Dear Abhinandan Sekhri: A Scholarly Debate Is Not A Salman Khan Movie

WrittenBy:Sandeep Balakrishna
Date:
  • Share this article on whatsapp

Two recent pieces on Firstpost on the issue of religious conversions caught my attention: the first one by Jaideep Prabhu for its erudition and depth, and a response to it by Abhinandan Sekhri for its shocking ignorance of history and its flippant tone.

subscription-appeal-image

Support Independent Media

The media must be free and fair, uninfluenced by corporate or state interests. That's why you, the public, need to pay to keep news free.

Contribute

The essence of Jaideep Prabhu’s piece is basically this:

  • The root of much of the prevailing confusion and erroneous ways of understanding India, Hindu philosophical traditions, culture, practices etc lies in applying Eurocentric/colonial constructs of India.
  • The Constitution of India continues to discriminate against the very culture and civilization that gave it birth, and that this discrimination was given state patronage by what Prabhu calls the “Nehruvian venture.”
  • The key fundamental dictum of the Abrahamic faiths to convert (or kill) non-Abrahamics acts to the detriment of Dharmic faiths like Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and so on.
  • The Indian Constitution really has no safeguards to prevent these Abrahamic faiths from converting people of Dharmic faiths by force or fraud or both thus leading to societal tensions and violence across the Indian geography.
  • It is for these reasons, and chiefly to protect the ancient and valuable heritage of India that conversions to Abrahamic faiths should be banned by law.

It is instructive to examine Article 25 of the Constitution in this context:


Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. (1)
 Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.

While this is a noble charter on all counts, the word “propagation” needs closer scrutiny.

In the context of Dharmic faiths, the word “propagation” in practice essentially means building temples, stupas, gurudwaras, announcing public havans, kirtans, celebrating festivals, and so on. These faiths do not prohibit members of Abrahamic faiths to take part in such activities nor is there any demand to convert into Dharmic faiths. In the context of Abrahamic faiths, the word “propagation” is also synonymous with “evangelism” and “conversion” of members of non-Abrahamic faiths.

And so we have a self-abrogating situation created by the Constitution for people of Dharmic faiths: in the case of Abrahamic faiths, religious propagation can only happen at the expense of a non-proselytizing faith, a fact that Swami Vivekananda alluded to in his “When the Mohammedans first came, we are said — I think on the authority of Ferishta, the oldest Mohammedan historian — to have been six hundred millions of Hindus. Now we are about two hundred millions. And then every man going out of the Hindu pale is not only a man less, but an enemy the more” (Prabuddha Bharata, April, 1899). The other core doctrine of Abrahamic faiths is the fact that their believers are called upon to wage war against people of non-Abrahamic faiths until the whole world is converted.

It is also worth examining the very preamble of the Constitution, which was marred by the 42nd Amendment by adding the words “socialist” and “secular.”  Both these terms were open expressions of the politics of the day, which reduced the Constitution to a playbook. But as Jaideep notes, at a more fundamental level, Nehruvian secularism essentially bore out this:

While scholars have considered whether modernity can exist outside its present European framework, few have been brave enough to chase down the answer. As a result, false universalities of European history such as secularism, liberalism, nationalism, and even time are used to decipher the non-West; any society that fails to conform to these European ideals is thus seen to be less evolved or have failed. (Emphasis added)

As history is witness, this fact has mountains of evidence right from early colonial writings which termed, for instance, the Vedic tribes/society as “primitive” tribes and races and so on. Indeed, it was routine to apply the word “primitive” to colonial studies of any non-Western people with no basis in history or clarity of terminological definition. So pervasive was the influence of colonial studies that even eminent scholars like Dr. S Radhakrishnan accepted this discourse without close scrutiny (Ref: his two volumes on Indian Philosophy). Needless to say, Nehruvian and Marxist scholars took this deception to newer levels inventing definitions and theories on the fly—a detailed critique of this is available here.

