A rebuttal to the Open Page article ‘Muslims and Hindus are mature, the Sangh Parivar is not.'
This rebuttal is to the piece
in The Hindu titled “Muslims and Hindus are mature, the Sangh Parivar is not” (“Open Page,” August 14, 2011) written by Mr. A. Faizur Rahman, claiming to represent the “moderate” spectrum of thought in the Muslim community.
Although Mr. Rahman's piece was written in reference to an earlier piece (“We Muslims are mature, we can take criticism,” “Open Page,” August 7, 2011), by Mr. Raji Raouf, he engages in disinformation about my op-ed piece in another newspaper. Hence it has become essential for me to rebut what Mr. Rahman has written in your columns.
Mr. Rahman's definition of a moderate Muslim is one who does not react to what he calls provocative articles such as mine. He however fails to define what the so-called moderate Muslim's reaction should be to those “terrorists” who have been killing thousands of innocent Indians in various parts of the country, including driving 5,00,000 Hindus out from the Kashmir Valley.
He states that moderate Muslims are content that the National Commission for Minorities sent a notice to me, rather than respond to the call from Muslim Organisations [his words] to “take up arms and to let all hell loose (sic).” Thank you for the consideration, Mr. Rahman!
However, his concept of moderation clearly seems to be an oxymoron because it means a tacit acquiescence in the atrocities of the Islamic terrorists. He fails to offer any concrete steps for Muslims to disown or counter measures to meet the challenge of the jihadi brand of Islam. At this juncture, I am entitled by the “equal time principle” to state what I had in substance written in my op-ed about combating Islamic terrorism, that is terrorism invoking the tenets of Islam especially jihad.
Terrorism is an act of violence that targets civilians to overawe a legally constituted government and the people in the pursuit of political or ideological aims.
In 2004, the U.N. Security Council, in its Resolution No.1566, referred to “criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act”.
Hence, every government, separately and collectively, has a duty to take effective counter-terrorism measures, to prevent and deter future terrorist attacks and to prosecute those who are responsible for carrying out such acts. At the same time, countering of terrorism poses grave challenges to the protection and promotion of human rights. Every nation is therefore called upon to resolve the conflicting demands of combating terrorism and protecting human rights. The relationship between the two is not “linear,” but “non-linear.” That is, it is not true that the less we protect human rights, the more we can combat terrorism. The converse is also not true. There is, therefore, an “optimum combination” of measures to combat terrorism and the level of safeguards that ensure human rights. The law of diminishing returns operates in this trade-off. Hence we need a strategy of deterrence with minimal intrusion on human rights. This is what I wrote to stir a debate — and not invite and disinformation abuse as Mr. Rahman has done.
Strategy
The fundamental question here today is that since in India we are the worst affected by jihadi terrorist attacks, how to formulate a strategy to deal with Islamic terrorism.
The strategy we choose for terrorist attacks should not be worse in the long run than the consequences of these attacks as in the Rubaiya Sayeed kidnap case of 1989 and the Kandahar IC-814 plane hijack case. Terrorism in India worsened as a consequence of the deal made by the NF and NDA governments to free the notorious terrorists in custody. More innocent people, for example, have been killed in terrorist attacks since the release of Maulana Azhar, Umar Qureshi and Zargar in exchange for the passengers and crew in the Kandahar case. These three upon reaching Pakistan, continued as heroes in their terrorists acts against India including 26/11 in Mumbai.
Thus we need a clear-cut policy, which means a clear-cut statement of objectives, defining the priorities of these objectives, the strategy to achieve the objective, and the committing of necessary human, financial and infrastructural resources.
We need, most of all, a strategy of deterrence. Secular intellectuals may wax eloquent about “true Islam” being humane and peaceful, on TV programmes, but it is clear that they have not read any authoritative translations of the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. These three holy books together constitute the theology of Islam. Hence instead of talking about the “correct interpretation” of Islam, those who call themselves “moderates” in the Islamic community, ought instead to urge for a new reformed Islamic theology that is consistent with democratic principles.
