When I started this blog it was motivated from the urge to take a stand that asks questions about the obvious. I had last written in this blog in 2012 as I found Facebook to be more popular and easier option. However, the brutal murder of blogger Abhijit Ray in Dhaka compels me to write once again as a mark of respect to a co-blogger and a human being who had the courage to call 'spade a spade'. I really don't know how to express my feelings as am internally conflicted due to the dilemma whether in advocating the devil I am actually abetting and aiding him in his work when it comes to social and religious tolerance and the freedom of expression and free speech.
I am definitely not the most religious person (a liberal Hindu at best) who have had always believed that every religion must peacefully coexist and it is the responsibility of the majority to protect the religious minorities. However, today's murder of Ray forces me to admit that if Hindus are supposed to be tolerant in India shouldn't the 'Mullah' fraternity do same in Bangladesh? Ray gets massacred as an act of vengeance for US killings of two 'mullah' brothers. In that case, why specifically a US based Bengali Hindu blogger? Thanks to the 'Shahbag' revolution in Dhaka secular spirit is at its highest. The Islamic radicals who are more concerned about their faith than nation is continually opposing this through constant acts of heinous terror strikes to the pro secularism group and more to the Hindu minorities. Bangladesh since Sheikh Hassena took power has been acting on secular philosophy as mentored by Sk Mujib. However, the problem with secularism is that it is based on the foundation of democracy that each faith has equal rights. Net result, you get into a political and social crisis where the radicals donot hesitate to kill the innocent but the state does hesitate to kill a radical because he has his rights. Moreover, you think more than twice before sending a war criminal convicted of genocide, multiple rapes, abductions and what not to the gallows in fear of further radical uprising.
Now this is where the real dilemma sets in within me. I openly criticized Mohan Bhagwat's comments on Mother Teressa on Facebook or for that matter the conversion drives of RSS and VHP. However, somewhere deep down that not-so secular and liberal Hindu keeps on buzzing that if Hindus get suppressed in Muslim state of Pakistan and a Muslim dominate secular state of Bangladesh, isn't it obvious that Hindus in India would naturally go for the offensive? Name it 'love jihad' or anything else, it is a fact that Muslims are converting and multiplying. So isn't it natural that at some point of time a more radical group of Hindus would cry out 'enough is enough' and go for a forced trend reversal. After all they represent the majority. Not only that, organizations such as SIMI and IM openly challenges the system in their efforts to destabilize the secular structure and set up 'Sharia' law. What gives them so much audacity to challenge a secular structure being a religious minority?
I guess the answer lies in the existence of advocates such as myself. We cry for the perpetrator stating that even they have a version that should be understood. 'Haider' showed the brutality of Indian army in Kashmir and I appreciated the film and Bharadwaj's efforts. However, the reality is that India is still holding on to J&K because of the army. The flood victims survived because of their sacrifices. However, we just seem to take these acts for granted as if they are supposed to do so. This is the problem of democracy, it allows the devil's advocates to fight for the devil believing that even Devil deserves justice. We criticize VHP and RSS for being radicals and not showing restrains. The fact of the matter is that they are launching an offensive against the minority which has been committing the same acts for a very long time.
The worst part is that democracy and freedom gives divisive and communal forces to go with this 'tit- for- tat' tactics perpetually. In this case, for people like me the difference between 'good' and the 'devil' becomes so obscure that we get all muddled up about whose cause is to be advocated? Honestly, I am in a quandry because to protest against VHS and RSS is like turning a blind eye towards a hard Indian social and political reality of deliberate act of 'Islamization' of India by the 'Mullah' radicals. In contrast, if I support VHP and RSS I forego the basic tenet of secularism and pluralism and equal rights and powers to the minorities.
Summing up I will only say it is a fear of this devil's advocate that a day will come when he and his compatriots would find themselves helpless to distinguish between the devil and the good, let alone the advocacy part. Hobbes' nightmarish world of 'Leviathan' is not far off unless this hatred towards other religion ends. The leaders of faith based organizations have to show more compassion and understanding for the other whether they be the VHP/ RSS or the Madrasa clerics as they are the true guardians. Again, sarcastically speaking Juvenal long ago had philosophized the reality of a democratic state that 'who will guard the guardians'?
I am definitely not the most religious person (a liberal Hindu at best) who have had always believed that every religion must peacefully coexist and it is the responsibility of the majority to protect the religious minorities. However, today's murder of Ray forces me to admit that if Hindus are supposed to be tolerant in India shouldn't the 'Mullah' fraternity do same in Bangladesh? Ray gets massacred as an act of vengeance for US killings of two 'mullah' brothers. In that case, why specifically a US based Bengali Hindu blogger? Thanks to the 'Shahbag' revolution in Dhaka secular spirit is at its highest. The Islamic radicals who are more concerned about their faith than nation is continually opposing this through constant acts of heinous terror strikes to the pro secularism group and more to the Hindu minorities. Bangladesh since Sheikh Hassena took power has been acting on secular philosophy as mentored by Sk Mujib. However, the problem with secularism is that it is based on the foundation of democracy that each faith has equal rights. Net result, you get into a political and social crisis where the radicals donot hesitate to kill the innocent but the state does hesitate to kill a radical because he has his rights. Moreover, you think more than twice before sending a war criminal convicted of genocide, multiple rapes, abductions and what not to the gallows in fear of further radical uprising.
Now this is where the real dilemma sets in within me. I openly criticized Mohan Bhagwat's comments on Mother Teressa on Facebook or for that matter the conversion drives of RSS and VHP. However, somewhere deep down that not-so secular and liberal Hindu keeps on buzzing that if Hindus get suppressed in Muslim state of Pakistan and a Muslim dominate secular state of Bangladesh, isn't it obvious that Hindus in India would naturally go for the offensive? Name it 'love jihad' or anything else, it is a fact that Muslims are converting and multiplying. So isn't it natural that at some point of time a more radical group of Hindus would cry out 'enough is enough' and go for a forced trend reversal. After all they represent the majority. Not only that, organizations such as SIMI and IM openly challenges the system in their efforts to destabilize the secular structure and set up 'Sharia' law. What gives them so much audacity to challenge a secular structure being a religious minority?
I guess the answer lies in the existence of advocates such as myself. We cry for the perpetrator stating that even they have a version that should be understood. 'Haider' showed the brutality of Indian army in Kashmir and I appreciated the film and Bharadwaj's efforts. However, the reality is that India is still holding on to J&K because of the army. The flood victims survived because of their sacrifices. However, we just seem to take these acts for granted as if they are supposed to do so. This is the problem of democracy, it allows the devil's advocates to fight for the devil believing that even Devil deserves justice. We criticize VHP and RSS for being radicals and not showing restrains. The fact of the matter is that they are launching an offensive against the minority which has been committing the same acts for a very long time.
The worst part is that democracy and freedom gives divisive and communal forces to go with this 'tit- for- tat' tactics perpetually. In this case, for people like me the difference between 'good' and the 'devil' becomes so obscure that we get all muddled up about whose cause is to be advocated? Honestly, I am in a quandry because to protest against VHS and RSS is like turning a blind eye towards a hard Indian social and political reality of deliberate act of 'Islamization' of India by the 'Mullah' radicals. In contrast, if I support VHP and RSS I forego the basic tenet of secularism and pluralism and equal rights and powers to the minorities.
Summing up I will only say it is a fear of this devil's advocate that a day will come when he and his compatriots would find themselves helpless to distinguish between the devil and the good, let alone the advocacy part. Hobbes' nightmarish world of 'Leviathan' is not far off unless this hatred towards other religion ends. The leaders of faith based organizations have to show more compassion and understanding for the other whether they be the VHP/ RSS or the Madrasa clerics as they are the true guardians. Again, sarcastically speaking Juvenal long ago had philosophized the reality of a democratic state that 'who will guard the guardians'?