And so, any honest examination of this serious issue must begin at the basics: terminological clarity and critical scrutiny of primary sources, which Jaideep has done. However, his assertion that in Dharmic systems, “[t]he notion of absolute truth in such a system is not just irrelevant but impossible to imagine” is slightly debatable. The core of all Dharmic faiths lies indeed in an absolute truth of verifiable, universal experience embodied in the various Upanishads, and echoed by such simple but terse aphorisms like Tatvamasi (I am That) and Aham Brahmasmi (I am Brahman). However, Jaideep is accurate in the sense that this is completely different from the notion of absolute truth espoused by Abrahamic religions—The Word, etc. Abrahamic faiths essentially stand on the foundation of separateness—God/Allah is separate from his followers. This translates in practice as Kaffirs/Heathens versus the rest.

Equally, Jaideep also slightly errs when he claims, based on Bernier’s story that “[t]he Hindu view of other beliefs, be they Indic or Abrahamic, can thus best be described as indifference rather than tolerance.” However, it is more accurate to say that the Hindu view of other non-dharmic religions is one of inclusivity—for instance, it is not really difficult for Hindus to accept Jesus or Allah as one of the 33 Crore Gods, yet this acceptance would also be fundamentally dangerous because the exclusivity, which Christianity and Islam preaches and embodies will destroy the inclusive character of dharmic faiths. Indeed, it is a tribute to the innate strength of Hinduism that thousands of its adherents worship Jesus along with Hindu Gods, and that no Hindu guru or swami has ever forbidden them from doing so. More importantly, it is also a tribute to the simple devotion of these Jesus-worshipping Hindus without critically examining the blood-stained legacy of Jesus across the world for centuries. Even more importantly, it is this simple devotion that missionaries of all hues exploit in their proselytising efforts.

A sense of history also says that the more history changes, the more it remains the same. In the past, an inherent component of religious wars was conversion–from the West to the East. While such wars are no longer possible today—it is actually happening given the brutal killings and/or conversions that ISIS is currently doing—the conversion project continues unabated—from gigantic hoardings inviting “people of all faiths to convert to Islam” to placing Google ads for the same, to highly-visible evangelical endeavours like the Joshua Project. Yet, there is not a single ad or plea asking people to “convert” to Hinduism. Equally, the same history tells us that Abrahamic faiths are essentially imperialistic–they derive their power from directly controlling politics.

The first thing that stands out in Abhinandan Sekhri’s so-called response is the frivolous tone starting right with the title: Ban religious conversion? It is a ‘thaka hua’ idea that ignores history. A title like that is also ambitious especially when it claims that Prabhu’s piece “ignores history.” And for some reason, Sekhri chooses Salman Khan’s films as an analogical refrain to rebut Jaideep’s piece.

Actually, there’s a reason, which Sekhri himself reveals here:

How it tries to present its point shows absolutely no sign or understanding of social contexts or how history played out. Like a Salman Khan starrer, it requires a suspension of all laws of physics, of history and continuity but will get the cheers all right.

This is one of the standard tactics of the Left-liberal-secularist method of argumentation: dismiss all evidence, deny agency, and call the person ignorant. Indeed, tomes have been dedicated to exposing this form of “argumentation” in detail by stalwarts like Arun Shourie and others. Notable books also include Eminent Historians, The Only Fatherland, Genesis and growth of Nehruism, and Perversion of India’s Political Parlance.

The other tactic is trivializing a serious issue and cherry-picking. Here is how Sekhri does it:

“We” can actually ban anything, so that’s hardly a question. “We”, meaning the majority. “We” have banned many things across countries — across centuries…

For all the number of times Sekhri uses “we,” he doesn’t name the “majority” as “Hindus.” Neither does he furnish even one instance of what “we” have banned given that his time-space canvas stretches “across countries and centuries.” Indeed, majority of the bans since Independence have emanated from the Communist lobby or the Congress party or both, and both continue to remain inimical and in several cases, hostile to the native heritage and tradition and Sekhri’s own “We” of India. It is curious why Sekhri doesn’t mention the fact that all books critical of the Nehru dynasty were banned until recently.

