Agnostic Khushwant Read online

  Judaism was unable to accept the emergence of Jesus Christ and denounced Him as a heretic. Christians never forgave the Jews for what they did to their Messiah and continue to persecute them to this day. Then Christianity splintered into many churches: Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Protestant and dozens of others. Catholics and Protestants have waged wars against each other and perpetrated massacres of each others’ populations. When Islam rose out of paganism, Judaism and Christianity, Muslims suffered the same fate. They repaid the Jews and the Christians in the same way.

  Smaller religious communities like the Sikhs did not escape this malaise either. While they were able to make adjustments with the numerically more powerful Hindus and Muslims, they could not tolerate subcommunities that broke away from the Sikh mainstream.

  Two groups, the Namdharis and the Nirankaris, which recognized gurus of their own, were ostracized. Neither of them is allowed inside gurudwaras and no amritdhari (a Sikh who has been baptized as a Khalsa by taking amrit or nectar) may have matrimonial relationship with them. Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (Chapter 4 for details) turned the wiping out of Nirankaris into an article of faith. Their sacred books, Avtar Bani and Yugpurush, were condemned as derogatory of the Sikh Gurus (I was unable to locate anything offensive in them) and a Nirankari leader, Baba Gurbachan Singh, was murdered in April 1980 in Delhi.

  From the outside, Islam gives the impression of being a unified, monolithic religious group. It is nothing of the sort. It broke into two immediately after the death of Prophet Mohammed. The larger section accepted the succession of the first three caliphs: Abu Bakr, Umar ibn al-Khattab and Uthman ibn Affan. A smaller group (Shias) regarded them as usurpers and recognized only Hazrat Ali, the Prophet’s son-in-law, as the true successor. Ever since, the Islamic world has been split into the Shias and Sunnis. Their hostility continues to this day. While the Sunnis have not had many breakaway groups and only follow different schools of jurisprudence, the Shias have virtually dozens of subgroups with their own mosques, rituals and graveyards.

  Muslim intolerance towards breakaway groups has been noticeably fierce, especially with respect to the Bahais and the Quadianis. The Bahai faith is regarded as ‘deeply heretical’ in Iran and, after the 1979 revolution (led by Ayatollah Khomeini) that led to the overthrow of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, known popularly as the Shah of Iran, the new government reversed ‘the Shah’s policy of toleration’. According to an official circular:

  … in view of your not being a follower of one of the official and recognized religions of the country, you were thus dismissed from the Ministry of Education; we state the following: The Ministry of Education, which has come into being only through the justice of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the blood and martyrdom of thousands of Muslims, men and women, cannot tolerate, like the previous regime, the existence of followers of the Bahai sect in its Educational Unit, and in this way defile and deviate the minds and thoughts of innocent students … the holy threshold of education should not be left to people like yourself, who are against the best interests of Islam .… In conclusion, I would like to remind you that the employment of Iranians who are not followers of recognized religions, such as Muslims, Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians, in Government Offices is against the law. Therefore your dismissal according to the existing law is a minimum punishment. No doubt the maximum punishment will befall those who employed you – who very shortly will be tried in the Islamic Revolutionary Court …

  During the reign of Ayatollah Khomeini, hundreds of Bahais were executed in Iran for no crime except that of being Bahais.

  Pakistanis did not lag behind in their fervour in persecuting Quadianis. This group, which branched out in 1889 under the leadership of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed of Quadian (now in Indian Punjab), has done more to spread the message of Islam in Africa and Europe than any other set of Muslim missionaries. It has also produced some very distinguished men like Chaudhary Zaffarullah Khan, judge of the Supreme Court and later foreign minister of Pakistan, and Professor Abdus Salam, the only Pakistani winner of the Nobel Prize (for physics in 1979). But the Quadianis have, nevertheless, been the target of Muslim fundamentalism. Their township Rabwah, along the Jhelum, witnessed a lot of violence before the country’s highest judiciary declared Ahmediyyas (Quadianis) to be non-Muslims. They are not allowed to call for prayers from the minarets of their mosques and not even allowed to describe themselves as Muslims. They have declared themselves a minority.

  The only point of contention is that the ulema (a body of Muslim scholars) maintains that Islam recognizes Mohammed as the last of the Prophets (Khatmun Nabi) and anyone who accepts a successor is a heretic. The Ahmediyyas strenuously deny that they ever question Mohammed’s singular Prophethood and look upon their Mirza Sahib and his successors simply as guides. This is not good enough for the Pakistani ulema.

  The fact that the Aga Khan is regarded as a living God by his Ismaili followers and that there are innumerable Muslim sects based on worship of peers is considered beside the point. Logic has never been the strong point of any established religion. Nor has there been room for accommodation of a different point of view in the minds of religious bigots.

  In early June 1984, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi ordered the Indian Army into the holiest shrine of the Sikhs: the Golden Temple at Amritsar (Chapter 1). Her two Sikh bodyguards (Beant Singh and Satwant Singh) avenged the insult by killing her on 31 October 1984. (Beant Singh was killed by other security forces and Satwant Singh was arrested.) Since Sikhs had killed Mrs Gandhi, a section of Hindus avenged her murder by killing thousands of Sikhs. One of Mrs Gandhi’s assassins (Satwant Singh) and his accomplice (Kehar Singh) were sentenced to be hanged to death. As a consequence, ‘Khalistani’ terrorists took revenge by hanging a few innocent Hindus. (Some Sikhs wanted a separate nation, which was to be called ‘Khalistan’.)