In Islam, the word of the Prophet is final. No true Muslim can disown these verses, or say that they would rewrite the offensive verses of the Koran. If they do, then they would have to run for their lives.
We Hindus have a long recognised tradition of being religious liberals by nature. We have already proved it enough by welcoming to our country and nurturing Parsis, Jews, Syrian Christians, and Moplah Muslim Arabs who were persecuted elsewhere, when we were 100 per cent Hindu country. Today, Hindus being targeted by Islamic terrorists, have to stand up for themselves.
What does it mean in the 21st century for Hindus to stand up? I mean by that mental clarity of the Hindus to defend the nation by effective deterrent retaliation.
This also entails an intelligent co-option of other religious groups into the Hindu cultural continuum. That is why I advocated that Muslims accept what has been scientifically established by DNA genetic studies, that we have common ancestors and share the hoary Hindu past.
(Dr. Subramanian Swamy is President, Janata Party.)
Its a good piece on the current state of the country. Nobody says all Muslims are terrorists but Dr Swamy is exhorting the majority muslims (moderates) to stand up against jihadi elements and voice their opposition. otherwise, tacit silence would only go towards encouraging the terrorist genie to grow to such an extent that tomorrow it'd turn on the community as well...eg Afganistan. Initially the moderate population tolerated Taliban and gave them their silence; once they seized power, schools were demolished, women were humiliated, public lashings started everywhere so much so that the general public welcomed the American forces as liberators. Same is the case with Pakistan. ISI and Army created terrorist genie as a tool of state policy. But now it has become so big that it controls the ISI and Army and threatens to take over the country itself. Once you let this genie out of the bottle, you can never control it. Period.
Before talking about Quran and Hadith, i wish if he could try to learn it. It is very disappointing that some of our politicians using terrorism for there political gain. Gandhiji said "The best thing to happen to India would be to be reigned by a dictator as just and upright as Umar, RA."
Dear Brothers, Dr. Swamy has been brutally honest. His comments will appeal to those who do not suffer from tunnel vision and understand history in its entirety. Long long ago, the entire Indian subcontinent was predominantly Hindu. Agreed that there have been many voluntary conversions to Islam, but if it wasn't for the violent and forced conversion of our Hindu warriors after our defeat in wars, this region would still be Hindu. To be fair to the invaders, without converting our soldiers, they would never have felt secure in a conquered land. It is only logical for them to convert. Why do people forget history and harp on Ayodhya/Gujarat/Sikh riots alone? I urge all my brothers who happen to be Muslim to understand that we are not against you. You are one among us and it is the situation that has separated us. Please accept the reality for what it is. We have lived side by side for ages and can continue to do so without any ill-will because deep inside, we share the same culture.
Mr. Swamy is calling for a rewriting of a Holy Text. To many people of mono and polytheistic beliefs this would in essence be an extremely offensive statement. Can we ask for a rewriting of the Manu Smriti ? Can we ask that we rewrite the portions of the text that result in untouchables to wearing a pot around their neck to prevent their saliva and sweat from defiling the earth? Is this is not an inherently violent part of Hinduism?People like Mr. Swamy should not be allowed such a national forum in which to exhibit their double standards and fascist voices in a secular country like ours.
Religion is divine but religious knowledge is imperfect, it is in continuous flux. The essence of religion lies in VALUES not in RITUALS. Mr. Swamy has read KORAN & Hadith in a decontextualised manner. I understand why he fails to grasp the VALUES of Islam because human being is fallibe hence his understanding of Islam is bound to be distorted.Fundamentalist always undermine human reason and strive for 'Golden Age' or an imagined social reality. Same kind of thinking was propagated by NAZI and today they are no where social parlance of Germany. Get well soon Mr. Swamy.. plz don't divide India. We have already seen two partition...We can no longer another Mental partition within India.
Mr Swamy, you are doing a dis-service to the nation. None of your strategies will succeed in achieving any goal. Rather they will widen the rift between the religions. Saddest part is that you know this and you knowingly stirring the hornet's nest. Religion is not what a book says. Religion is what we want it to be. Of course it would be impossible to live according to the literal meanings of Koran or Hadith today. Just like it would be impossible to live according to the rituals prescribed in Vedas or the tenets of Bible. I accept that in Muslim world the words of clerics have undue weight. This must change. For this to happen moderate Muslims have to give new interpretations to Koranic verses. We have to strengthen those hands. But people like you scare the fence sitters towards greater orthodoxy."One communalism does not counter the other. Both prey on each other, both fatten."