Next, to Jaideep’s accurate assessment that the Constitution discriminates against Hindus, Abhinandan claims, “That statement neither does any justice to nor considers how the Constitution was drafted”, and narrates the story of how the Constitution was framed. The point Sekhri misses is this: It doesn’t matter how many Hindus or Muslims or Parsis or others were involved in making the Constitution. The only thing that matters is the outcome: you can still make a perfectly yucky dish despite having the best chefs and the best ingredients.

Now, let’s hypothetically treat as valid Sekhri’s assertion that the Constitution doesn’t discriminate against Hindus. Let’s also accept his “it’s easy and lazy to say that an “anglicised” Nehru was responsible for the travesty of freedom to choose your religion.” So what is Nehru’s record of upholding the Constitution for 17 years that he ruled? Who set the precedent of massacring the Constitution by sacking the first non-Congress Government in Kerala? Who indeed implemented the Hindu Marriage Act which basically disenfranchised the Hindu society at the family level? Who patronized the peculiar brand of writing Indian history in which history became the handmaiden of Communism? Who bulldozed the disastrous First Amendment that in effect curbed free speech? And who set in motion the brand of secularism that has brought India to this sorry pass?

Indeed, Abhinandan Sekhri seems to have taken a leaf out of the books of our more famous Left-Liberal-Secular eminences. After it has been tried and failed over 60-plus years that secularism is NOT the answer in the Indian context, these eminences continue to argue that the solution for a harmonious India is more secularism!

Also, if Sekhri is so fond of quoting the Constituent Assembly debates and the making of the Constitution, I suggest he must consult the primary sources and find out from the mouths of the relevant horses what exactly was debated.

After paying more paeans to Salman Khan, Sekhri claims that Jaideep’s piece suggests “that the basic human aspiration to be equal and the human instinct of seeking justice (divine or through courts) and trying something new is some religious cultural conspiracy and not a basic instinct of our species”.

The most important thing to note here is that Jaideep’s piece makes no such assertion. And there’s no nice way of saying this: Abhinandan Sekhri’s ignorance of fundamentals, even the meaning of some easy words is truly stunning.

For one, he confounds aspiration and instinct. The only instincts all living beings continue to have are food, fear, sex and sleep. “Trying something new” is not an instinct—it is a product of humankind’s mental evolution. Also, at best, “equality” is not an aspiration. There has never been a time in history when all humans existed in perfect equality, and there never will be such a time. Equality is like perfection—at best, it can be approached. It can never be attained. This is not an argument against equality but every age, culture, and geography has had its own unique brand of inequality and all of history is just a record of efforts to rectify that equality. And neither is “seeking justice” an instinct. If it were an instinct, we’d all still be under Jungle Law.

Next, Sekhri cuts and pastes two sentences from Jaideep’s piece out of context to derive another prefabricated conclusion, in the flippant tone that characterises his entire rebuttal:

Yup. Until Christians and Muslims came along, everything was perfect and just grand. The varna system through castes had put everyone in their place and that’s where all were expected to stay.

First, the problem as Jaideep says, is not Christians and Muslims but the core doctrines of their faiths. Second, Abhinandan needs to tell us clearly whether he means varna=caste because a phrase like “varna system through castes” is absurd. The word “varna” is not the same as caste—Sekhri as usual, has deeply internalized the Colonial invention of this meaning. Third, at no time prior to the arrival of and subsequent imperialism of Muslims were the varnas watertight compartments. There are literally thousands of examples right from the Vedic period where inter-varna mobility was widespread. From the Shudra Rishi Aitaryea Mahidasa, who gave us the Aitaryea Brahmana, to Satyakama Jabali (a child born out of wedlock to a “low caste” woman) to Vishwamitra who was a Kshatriya who became a Brahmana—indeed, rulers of almost all great Indic dynasties originally hailed from the Shudra “caste.”

