"Why I am not a Christian"was the topic of a lecture delivered by Bertrand Russell at the Battersea Town Hall on Sunday March 6, 1927, under the auspices of the South London Branch of the National Secular Society."Why I am a Christian" is the title of a well known book written by John Stott,published in 2013.I must confess that I have only gone through the printed version of the speech of the former and have not read the book of the latter.The point here is not to delve into divergent views as prejudices in opinions,but to emphasise that each one has a right to differ on views,in terms of value of their faith in the respective topic.
Recently I came upon a Whatsapp video showing a gentleman expressing certain indicators from the Ramayana,to assertively declare,why he is not a Gandhian.The speech critically stood against Gandhi's affirmation of love,tolerance and truth,as basic tenets for practising non- violence.
The gentleman was perhaps right in saying that when evil is perpetuated in front of our eyes and when our own kith and kin fall victims of any violence,evil has to be not only fought tooth and nail,but the perpetrators of evil should also be destroyed,as Lord Ram did in the case of Ravana.Incidentally,when Gandhi fell dead by the gun shot of Godse,his last words are said to have been "hey Ram".
My question is,can faith in Lord Ram dissuade a person from preaching and practising love and non violence, just because the Ramayana could be seen and interpreted as a war between good and evil.In fact,the Ramayana portrays Lord Ram as the embodiment of righteousness and hence his war against Ravana,should be considered only as an instance of redemption of the soul from evil and not as an event of destruction of evil.
I am not here to doubt or question the existence of Ram and the veracity of the Ramayana.I believe that Epics like the Mahabharatha and the Ramayana are there,more to teach us about what is good and what is evil,than to instigate us either to sponsor evil or destroy evil,without seeing the genesis of the plethora of undesirable events,taking place around the globe.
Gandhi was basically a Hindu,but beyond that he was a human being,one who loved to see mankind in single fold,bypassing their individual religious identities.What Gandhi tried to do was to preempt the emergence of evil.His philosophy of non-violence based on tolerance,should not be seen or misrepresented as a meek acceptance of the assault of evil,but as an adherence to fairness in motives and behaviour of one and all.
Gandhi who advocated amity and mutual trust in collective society,could not be misunderstood as a replica of cowardice.Had Gandhi been a coward,he would not have been the centre of attraction of a huge resistance movement against racial segregation in South Africa and later on as a leading figure in the long driven freedom struggle of India.
Raja Rao one of the eminent Indian writers,came out with a pithy and beautiful sentence about Gandhi,stating ''Gandhi is poverty".This sentence symbolically identifies Gandhi with the most pathetic, poor strata of society in India.It could also be called a pointer to the barest way Gandhi dressed himself,so as to make indelible thought waves and footprints,as markers of the need for an onward march of the poor,towards progress.
Religious acrimony between different sections of the indian polity was not at all in the wish list of Gandhi.One who believes in harmony,believes in the root of godliness and in the basic precepts of the religion he belongs to.Fighting for human harmony,should not be misconstrued as pampering evil. If people believe tooth for a tooth or an eye for an eye is the buyable counsel from the Ramayana,they are mistaken.
I am sure Lord Ram was the incarnation of God and being so,he would not have believed in propagating retaliation.People should always see an epic in its totality and not in bits,before legitimising destruction theories as a gospel,for the destruction of evil.The destruction of evil is a course of nemesis and God alone can determine that course and not man.If man can take upon himself the onerous task of destroying evil as and when he happens to witness evil,or fall a victim of evil,then why should countries have their respective legal systems?
Hinduism largely believes in a panoramic vision for mankind.It is only because of this panoramic vision there is no attempt to convert people from other religions into Hinduism.Those whose priorities are temple building and expansion of ideologies at the cost of human harmony,will always tend to underestimate the heart and soul of the cherished principles of Gandhi,who had the potential of the Mahatma, purely on account of his endless cry for unity and harmony,as the other side of his faith in Lord Ram and the Ramayana.
Today religion is intoxicated with the infiltration of politics.But Gandhi always wanted to see religion and politics as two distinctly separate areas for human role play,one for spiritual exaltation and the other for social empowerment.As we all know,politics today is more divisive than ever.It is the divisive tentacles of politics that attempt to spread their encroaching,repulsive width in religious and social arenas,so as to trouble the calm waters and fish in them.As a result of one upmanship and one concept of political conglomeration,the diverse incumbents of politics and society,find themselves invaded and minimalized.
The political and social harmony that Gandhi aspired for and attempted to perpetuate,is now in chaos and disarray.His triple purity concepts such as,purity of thought,word and deed,have become laughing stocks.To put it in a nutshell,the origin of evil has its hidden theories and goals.If goodness can be called a freeway,evil can be said to have laid its crooked streets.If all choose to convert freeways into crooked streets in the name of destroying evil,then God will have to fix a day for cataclysm,which can be called the doomsday.At that point of time,terms like 'Mahatma' and 'Gandhian' will become misnomers.
P.Chandrasekaran.
==================================
No comments:
Post a Comment