately, but unless it is planted now, there will be no fruit in the future.This will require patiently educating the people for a long time about the truth.

You must be mad at me for calling Pakistan a fake, artificial country. Let me clarify that I believe that 99% people of all countries are good, and therefore 99% people of Pakistan ( and India) are good. I am a disciple of the great philosopher Rousseau who believed that most people are good. However, most people are also simpletons, and can be befooled and taken for a ride by wicked people. That is what was done by the British to our people (see online 'History in the Service of Imperialism' by B.N.Pandey). There was zero% communalism in 1857, i.e. before the Mutiny, but after the Mutiny the British decided that the only way to control India was to spread communal hatred between Hindus and Muslims. This divide and rule policy was followed relentlessly and systematically by the British after 1857. The British Collector used to secretly call the Hindu Pandit, give him some money, and ask him to speak against Muslims, and similarly he would secretly call the Muslim Maulvi, give him money, and ask him to speak against Hindus. Communal riots were artificially engineered. This was done year after year, decade after decade. In 1909 separate electorates were introduced by the Minto-Morley 'Reforms'. All this resulted in the horrors of Partition (read the stories about Partition by Manto). Even after 1947 there are wicked people who are spreading communalism.

Unless we reunite there will never be peace. The 2 nation theory on the basis of which Pakistan was created is bogus. Whenever I meet my Pakistani friends I feel no different from them, we speak the same language, we look like each other, and we share our love for Urdu. How are we two different nations ? I will never accept this fraud. It was high time someone had to speak the truth, and it seems it was for me to bell the cat.

Read my article " The Truth about Pakistan "

Rid our body politic of communal poison

Indians must defeat all those elements that promote and thrive on religious hatred

Though many Hindus and Muslims in India are today infected by the virus of communalism, the fact is that before 1857 there was no communal feeling at all in most Indians. There were, no doubt, some differences between Hindus and Muslims, but there was no animosity. Hindus used to join Muslims in celebrating Eid, Muslims used to join Hindus in celebrating Holi and Diwali, and they lived together like brothers and sisters.

How is it that around 150 years later, suspicion, if not animosity, has developed between the two major religious communities on our subcontinent? Today, Muslims in India find it difficult to get a house on rent from Hindus. When a bomb blast takes place in India the police, incapable of catching the real culprits (because they have no training in scientific investigation), ‘solve’ the crime by arresting half-a-dozen Muslims. Most of them are ultimately found innocent in a court of law, but after spending many years in jail.

This has resulted in tremendous alienation among Muslims in India. In Pakistan, things are even worse for the minorities who often live in a state of terror, scared of extremists and religious bigots.

WATERSHED

1857 is the watershed year in the history of communal relations in India. Before 1857, there was no communal problem, no communal riot. It is true there were differences between Hindus and Muslims, but then there are differences even between two sons or daughters of the same father. Hindus and Muslims lived peacefully, and invariably helped each other in times of difficulty.

No doubt, Muslims who invaded India broke a lot of temples. But their descendants, who became local Muslim rulers, almost all fostered communal harmony. This they did in their own interest, because the vast majority of their subjects were Hindus. They knew that if they broke Hindu temples, there would be turbulence and riots, which no ruler wants. Hence almost all the Muslim rulers in India promoted communal harmony — the Mughals, the Nawabs of Awadh, Murshidabad or Arcot, Tipu Sultan or the Nizam of Hyderabad.

In 1857, the First Indian War of Independence broke out, in which Hindus and Muslims jointly fought against the British. After suppressing the revolt, the British decided that the only way to control India was to divide and rule. Thus, the Secretary of State for India, Sir Charles Wood, in a letter to the Viceroy, Lord Elgin, in 1862 wrote, “We have maintained our power in India by playing off one community against the other and we must continue to do so. Do all you can, therefore, to prevent all having a common feeling.”