And then it’s time for yet another dose of Salman Khan before Sekhri’s next bout of hara-kiri.

The fear of “social disruption” that the piece mentions is a bit like President Snow in The Hunger Games who wants no turmoil in society. In any society there will be an evolution of ideas. Buddha, Guru Nanak and Mahavir were born and gained popularity in this very country…

Sekhri’s attempt at sleight of hand is evident in the first sentence: the fear of “social disruption” that Jaideep mentions is NOT within the context of dharmic faiths but in the aggressive and/or covert interferences into these dharmic faiths by the Abrahamic ones. As far as turmoil is concerned, history is witness to the fact that Hinduism has survived, renewed and bounced back in times of extreme turmoil. By mentioning Buddha et al, Sekhri perhaps doesn’t realize how he’s contradicting his own pet thesis—Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism are all dharmic faiths. Their core doctrine emanates from the same Vedic wellspring. Then again, Sekhri is faithful to the Colonial-Marxist-Liberal-Secular framework of viewing India: as a nation of warring, divisive, separate castes and groups who can never live in peace with each other.

After this, Abhinandan expands on the “instinct” to “try new stuff” and so on, which really has no relevance to Jaideep’s article. And his rebuttal descends to downright hilarity when he dubs “Islam” as one of the examples of this “try new stuff” thesis. That this kind of appalling ignorance—of history, religion, and confabulations of terminology—passes off as mainstream rebuttal is the greater shock. One might be tempted to call it the Times of Indiafication of public discourse.

And then, based on this, Sekhri “concludes” that

Not giving people the right to change their religion is a thaka hua idea. It has been tried several times over the past centuries and failed.

Apparently, Sekhri hasn’t grasped anything in Jaideep’s piece at all. One of Jaideep’s key points is not the right to change one’s religion but why it is a dangerous idea to allow proselytization in nations in which the majority follows dharmic faiths. A right to change one’s religion is entirely different, and in many cases, antithetical to proselytism. Again, Sekhri doesn’t furnish a single shred of evidence for his assertion that it has been “tried…and failed.”

But that still doesn’t deter Sekhri:

The spread of Islam too has its roots in the completely warped and unequal society where a freed slave (Ali) embraced it (even as he was not allowed to, sound familiar?) attracted by equality of the brotherhood.

This further exposes Sekhri’s lack of any historical sense, even basic history. As is his wont by now, Sekhri doesn’t provide any citation or evidence that pre-Islamic Arabia was a warped and unequal society. History tells us that pre-Islamic Arabia was an open society with a multitude of Gods and Goddesses and various other “pagan” (sic) deities. Indeed, what does it speak of a society where Muhammad’s own wife was older to him, and ran a thriving trading empire? And the fate of Arabia after it was Islamised is well-known to worth repeating. So is the sorry tale of the fate of women in Islamic nations and societies. Sekhri’s quoting one random instance of a slave converting to Islam doesn’t make a summer. A well-recorded counter to that is the fact of widespread and global slave-taking-cum-trading. Since reading is Sekhri’s thing, we can refer him to the seminal Muslim Slave System by Prof K.S. Lal. On the note of “equality of brotherhood,” Sekhri fails to mention that the said brotherhood extends only to other Muslims, not to people of other faiths.

Like Abhinandan, I too, could go on but really, here’s the logical end of Sekhri’s Times of Indiaish piece: Abrahamic faiths should be allowed to convert at will and it doesn’t matter that people of dharmic faiths will no longer be a majority, and India would be a Muslim or Christian nation, all its ancient heritage, traditions, practices and the rest, erased forever.

This piece was first published here.

subscription-appeal-image

Power NL-TNM Election Fund

General elections are around the corner, and Newslaundry and The News Minute have ambitious plans together to focus on the issues that really matter to the voter. From political funding to battleground states, media coverage to 10 years of Modi, choose a project you would like to support and power our journalism.

Ground reportage is central to public interest journalism. Only readers like you can make it possible. Will you?

Support now

You may also like