12-08-2003, 04:47 AM
Ah! A few jewels from Indians who have their hearts in the right place. An assortment of letters to the Editor in the Pioneer.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/editor.asp
Letters received on Monday, December 08, 2003
A question of reciprocity
On his deathbed, Prophet Muhammad was said to have declared, âThere shall be no two religions in Arabiaâ. Later, the Caliphs invaded country after country, conquering and converting their people. That, one may say, is the past. But today, in places like the UK, France, Bel-gium, Denmark, Germany and the US, many Muslims demand they be allowed their religious exclusivity in the public realm. In the UK, there were calls for declaring Islam one of the countryâs official religions. In Belgium, Muslims want Arabic to be made an official language. Given their stridency, is it any surprise even the US President recently hosted an iftar party? Why have these nations never asked countries like Saudi Arabia to allow Christians and Hindus the right to have their places of worship, and to practise and propagate their faith? Why do they not insist on reciprocity? If there can be âno two religionsâ in Saudi Arabia, why should there be two religions in, say, America? While non-insistence on this issue may be consistent with the professed aim of preserving pluralism, it also gives the impression of a cowardly acceptance of the Muslim claim that exclusivist Islam is superior to other faiths, and hence should be accorded special privileges. Civilised people everywhere root for socio-political pluralism. Thousands of years of frenetic efforts notwithstanding, neither Christianity nor Islam succeeded in exterminating other religions. The attempt to convert sows seeds of intolerance and strife. Confrontation and wars, whenever fanaticism takes root, have been the subjects of indoctrination of jihadis spread over many continents. A resolute war is needed against Islamic jihad, like there was against evangelising and insurrectionary communism.
P Sita Reddi
Uppal, Hyderabad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question of reciprocity
On his deathbed, Prophet Muhammad was said to have declared, âThere shall be no two religions in Arabiaâ. Later, the Caliphs invaded country after country, conquering and converting their people. That, one may say, is the past. But today, in places like the UK, France, Bel-gium, Denmark, Germany and the US, many Muslims demand they be allowed their religious exclusivity in the public realm. In the UK, there were calls for declaring Islam one of the countryâs official religions. In Belgium, Muslims want Arabic to be made an official language. Given their stridency, is it any surprise even the US President recently hosted an iftar party? Why have these nations never asked countries like Saudi Arabia to allow Christians and Hindus the right to have their places of worship, and to practise and propagate their faith? Why do they not insist on reciprocity? If there can be âno two religionsâ in Saudi Arabia, why should there be two religions in, say, America? While non-insistence on this issue may be consistent with the professed aim of preserving pluralism, it also gives the impression of a cowardly acceptance of the Muslim claim that exclusivist Islam is superior to other faiths, and hence should be accorded special privileges. Civilised people everywhere root for socio-political pluralism. Thousands of years of frenetic efforts notwithstanding, neither Christianity nor Islam succeeded in exterminating other religions. The attempt to convert sows seeds of intolerance and strife. Confrontation and wars, whenever fanaticism takes root, have been the subjects of indoctrination of jihadis spread over many continents. A resolute war is needed against Islamic jihad, like there was against evangelising and insurrectionary communism.
P Sita Reddi
Uppal, Hyderabad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umbilical discord
SirâI disagree with what Mr G Has-nain Kaif says in his letter, âDharmic necessityâ (Nov 11). That Indian secularism is no more than minority appeasement is widely recognised. Had it been otherwise, the state would have maintained equidistance from all religions. The political systemâs vigour and energy would have been directed towards development and the education of the masses. The Constitution, which upholds equality, would have been respected. Power-thirsty politicians would not have pursued the Muslim votebank. So-called secular intellectuals would not have gloried in our past slavery under Muslim rule, nor forgotten what Hindus suffered on account of it. If India is prey to social divisiveness, it is due to those championing divisive caste, religious and linguistic identities. Most Indian Muslims exacerbate the problem, by clinging to the Arab associations ofârather than Indianising âtheir faith. For them, Islam is above nation. In the name of false âpluralityâ, the countryâs unity and integrity is being threatened. The opposition to the Uniform Civil Code makes this plain. Muslim intellectuals and pseudo-secular Hindus denigrate sanatan dharma and Arya samaj as âidol worshipâ. This, despite the fact sanatan dharma is based on Vedic and Aryan sanskriti, according to which divinities are simply manifestations of the one indivisible Godhead. Idols were only created to facilitate mental and spiritual concentration, the unwavering focus of the mind on a symbol of the ultimate God. Idol worship is, therefore, no more than the beginning of the unalloyed worship of God. When communion with God is fully attained, one does not need idols. Hinduism is perhaps the only religion that does not gather its strength from criticism of other belief systems. Hindus believe there is one eternal law that unites all mankindâsarva dharma sambhav. Their social customs have less to do with religious strictures than this cultural heritage, unlike those of Muslims which flow from Quranic injunctionsâthe reason they and not Hindus oppose the UCC. This is also why, for Hindus, nationalism is the only religion in the public sphere. Finally, the âsecularistsâ should ask themselves why tolerance should be a virtue only demanded of Hindus. More, they should ask why Muslims are not more forthcoming on the issue of national integrity, and why they do not whole-heartedly condemn those who use terrorism to destabilise nations. India has been a target of attack for so long that Hindus cannot help but think of sarva dharma bachava, in place of sarva dharma sambhav.