  The point is that the spirit of revenge is deeply ingrained in the human psyche. It is not an animal instinct because animals do not kill to take revenge; they do so only in self-defence or for obtaining food.

  All religious systems have tried in their own ways to exorcize the spirit of revenge from the human mind. Some have achieved notable successes in this direction by adopting penal codes that forbid people from settling their scores themselves and making punishment for crime the business of the state.

  This significant step was taken in the transition from the Old to the New Testament. Judaism sanctioned ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’. In the Sermon on the Mount, which forms the most important part of the New Testament, Jesus is quoted as preaching: ‘Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man shall sue thee at the law, and take away the coat, let him have the cloak also.’ (Matthew: 5:39-40.)

  One must be fair to Judaism. Although it sanctioned retaliation in equal measure, it did not justify a person taking the law into his or her own hands. It was not for the individual whose eye had been pierced or tooth knocked out to execute revenge but to lodge a complaint and submit to a court’s judgement whether or not the person who did him or her harm was to be punished in the same manner or compensated by a sum of money. ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’ was also an integral part of the Judaic faith.

  Islam, which took a great deal from Judaism and Christianity, made a similar compromise between crime and punishment. It accepted the principle of eye for an eye, but allowed compensation in place of similar punishment as legitimate and elevated forgiveness to the pedestal of supreme virtue.

  Badla or revenge has never been sanctioned by any of the religious systems of Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism or Sikhism. Jainism made ahimsa (non-violence) paramo dharma – the prime duty – and even forbade killing of animals for food. Likewise, the Buddha preached non-violence in face of violence. Sikhism of the first nine Gurus, as compiled in the Granth Sahib, also preaches the moral superiority
of turning the other cheek over retaliation. Amongst the most quoted are lines from the Muslim divine Baba Fareed (Fareedudin Ganjshakar: 1173–1266):

  Jo tain maara mukkian

  Tina na maaren ghum

  Apanery ghar jai kay

  Payr tina dey chum

  (Those who hit you with their fists

  Do not turn and hit them back;

  Seek them out in their homes

  And kiss their feet.)

  Guru Gobind Singh, the last of the Gurus, turned the Sikhs into a militant fraternity and exhorted dharmayudha – the battle of righteousness – in face of unwarranted aggression. But he did not justify a person taking the law into his or her own hands. And he sanctioned the use of force by a people only after all other means had been tried and had failed; it was only then that they were to draw the sword. In a memorable passage, he wrote: ‘I came into the world charged with the duty to uphold the right in every place, to destroy sin and evil. Holy men, know it well in your hearts that the only reason I took birth was to see that righteousness may flourish: that the good may live and tyrants be torn out by their roots.’

  There are other aspects of the spirit of revenge that need to be considered. There may be some justification for wanting to avenge the wrong done to you by paying the wrongdoer in the same coin. To wit:

  Tit for tat;

  Remember that;

  You killed my dog,

  I’ll kill your cat.

  You may not rest in peace till you have maimed or murdered the man who raped your child. Such levelling of scores has its own logic. But when vengeance is sought to be extended to people of the wrongdoer’s caste or community, its implications can be horrifying. This unfortunately has become a regular pattern of our lives. When one man desecrates a place of worship, we not only desecrate his people’s places of worship, but also seek to avenge ourselves against his clan or community. The sickening incidents of communal riots bear testimony to this extended spirit of revenge. And often we extend the domain of vengeance against the entire society by organizing bandhs and gheraos, derailing trains, burning buses and causing damage to public property.

  It would be naive to expect that religious sermons will curb the desire to seek revenge. Forgiveness is a very rare commodity. There are not many in the world who, like Jesus Christ on the cross, would say of his tormentors: ‘Lord, forgive them for they know not what they do.’ However hard it may be to forgive the wrongdoer, it is the only antidote to revenge.

  British humorist and writer Israel Zangwill has a lovely short story about how a place can acquire sanctity and people who have blind faith at times benefit from it. It is about a remote village in eastern Poland where lived a poor Jewish woodcutter with his young wife. Near their home lived a middle-aged woman (a widow) with her son who had been born paralytic. She had spent whatever she had having him treated, but it had been of no avail.

  Came Christmas and the village and the surrounding country was under a layer of snow. The woodcutter had made a little money selling firewood and was looking forward to eating a square meal after a long while. Early on the morning of Christmas Day, the woodcutter’s wife went out into the woods to pick holly and mistletoe to decorate her home.

  After she had gathered what she wanted, she came by a pond frozen with ice. It occurred to her that she had not had a bath for many days and her husband, though Jewish, might wish to celebrate the occasion in other ways. She took off her clothes, smashed the ice and jumped into the icy water. No sooner had she done so, she heard human voices approaching. She got out of the pool, gathered her clothes and ran naked into the woods towards her home.

