3. Deep Chandra Awasthi
3. Deep Chandra Awasthi
At the very outset I would like to say that the eight formulations popularised by Sangh Parivar in recent years as stated, is not the whole fact. There may be even some more such formulations put forth by individuals as social hypothesis yet to be put to tests before being accepted as useful practices. The most that can be said is that the Sangh Parivar may also be in a mood to carry out some such tests.
As for the second document which deals with ‘Sarva Panth Samadar Manch’, I do not find any mention of EQUAL in it, as alleged. The honour is to be extended to ‘all ways of worship’ and nothing more (i.e. not ghetto mentality and hatred to all others etc.). I would request Voice of India to deal with this sensitive issue cautiously in the National interest (not secular, of course) and refer to the real intent of such moves of Sangh Parivar or some individuals as the case may be.
I share the two comments of Voice of India except the words ‘Muslims have become as aggressive and intransigent as during pre-partition period’ (it should be ‘They have since become more aggressive’ etc.) and ‘Now leaders of Sangh Parvar look like following the same path’. I feel they have yet not decided to commit suicide.
My feelings on the two documents are attached.
Dr. Shreerang Godbole’s anxiety and his comments offered at Pune Seminar as well as his letter to Sri K.S. Sudarshan are an alarm to all Hindus to seriously ponder over the issues in question. And I think they will. Hindus are thankful to him for the alarm.
The rejection of efforts of Quraiysh by Mohammad and the destruction of idols and pictures in Kaba by him is not enough to force Hindus to leave their own liberal and comprehensive Hindu view of life. We have to keep in mind that certain Arya Samajees are wildly critical to idol-worship and Sanatan Dharma itself. If someone is narrow and not co-operative, we will have to do something to let him become a sharer of humanity in general because ultimately true humanism is Hinduism.
‘All religions lead to God’ is in fact a wrong saying. Religion is one like God is one. The paths leading to God may be several. They definitely are not equal from all the angles. Some of these may even be misleading. We should try to block and renounce such routes but with a Caution. Any Hurried action may cause, not only a confusion but may harm us in another way. Here again the word EQUAL has been stressed upon by Dr. Godbole which is not there in the basic reference.
‘Islam is good Muslims are bad.’ In my opinion we should not waste time on this particular point. Muslims are not going to renounce Islam specially when Hindus or Dr. Godbole say that.
‘The Muslims, if told of their common ancestry, will unite with Hindus’ is not necessary but there is no harm to tell them so. One would not be wrong if he tries to find out a possibility of a change in them. We can accept such harmless trial and error efforts.
Congress used Muslims or Muslims used Congress: Why aim at two extremes only? I feel the Congress and Muslims did not follow one way traffic. Their interests especially since 1947 were mutual. Now the Muslims have become well-practised in political manoeuvring. And thus today at least the point that Dr. Godbole has put forth has a considerable weight. Their basic anti-Hindu view has emerged as anti-BJP stand in Indian politics. In such a situation, no part of Indian population (not even infiltrators) can be deprived of their right to vote, none of them can be consigned to sea. And Hindus remaining constantly divided, unconscious of impending dangers to their very survival, the need to soften the attitude of Muslims, to turn their direction towards the national fold by softer means seems imperative; we cannot stop the ball from bouncing if struck too hard on the floor.
Discussion of Sufis has little to do in dealing with the Muslim Problem.
Having better knowledge of their so-called holy books, Muslim leaders (including Mullas) no doubt are responsible for the Ghetto mentality of Muslims. These leaders get inspiration and energy from their holy books. However, the effect of disruptive and separatist preachings of such books and leaders is gradually fading, though very slowly.
‘Namaz offered on a disputed site is not acceptable to Allah.’ While we can neither confirm nor deny this, even if there are any such instructions anywhere, Muslims would not follow them. They follow only what is of advantage to them as Muslims and not as human beings.
‘There are encouraging signs that the foundations of Islam are showing cracks many Muslims have begun to question the basic premises of Islam. Islam as an ideology is bound to become a museum piece’, is just an over-optimistic expression of Dr. Godbole.
Dr. Godbole is however closest to fact in saying that ‘the Quran, Hadis, Sunnah all cultivate an exclusivist, separatist, imperialist political mind-set of its adherents’. But similarity with Islam of other groups like Marxism etc., does not have a similar bearing on Hindus for diversified reasons. Had such other groups been a problem to Hindus just as Muslims are, Hindus would not have neglected them. It is unuseful to engage one-self on different issues just in a geometrical manner, which are not face to face today or ever in the close future.
No doubt the Muslims of India are the greatest victims of Islam and better they are weaned from the Islamic ideology, but they have since definitely turned as oppressors of non-Muslims. None can aim at Muslims without getting in touch with them. None can preach a ‘Sarva Panth Chikitsa’ (including the Muslims) because they are not going to listen to such preachings.
I am not interested in scanning the literal meanings of SARVA PANTH SAMBHÃV or SAMÃDAR but some platform seems necessary where adherent of all Panths should have an opportunity to discuss the values of their respective Panths, compare with one another, add or delete, accept or renounce the one that was adhered to in ignorance so far.
I would like to explain my position with regard to the word ‘SAMÃDAR’. This word is SAM+ÃDAR which means just ÃDAR in a more sophisticated form. It stands for ‘a reasonable respect’ and not for EQUAL respect. It is widely used in Sanskrit and Hindi for reasonable respect. Dr. Godbole has not interpreted the word correctly.
In the footnote regarding, ‘Paravartana’, Dr. Godbole has again used the word EQUAL which is just disturbing. This word remaining there, Hindus will be, I am sure, in full agreement with Dr. Godbole on the futility of ‘Paravartana’.
Footnotes: The writer is from Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh.