By Ananya S Guha
If lynching is overlooked or condoned then there is something wrong in the way of perceiving societal perspectives. So crime is almost integral to society. Alright it exists as in anywhere in the world but what about law? Or is lawlessness a way of existence, a ‘ necessary’ evil. This is a very dangerous thinking and will only give a handle to trouble makers to subvert the law. Irresponsible statements by law makers such as this exemplify the society we live in.
Firstly, the posturing today is that all that is Indian is Indian culture. Read religion. Righting wrongs done in the past does not mean anti-diluvianism. Modernity does not mean supporting violence or creating fascist groups. Certainly development measures will be supported by all. But what about the uneducated person who does not understand it even if he is a victim or perpetrator of it? Where is the counsel going to come from? Not from the lawmakers? Statements such as the above and comparing it with other religions is to demean religion itself. Other religions it seems have provisions to condemn rapists and thefts but not Hinduism. This is preposterous and it insults the eclectic nature of a religion which always relates itself to life not ecumenically but philosophically. The comparison with other religions is odious and totally out of context. What has religion to do with crime and law breakers?
There seems to be a breakdown of logical thinking in a post modernist fashion! People seem to be saying whatever they want and justifying everything in terms of religion or religious causes. Sadly enough the religion in question has an inherent eclecticism about it incorporating agnostic or atheist principles in its system. It is basically a philosophy and idolotorous beliefs came later as part of rituals. Yet the emphasis today is not on its philosophy but on its cultism, statues and peripheral symbols of worship. One wonders as to the reason behind this. Is to create a brainwashing and an insufferable comparison with other religions which are as much a part of the ethos of the country? Is it an attempt to shake this ethos and rattle it so as to show some as perpetrators and some as victims? How long can this go on anyway? From questioning scienticism to tendentious if not infantile thoughts of an advanced technology in ancient times, such advocates are working on fallacies of the past and that of history. Of course the gullible people take it as epiphanies. History can be re written bit it cannot be reworked on infantile premises.
One wonders as to where do we go from here. We are casting aside rationality for superstition and denigrating the sacrosanct nature of religion itself by interpreting it with flawed logic. The social ethos of a country is not underscored by the existence of religious affinity. Religious affinity is particular to groups and has nothing to do with cultural ambivalence or as in this case empty rhetoric. By not condemning barbaric acts and then foisting religion on to it is grossly irreligious and an insult to religion generally speaking and specifically Hinduism.
Or can we introspect, see what is going wrong despite many things seemingly going right? Is it mob mentality at work or keeping constantly the vote bank in mind? The majority must be pampered and in the debate on nationalism it is majority consciousness which dominates a uni-polar thinking. So the paradigm of majority is absolute. And absolutism has of course no way to accommodate or adapt. There are people who will ignore this and there will be people who will tolerate smilingly. But the harm such beliefs can do is understated. It is not only harm but causality of disbelief or a callous disregard of belief, an irreverence for humanity upon which the whole edifice of religion rests. Religion after all is assertion of conviction but to distort it into incongruity like radicals of many other religions do and to match it with politics egregiously is short timed and lacks fore-knowledge.
Time will lay scrutiny to such statements. The inexorability of time tests convictions or anti convictions, that is falsities masquerading as convictions. Time will expose such falsities and their blasphemous manner of breaking realities of religion. And this broken reality is the stupor we have fallen into in the garb of religiosity or religiousness. However, it is a superficial divide. Secularism in India has stayed too long to understand tolerance and the fatuousness of political gimmickry. The beloved country does not cry but I suppose it laughs. I may sound sententious but the only way to get about or arrest insensible untruths is by being sententious and prolix.
There must be a way out of untruths which deliberately try to chagrin people and beliefs. The way out is to laugh with mirth at tautologies or ill humour or to say I disagree to disagree. You have confounded myth with reality and reality with myth; fact with fiction and fairy tales with science. You are mixing ancient virtues with modern vice. So enough of this claptrap and raconteur.