KK Gupta
Malviya Nagar, Jaipur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No thanks giving?
SirâIt was refreshing to see a beaming US President George W Bush sporting an army jacket and holding a trayload of eatables during his surprise participation in a Thanksgiving dinner with US troops in Baghdad. I am referring to the photograph with the news report, âDaring trip indeed, but how useful?â (Nov 29). Heads of State and Government and First Ladies of many nations frequently pay morale-boosting visits to troops stationed in far-flung places or engaged in life-threatening operations. We in India still miss out on this inspiring tradition. Apart from strictly formal homageâ read lip serviceâpaid to our jawans on ceremonial occasions, our rulers have done precious little to give defence personnel due respect. Even the connotation of the word âjawanâ has undergone change, its true meaning diluted, over the years. It is indiscriminately used these days to refer to anyone ranging from a homeguard to a policeman, from a liveried gateman regulating entry to an army combatant in full battle gear, ready to take on terrorists from across the border. Why are we so apathetic and diffident about interacting with and recognising the contribution made by the jawans of the armed forces? Are they not, after all, the ultimate defenders of the countryâs sovereignty, integrity, honour and identity?
SC Kapoor
Jal Vayu Vihar, Noida
http://www.dailypioneer.com/editor.asp
Letters received on Monday, December 08, 2003
A question of reciprocity
On his deathbed, Prophet Muhammad was said to have declared, âThere shall be no two religions in Arabiaâ. Later, the Caliphs invaded country after country, conquering and converting their people. That, one may say, is the past. But today, in places like the UK, France, Bel-gium, Denmark, Germany and the US, many Muslims demand they be allowed their religious exclusivity in the public realm. In the UK, there were calls for declaring Islam one of the countryâs official religions. In Belgium, Muslims want Arabic to be made an official language. Given their stridency, is it any surprise even the US President recently hosted an iftar party? Why have these nations never asked countries like Saudi Arabia to allow Christians and Hindus the right to have their places of worship, and to practise and propagate their faith? Why do they not insist on reciprocity? If there can be âno two religionsâ in Saudi Arabia, why should there be two religions in, say, America? While non-insistence on this issue may be consistent with the professed aim of preserving pluralism, it also gives the impression of a cowardly acceptance of the Muslim claim that exclusivist Islam is superior to other faiths, and hence should be accorded special privileges. Civilised people everywhere root for socio-political pluralism. Thousands of years of frenetic efforts notwithstanding, neither Christianity nor Islam succeeded in exterminating other religions. The attempt to convert sows seeds of intolerance and strife. Confrontation and wars, whenever fanaticism takes root, have been the subjects of indoctrination of jihadis spread over many continents. A resolute war is needed against Islamic jihad, like there was against evangelising and insurrectionary communism.
