Thursday, October 14, 2010
Gareeb ki biwi sab ki Bhabhi
The way well-wishers from all walks of life had been suggesting alternative use of the property of demolished Babri Masjid, one is wondering if the Urdu/Hindi proverb is not operative when it says --- Gareeb ki biwi sab ki Bhabhi.
Muslims are violated and now every one, from high to low, including Ms. Indu Jain, Chairperson of Times of India group ( see her OpEd in TOI), would like to wash their hands in 'behti Ganga'.
There is a deliberate attempt to silence Muslims and Muslim sentiments over the demolition of 500-year Masjid by a very well organised conspiracy where criminals are still out of the hands of law of the land, but everybody is more than eager to share the loot that the hooligans have made available. Muslim belief on the neutrality of TOI in communal matters is still awaiting a more objective and deliberate people's verdict .
Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
----------------------------------
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/For-a-bold-vision/articleshow/6743142.cms
TOP ARTICLE
For a bold vision
INDU JAIN, Oct 14, 2010, 12.00am IST The nation applauded our politicians and other prominent figures in our public life when they appealed in unison for calm on the eve of the Ayodhya verdict. Our media too earned widespread praise for not speculating on its content. However, what followed immediately after the verdict was delivered left ordinary citizens baffled, confused and not a little disturbed.
It was clear from the beginning that legal experts would have to scrutinise thousands of pages of the judgements with a fine toothcomb before they formed a rounded opinion about their strengths and infirmities. But our opinion makers hastened to air their views, each one contradicting the other with much abandon.
Where do we go from here? It is clear that all the three litigants in the case will challenge the verdict which divided the disputed area equally between them in the Supreme Court. Each one lays claim to the entire area. No one can say how long the apex court will take to give its judgement. It could take months, even years. In the meantime, there is every reason to fear that political interests will exploit the uncertainty for their narrow ends. This portends a danger for our nation.
Even while the apex court deliberates on the case, the concerned parties seem prepared to engage in talks to find a lasting and equitable solution to the Ayodhya dispute. Concerned citizens can only wish them well. But there is reason for worry on this score too for similar efforts have been made in the past without success. The talks floundered because no side was prepared to abandon its maximalist position.
So the question suggests itself: what can inspire them to be flexible, pragmatic and forward-looking? The inspiration must be sought in the abiding value of tolerance that has sustained and nourished our civilisation and culture since times immemorial. This calls for respect for all faiths. It calls for a willingness to acknowledge the spiritual and moral impulses to be found in each one of them. The need of the hour is to bring down the walls that divide people and replace them with bridges that allow the followers of all religions to mix freely with one another.
India, as Amartya Sen has so well explained in his writings, has a rich and ancient history of public reasoning. The Indian Buddhists took the lead to set up councils where disputes between different schools of thought were discussed without acrimony and settled to the satisfaction of all. The first such council was held in Rajagriha shortly after the death of Gautama Buddha. Three others followed in later centuries. But the largest and most impressive council took place under the patronage of Emperor Ashoka in Pataliputra (now Patna) in the third century BCE. Its deliberations were not restricted to theological issues alone. They also focussed on social and civic duties.
Two thousand years later, another great emperor, Akbar, sponsored dialogues between the followers of different faiths in his 'Ibadat Khana' ( House of Worship). They included theologians of Hindu and Muslim sects, Zoroastrians and Jews, Christians and Jains as well as a smattering of atheists. He introduced a solar calendar that sought to combine the calendars of various faiths. This was a prelude to his attempt to forge a new religion, the Din-ilahi, which failed to take off in the face of the stiff opposition of obscurantist elements in the palace.
At the end of the 19th century, this tradition of tolerance received a boost thanks to the teachings of Swami Vivekananda. Speaking at the Parliament of Religions, held in Chicago, on September 27, 1873, the Swami asserted that its deliberations proved how and why holiness, purity and charity cannot be the exclusive possessions of any church in the world. Every system has produced men and women of the most exalted character. It is therefore necessary for each religion to help another, not fight with each other; to assimilate, not destroy; to seek harmony and peace, not dissension.
In the 20th century, this tradition was carried forward by Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore. They drew inspiration not only from our hoary spiritual and philosophical texts but also from our saint poets of medieval times.
