By Kartik Lokhande
Religious Intolerance. These two words have been at the centre of debate once again in the recent times.
The
debate, in this round, started with effort to give political colour to
condemnable incidents effected by vandals who cannot be said to
represent the peace-loving majority of any religion. Since that effort
was made recently first by US President Mr Barack Obama vis-a-vis India,
everywhere scene is being created as India is ‘the’ country witnessing
religious intolerance. This, obviously, is not the case. Let us examine
the issue.
Mr Barack Obama made a statement on February 6, 2015 in
Washington that ‘acts of intolerance’ experienced by religious faiths of
all types in India would have shocked Mahatma Gandhi. He was speaking
at National Prayer Breakfast.
Within a few days, on February 15,
2015, ‘unidentified miscreants’ sprayed swastika and painted ‘Get Out’
on a wall of Bothell Hindu Temple in Seattle Metropolitan Area in Mr
Obama’s own country. Probably, this would have shocked the legendary
Martin Luther King, and all the apostles of peace. However, Mr Obama did
not bother much about the incident.
Close on the heels of this, on
February 18, 2015, Mr Obama made another statement, “No religion is
responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for violence and
terrorism.” He made this statement at the White House Summit, while
speaking on ISIS, which is killing countless innocents including
Christians in Syria. In the same speech, he went on to add, “We are not
at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam,”
making a clear distinction between fanatics and peace-loving majority.
Interestingly, Mr Obama made an appeal to his countrymen, “The country
must stay true to her values ‘as a diverse and tolerant society even
when we’re threatened, especially when we’re threatened.”
And,
within a few days, on February 26, 2015, ‘vandals’ painted ‘fear’ on the
wall of Kent Hindu Temple and vandalised it, this time, in Washington
state, in Mr Obama’s own country again. Second attack on Hindu Temple,
probably, would have shell-shocked the apostles of peace in the US
history. But, probably, in Mr Obama’s opinion, these incidents might not
fit in the definition of ‘religious intolerance’. Or, these incidents
do not fit into the scheme of political colouring of ‘religious
intolerance’.
The entire debate on ‘religious intolerance’ has gone
haywire with sheerly political focus only on a particular faith or a
country. Every political leader, whether it be the US President Mr
Barack Obama or Pakistani Prime Minister Mr Muhammad Nawaz Sharif or
Indian Prime Minister Mr Narendra Modi or any other leader of any other
country, needs to look at the phenomenon of religious intolerance beyond
the political colours and contours.
In every country, values of the
religion of demographic majority guide social and political
constructions. Those in power in each of these countries face the ‘pulls
and pressures’ of demographic majorities. These ‘pulls and pressures’
test the political and administrative skills and maturity of the leaders
heading the Governments.
The leaders, who can handle these
skillfully and in a matured manner, instill a sense of confidence among
all and focus the social, political, and national debate on the agenda
of development.
The leaders, who cannot do this, are exposed within
respective countries as well as internationally as their statements make
clear their religious inclinations. And, this is exactly what has
happened in case of Mr Obama as can be seen from instances quoted above.
While issuing carefully crafted statements aimed at political gains, he
made a distinction between perverts and others, but forgot to make it
in case of India. He forgot to tell the world that ‘religious
intolerance’ was not restricted to India alone, but was everywhere, as
only a fanatic minority of religious majority in all the countries
effects such incidences.
The findings of ‘International Religious
Freedom Report for 2013’ prepared by Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights
and Labor under the US Department of State, reveal certain interesting
facts. As per this report, “All around the world, individuals were
subjected to discrimination, violence and abuse, perpetrated and
sanctioned violence for simply exercising their faith, identifying with a
certain religion, or choosing not to believe in a higher deity at all.”
And, this report of the US Department of State’s arm, throws light
on ‘religious intolerance’ in countries like Syria, Burma, Central
African Republic, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Bangladesh, Sri
Lanka, China, Eritrea, North Korea, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan et cetera et cetera. Of course, the same report sheds no
light on the ‘religious intolerance’ in the US. Instead, it talks of how
the US ‘stands up for freedom of religion’.
That, Mr Obama forgot
to recollect the findings of the report of a Government arm of his own
country; that, Mr Obama adopted ‘dangerous silence’ on attacks on
Indians and Hindu temples in the US; that, Mr Obama appears to have
purposefully adopted a cautious stand and issuing different statements
in case of India and Syria; all these make it clear to the world that
his statements on ‘religious intolerance’ are merely political in nature
aimed at winning support of religious majority in his own country for
his own actions so far.
It is time for all sane individuals in all
religions to discredit such political statements on religious
intolerance and shun attacking each other, irrespective of who have made
the statements. Instead, people belonging to all religions across the
globe should focus on peaceful inter-faith exchanges, increasing
communal harmony, shunning political and divisive measures like
reservations or sops on religious grounds, and evolve as a stronger and
better humanity.
For, faith cannot be a divisive idea like politics.
(Filed on March 1, 2015)
Comments
Post a Comment