DIVIDE AND RULE

In a letter dated January 14, 1887, Secretary of State Viscount Cross wrote to Governor General Dufferin: “This division of religious feeling is greatly to our advantage and I look forward for some good as a result of your Committee of Inquiry on Indian Education and on teaching material.”

George Hamilton, Secretary of State for India wrote to Curzon, the Governor General: “I think the real danger to our rule in India … is the gradual adoption and extension of Western ideas … and if we could break educated Indians into two sections [Hindus and Muslims] … we should, by such a division, strengthen our position against the subtle and continuous attack which the spread of education must make upon our system of government. We should so plan education textbooks that the differences between the two communities are further enhanced.”

Thus, after 1857, a deliberate policy was started of generating hatred between Hindus and Muslims. This was done in a number of ways.

Religious leaders bribed to speak against the other community: The English Collector would secretly call the Panditji, and give him money to speak against Muslims, and similarly he would secretly call the Maulvi and pay him money to speak against Hindus.

History books distorted to generate communal hatred: As already mentioned, it is true that the initial Muslim invaders broke a lot of Hindu temples. However, their descendants (like Akbar, who was the descendant of the invader Babur) who were local Muslims rulers, far from breaking temples, regularly gave grants to Hindu temples, organised Ram Lilas and participated in Holi and Diwali (like the Nawabs of Awadh, Murshidabad and Arcot). This second part of our history, namely, that the descendants of the Muslim invaders, almost all, promoted communal harmony, has been totally suppressed from our history books. Our children are only taught that Mahmud of Ghazni broke the Somnath Temple, but they are not taught that the Mughal emperors, Tipu Sultan, etc., used to give grants to Hindu temples and celebrate Hindu festivals (see online ‘History in the Service of Imperialism’ by B.N. Pande).

Communal riots deliberately instigated: All communal riots began after 1857; there was none before that year. Agent provocateurs deliberately instigated religious hatred in a variety of ways e.g., by playing music before a mosque at prayer time, or breaking Hindu idols.

This poison was systematically injected by the British rulers into our body politic year after year, decade after decade, until it resulted in the Partition of 1947. We still have nefarious elements that promote and thrive on religious hatred.

Whenever a bomb blast takes place, many television news channels start saying that an email or SMS has been received claiming that the Indian Mujahideen, the Jaish-e-Muhammad, or the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al- Islamia has owned responsibility. Now an email or an SMS message can be sent by any mischievous person, but by showing this on TV and the next day in print a subtle impression is created in Hindu minds that all Muslims are terrorists who throw bombs (when the truth is that 99 per cent of all communities are peace loving and good).

During the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi agitation, a section of the media (particularly the Hindi print media) became kar sevaks.

PANIC IN BANGALORE

Recently, SMS messages were sent to northeast Indians living in Bangalore and other cities stating that they had killed Muslims in Assam and so they had better get out of Bangalore otherwise they would be massacred. This created panic. When the Muslims of Bangalore came to know of this mischief, they organised a feast for the northeast Indians and told them that someone had played mischief, and that Muslims are not against the people from the northeast.

It is time Indians saw through this nefarious game of certain vested interests. India is a country of great diversity, and so the only path to unity and prosperity is equal respect for all communities and sections of society. This was the path shown by our great Emperor Akbar (who, along with Ashoka, was in my opinion the greatest ruler the world has ever seen), who gave equal respect to all communities (see online my judgment Hinsa Virodhak Sangh Vs. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat).

When India became independent in 1947, religious passions were inflamed. There must have been tremendous pressure on Pandit Nehru and his colleagues to declare India a Hindu state, since Pakistan had declared itself an Islamic state. It was the greatness of our leaders that they kept a cool head and said India would not be a Hindu state but would be a secular state. That is why, relatively speaking, India is much better off in every way as compared to our neighbour.