P Sita Reddi
Uppal, Hyderabad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question of reciprocity
On his deathbed, Prophet Muhammad was said to have declared, âThere shall be no two religions in Arabiaâ. Later, the Caliphs invaded country after country, conquering and converting their people. That, one may say, is the past. But today, in places like the UK, France, Bel-gium, Denmark, Germany and the US, many Muslims demand they be allowed their religious exclusivity in the public realm. In the UK, there were calls for declaring Islam one of the countryâs official religions. In Belgium, Muslims want Arabic to be made an official language. Given their stridency, is it any surprise even the US President recently hosted an iftar party? Why have these nations never asked countries like Saudi Arabia to allow Christians and Hindus the right to have their places of worship, and to practise and propagate their faith? Why do they not insist on reciprocity? If there can be âno two religionsâ in Saudi Arabia, why should there be two religions in, say, America? While non-insistence on this issue may be consistent with the professed aim of preserving pluralism, it also gives the impression of a cowardly acceptance of the Muslim claim that exclusivist Islam is superior to other faiths, and hence should be accorded special privileges. Civilised people everywhere root for socio-political pluralism. Thousands of years of frenetic efforts notwithstanding, neither Christianity nor Islam succeeded in exterminating other religions. The attempt to convert sows seeds of intolerance and strife. Confrontation and wars, whenever fanaticism takes root, have been the subjects of indoctrination of jihadis spread over many continents. A resolute war is needed against Islamic jihad, like there was against evangelising and insurrectionary communism.
P Sita Reddi
Uppal, Hyderabad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umbilical discord
SirâI disagree with what Mr G Has-nain Kaif says in his letter, âDharmic necessityâ (Nov 11). That Indian secularism is no more than minority appeasement is widely recognised. Had it been otherwise, the state would have maintained equidistance from all religions. The political systemâs vigour and energy would have been directed towards development and the education of the masses. The Constitution, which upholds equality, would have been respected. Power-thirsty politicians would not have pursued the Muslim votebank. So-called secular intellectuals would not have gloried in our past slavery under Muslim rule, nor forgotten what Hindus suffered on account of it. If India is prey to social divisiveness, it is due to those championing divisive caste, religious and linguistic identities. Most Indian Muslims exacerbate the problem, by clinging to the Arab associations ofârather than Indianising âtheir faith. For them, Islam is above nation. In the name of false âpluralityâ, the countryâs unity and integrity is being threatened. The opposition to the Uniform Civil Code makes this plain. Muslim intellectuals and pseudo-secular Hindus denigrate sanatan dharma and Arya samaj as âidol worshipâ. This, despite the fact sanatan dharma is based on Vedic and Aryan sanskriti, according to which divinities are simply manifestations of the one indivisible Godhead. Idols were only created to facilitate mental and spiritual concentration, the unwavering focus of the mind on a symbol of the ultimate God. Idol worship is, therefore, no more than the beginning of the unalloyed worship of God. When communion with God is fully attained, one does not need idols. Hinduism is perhaps the only religion that does not gather its strength from criticism of other belief systems. Hindus believe there is one eternal law that unites all mankindâsarva dharma sambhav. Their social customs have less to do with religious strictures than this cultural heritage, unlike those of Muslims which flow from Quranic injunctionsâthe reason they and not Hindus oppose the UCC. This is also why, for Hindus, nationalism is the only religion in the public sphere. Finally, the âsecularistsâ should ask themselves why tolerance should be a virtue only demanded of Hindus. More, they should ask why Muslims are not more forthcoming on the issue of national integrity, and why they do not whole-heartedly condemn those who use terrorism to destabilise nations. India has been a target of attack for so long that Hindus cannot help but think of sarva dharma bachava, in place of sarva dharma sambhav.
KK Gupta
Malviya Nagar, Jaipur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No thanks giving?
SirâIt was refreshing to see a beaming US President George W Bush sporting an army jacket and holding a trayload of eatables during his surprise participation in a Thanksgiving dinner with US troops in Baghdad. I am referring to the photograph with the news report, âDaring trip indeed, but how useful?â (Nov 29). Heads of State and Government and First Ladies of many nations frequently pay morale-boosting visits to troops stationed in far-flung places or engaged in life-threatening operations. We in India still miss out on this inspiring tradition. Apart from strictly formal homageâ read lip serviceâpaid to our jawans on ceremonial occasions, our rulers have done precious little to give defence personnel due respect. Even the connotation of the word âjawanâ has undergone change, its true meaning diluted, over the years. It is indiscriminately used these days to refer to anyone ranging from a homeguard to a policeman, from a liveried gateman regulating entry to an army combatant in full battle gear, ready to take on terrorists from across the border. Why are we so apathetic and diffident about interacting with and recognising the contribution made by the jawans of the armed forces? Are they not, after all, the ultimate defenders of the countryâs sovereignty, integrity, honour and identity?
SC Kapoor
Jal Vayu Vihar, Noida