Somewhere I read that Hindutva is the oldest religion or one of the oldest. There are scientific proof. This religion was so liberal that everybody started to shape it its own way. and there lay the problem. The original version of the religion was watered down and Hindus lost their true identity and became like a loose federation, everybody having their own private god, their private rituals and so on and so forth. The point is how other newer religions overtook this oldest religion to the extent that the Hindus now feel threatened in HINDUSTAN. Votebank politics apart, the Hindus have a tendency to accept the things too easily. There are countless neo liberals who are bent on inflicting self goals. For them the life of an ordinary Hindu is worthless whereas if any injustice is done to minority all hell will break loose.Dr. Swamy has hit the nail on the head ,nobody will be able to match him on facts therefore they will indulge in rhetoric. Time for introspection citizens
Mr. Swamy continues to rant and rave. Perhaps he should ask himself what the 2002 Gujarat pogroms and the mass killings in 1992-1993 were if not terrorism as per the UN Security Council definition. These were as brutal as the terrorist attacks that he waxes eloquent about, but he sees no need for India to respond to them with similar brutality. People like Swamy are fascists and should be described as such. The reality is that there simply is no need for Muslims to prove their moderation when they are a vast and diverse religion; but there is a serious need for Swamy and the Sangh Parivar to prove that they have any commitment to democracy and human dignity.
Brilliantly written. Any counter argument to be made must be backed by suitable evidences unlike the self declared seculars who only play by words
If he finds the theology of Islam not in line with democratic principles,then he should be prepared to have a theological debate on this issue. To start with, Mr.Subramiam Swamy should explicitly discuss the verses of Quran or the statements attributed to Prophet Muhammad ,that he finds offensive.Hindus and Muslims have lived as brothers for centuries,that the Hindu populace stood for the last Mughal King, against the British imperialism is a testimony to this brotherhood.
However,citing Hindu tolerance alone as the exclusive reason for the survival of Muslims in this country during Middle ages, doesn't stand to reason,especially given that Muslims were actually rulers of many parts of India during that time. If Islam is inherently violent,the Kashmiri Muslims need not have waited for 1000 years after the arrival of Islam,to expel Pandits from the valley as alleged in the article.It is Just Politics,Professor Swamy!
I am not a muslim, but I also beleive that mass killing should not be tolerated. I am in favour of the writer about the release of the three terrorists should not be acceptable.But on the other hand, I beleive that blaming every muslim for wrong interpretation will not be appropriate. The onus of terrorism should not goes to the muslim alone because 1984 anti-sikh riots and 2002 Gujrat riots points finger on some other religion also. So, I always think that we should think above religion and take pragmatic steps to strenghten our institutions so that nobody should be considered above the law.
I like way DR.Subramanya swami presenting the faults in the Islamic scriptures. he says Islamic scriptures should be re-written to suit the democratic culture. I wish he reads the Hindu scriptures that make 25% of Indian population as untouchables. I wish DR.Subramanya swami does some thing about his own religious tyrranny before he points a finger at the other egalitarian religions! my own religion calls me an un-[touchable! I can't go to Hindu temples! I have no right to utter Sanscrit scriptures because Hinduism calls me untouchable! I am an Adivasi or aboriginal of India! Does Subramanya swami have any right to point a finger at other religions when he discrimintes others!
It is highly unfortunate to see you defending your own article. The foundations of our society are based on stronger values than you project so lopsidedly. It is articles such as this that infuse unnecessary passion into the minds of the gullible. It is more a detriment than a much desired solution. Rather than showing ostensible jingoism and propagating your own cause in esteemed dailies such as this, try promoting peace. Publishing "rebuttals" will only win you momentary heroism and inflate your ego. Being an Indian isn't all that difficult.
Please Email the Editor