The Ayodhya verdict presents us with an absolutely rare opportunity to put the bickering and the violence caused by the dispute firmly behind us and move forward on the strength of our time-tested traditions. Every party involved in the case should agree to renounce its claim to the portion of the area that now legally belongs to it to allow for the construction of a centre to promote interfaith dialogue a grander one than any other in the world.
It would bring together experts of all religions and all spiritual traditions, agnostics, apostates and even atheists from across the globe. They would endeavour to uphold values they share in common without seeking to impose a grey uniformity of belief and practice. The interfaith centre would bear vivid testimony to all that is noble and uplifting in the civilisation that has shaped us from the dawn of history to the present day. And, what is more, it would make eminent political sense too.
The writer is chairman of The Times of India Group.
It was clear from the beginning that legal experts would have to scrutinise thousands of pages of the judgements with a fine toothcomb before they formed a rounded opinion about their strengths and infirmities. But our opinion makers hastened to air their views, each one contradicting the other with much abandon.
Where do we go from here? It is clear that all the three litigants in the case will challenge the verdict which divided the disputed area equally between them in the Supreme Court. Each one lays claim to the entire area. No one can say how long the apex court will take to give its judgement. It could take months, even years. In the meantime, there is every reason to fear that political interests will exploit the uncertainty for their narrow ends. This portends a danger for our nation.
Even while the apex court deliberates on the case, the concerned parties seem prepared to engage in talks to find a lasting and equitable solution to the Ayodhya dispute. Concerned citizens can only wish them well. But there is reason for worry on this score too for similar efforts have been made in the past without success. The talks floundered because no side was prepared to abandon its maximalist position.
So the question suggests itself: what can inspire them to be flexible, pragmatic and forward-looking? The inspiration must be sought in the abiding value of tolerance that has sustained and nourished our civilisation and culture since times immemorial. This calls for respect for all faiths. It calls for a willingness to acknowledge the spiritual and moral impulses to be found in each one of them. The need of the hour is to bring down the walls that divide people and replace them with bridges that allow the followers of all religions to mix freely with one another.
India, as Amartya Sen has so well explained in his writings, has a rich and ancient history of public reasoning. The Indian Buddhists took the lead to set up councils where disputes between different schools of thought were discussed without acrimony and settled to the satisfaction of all. The first such council was held in Rajagriha shortly after the death of Gautama Buddha. Three others followed in later centuries. But the largest and most impressive council took place under the patronage of Emperor Ashoka in Pataliputra (now Patna) in the third century BCE. Its deliberations were not restricted to theological issues alone. They also focussed on social and civic duties.
Two thousand years later, another great emperor, Akbar, sponsored dialogues between the followers of different faiths in his 'Ibadat Khana' ( House of Worship). They included theologians of Hindu and Muslim sects, Zoroastrians and Jews, Christians and Jains as well as a smattering of atheists. He introduced a solar calendar that sought to combine the calendars of various faiths. This was a prelude to his attempt to forge a new religion, the Din-ilahi, which failed to take off in the face of the stiff opposition of obscurantist elements in the palace.
At the end of the 19th century, this tradition of tolerance received a boost thanks to the teachings of Swami Vivekananda. Speaking at the Parliament of Religions, held in Chicago, on September 27, 1873, the Swami asserted that its deliberations proved how and why holiness, purity and charity cannot be the exclusive possessions of any church in the world. Every system has produced men and women of the most exalted character. It is therefore necessary for each religion to help another, not fight with each other; to assimilate, not destroy; to seek harmony and peace, not dissension.
In the 20th century, this tradition was carried forward by Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore. They drew inspiration not only from our hoary spiritual and philosophical texts but also from our saint poets of medieval times.
The Ayodhya verdict presents us with an absolutely rare opportunity to put the bickering and the violence caused by the dispute firmly behind us and move forward on the strength of our time-tested traditions. Every party involved in the case should agree to renounce its claim to the portion of the area that now legally belongs to it to allow for the construction of a centre to promote interfaith dialogue a grander one than any other in the world.
It would bring together experts of all religions and all spiritual traditions, agnostics, apostates and even atheists from across the globe. They would endeavour to uphold values they share in common without seeking to impose a grey uniformity of belief and practice. The interfaith centre would bear vivid testimony to all that is noble and uplifting in the civilisation that has shaped us from the dawn of history to the present day. And, what is more, it would make eminent political sense too.
The writer is chairman of The Times of India Group.