Secularism does not mean that one cannot practise one’s religion. Secularism means that religion is a private affair unconnected with the state, which will have no religion. In my opinion, secularism is the only policy which can hold our country together and take it to the path of prosperity.

(Markandey Katju is a retired judge of the Supreme Court and Chairperson of the Press Council of India)

Published in The Hindu on 11th October,2012

Ecrasez L’ infame - II

When I was a Judge in Allahabad High Court a criminal appeal came before me in which some Muslim boys had been convicted by the trial Court for gang raping a young Dalit Hindu girl.

                In Uttar Pradesh (which is the largest State in India of about 200 million people) Muslims are about 18% of the total population, but in that particular village in U.P. where this incident happened 90% people were Muslims, and only about 10% Hindus, most of them being dalits (or low caste Hindus).

                I upheld the conviction, and observed that a hallmark of a civilized society is the protection it gives to minorities. It is the solemn duty of every person belonging to the majority community in a particular area to see to it that the minorities in that area live with dignity and respect. In that particular case it was the duty of the Muslims of that village (who were 90% in that village) to ensure that the Hindus could live with respect, but instead of doing so the accused had gang raped a dalit girl. Hence they deserved harsh punishment.

               I also observed in the same judgment that had the Hindus been the majority in the village it would have been their duty to see that Muslims or Christian (or any other minority in the village) could live with dignity, and if in such a village some Hindus committed a similar crime they would also be given harsh punishment.

The judgment assumes importance in view of the growing intolerance in many parts of the Indian subcontinent. The treatment to North East people in many parts of India, to Muslims in Gujarat, the terror created in the tiny Hindu and other minorities in Pakistan, are a disgrace to all of us. It shows that we are not really civilized.

  Thomas Jefferson in his book ‘Notes on Virginia’ writes “It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”.

The spirit of tolerance is particularly important in our sub continent which has such tremendous diversity----- so many religions (and so many sects in these religions), so many castes, languages, ethnic groups etc.

                In my earlier article ‘Ecrasez L’infame’ I said that the ill treatment by many of us of the North East Indians is a disgrace. The atrocities on Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 and on Sikhs in 1984 are a disgrace.  Similarly, the ill treatment of minorities in Pakistan (whether Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Ahmadis, Shias or any other minority) is a disgrace, and invites Voltaire’s famous comment: Ecrasez L’ infame (Crush the Infamy).

                In my article ‘What is India’  I said that India is a country of immigrants (like North America) whose 92-93% population today are not the original inhabitants but descendants of immigrants who migrated into India because people migrate from uncomfortable places to comfortable places. India was a paradise for agricultural societies because it has level land, fertile soil, plenty of water for irrigation, etc unlike countries like Afghanistan which are rocky, cold, covered with snow for several months in a year, and hence very uncomfortable. Hence for thousands of year people kept coming into India, mainly from the North West. This comment is also true of Pakistan, and it explains the tremendous diversity in our sub continent, because each group of immigrants brought in their own language, religion, customs, etc. 

As the great Urdu poet Firaq Gorakhpuri wrote:

                “Sar Zameen-e-Hind par aqwaam-e-Alam ke Firaq

                   Qafile guzarte gaye, Hindustan banta gaya”

               The only policy therefore which can work in our sub continent is secularism, and giving equal respect to all communities, religious, lingual, regional or racial. This was the policy of the great Emperor Akbar who gave equal respect to all communities.

                Secularism does not mean that one cannot practice one’s religion. It means that religion is a private affair, unconnected with the State (which will have no religion) and everyone has the freedom to practice one’s   own religion without harassment or coercion from anyone. But in my opinion secularism means something more than merely accepting the rights of others to practice their own religion. It also means that minorities will be entitled to lead a life of dignity and respect, and it is the duty of the majority to ensure this. Hence every incident of ill treatment of minorities in India or Pakistan is a disgrace to the majority people there who have failed in their solemn duty of protecting minorities.

Published in The Express Tribune On August 23,2012