  The human voices belonged to two farmers who happened to be out with their guns to see if they could get a wild hare or some other game for their Christmas dinner. They saw the figure of a young girl come out of the icy pool and disappear in the snows. They came back to the village and spread the story that they had seen the Virgin Mary. Soon the entire village was out to see the pond. All the signs of someone having bathed in it were there. Surely, if the Virgin had come there, the water must be blest.

  The middle-aged widow heard of the story. She picked up her paralysed son in her arms and hurried to the pond. With full faith that a miracle would happen, she ducked her son in the chilly water. The shock did to the boy what medicines and therapy had failed to do. He was cured of his paralysis.

  The story of the miracle cure spread like wildfire. The trickle of pilgrims became a regular stream. The Jewish woodcutter and his wife made good business. They filled small phials with water from the pond and sold it at high prices for its medicinal properties. The site was examined by a representative of the Pope who confirmed that the Holy Virgin had indeed visited the place and many people had been cured of their ailments by drinking the water. A huge cathedral was built in the village and it soon became a place of pilgrimage. The one to benefit the most was the poor Jewish woodcutter who, through the sale of millions of bottles full of ‘sacred’ water, became a millionaire.

  Zangwill’s story is, of course, apocryphal. But it does contain an element of truth insofar as people who have blind faith in miracles are known to have miraculous recoveries. I am not sure of the origin of Lourdes in France, but everyone who goes there will see innumerable crutches abandoned by those who could not walk as evidence of their having been healed. Millions go to Lourdes for treatment. Perhaps a handful, already on the verge of being healed, get healed. But they perpetuate the legend that such miracles are possible.

  Belief in miracles exists in every religious system. The outstanding example is the Hindu’s belief in the purifying qualities of the waters of the river Ganga and various ‘sacred’ tanks such as those at Kurukshetra (in Haryana) and Pushkar near Ajmer (in Rajasthan). The ‘holy dip’ is a uniquely Hindu-Sikh phenomenon. Stellar constellations determine the more auspicious days like the Kumbhs when the ritual bath is said to be more beneficial. Some holy baths are believed to even wipe out all sins committed in the past.

  Guru Nanak proclaimed: ‘I have no miracle save the name of the Lord.’ Despite that, many miracles have become attached to his name and the places he visited. A fresh-water spring, not far from Rawalpindi (now in Pakistan), has an overhanging rock with the imprint of a human palm dug into it. The faithful believe it is the palm of Guru Nanak as he stretched out his hand to stop a boulder loosened by an envious Muslim peer so that it would fall on him. The gurudwara that has come up on the site is known as ‘Panja Sahib’. There is an annual pilgrimage of Sikhs from all over the world to this gurudwara.

  There is another place in the Himalayas where there is a tree growing the reetha fruit, which is normally very bitter. The fruit of this particular tree is very sweet because the Guru sat under its shade. It is no use telling devout Sikhs that there is, in fact, a botanical species of reetha that is sweet.

  As with the Hindus, so with the Sikhs, waters of temple tanks are endowed with sanctity. Bathing in ‘the pool of nectar’, from which Amritsar derives its name, is de rigueur for all pilgrims. In addition, water from a sacred spot such as Har Ki Pauri in Haridwar as well as from behind the central shrine of the Golden Temple is drunk with reverence and collected in bottles to take home for relatives. The same reverence is accorded to the spring water of Gurudwara Bangla Sahib in New Delhi. Here, the infant Guru, Har Krishan, lived for a while before he succumbed to small pox.

  It can hardly be maintained that belief in miracles is an integral part of religion. Many devoutly religious people scoff at them as spurious accretions to beguile the superstitious and the stupid. Indeed, a case could be made out to ban propagation of miracles for the harm they do to gullible people. And in such propagation our film industry leads the way. I can list here a number of films that go on to become superhits and earn millions by just exploiting the theme of miracles or at least inserting a scene or two. For example, remember Manmohan Desai’s Amar, Akbar, Anthony (1977) where, in a particular scene, Nirupa Roy (the mother of the three heroes)
gets back her eyesight at a temple of Shirdi Sai Baba? Over the years, every big or small producer and director has exploited the common man’s belief in religious miracles. I recall that in the year 1969, producers Ram Singh and Pannalal Maheshwari made a film made called Nanak Naam Jahaz Hai (the name of Nanak is a ship, to take you across the waters of life) directed by Ram Maheshwari. The theme was that of a young man who has lost his sight in an accident. When all medical treatment failed, he undertook a pilgrimage to the major gurudwaras. Ultimately, at the Hari Mandir at Amritsar, a divine light came out of the temple and restored his vision. What a success story it was! Millions of Sikhs and Hindus saw this film many times over. In fact, there were reports that cinema halls screening the film had become more of pilgrimage centres with hordes of jhathas (groups) from villages and towns visiting them! While watching the movie, people would even throw money towards the screen while shouting in exultation: ‘Jo Bole So Nihal Sat Sri Akal.’ The film makers made millions. And spread a message of crass superstition. I could go on and on with a list of such examples not only from the film world but also from the television serial world. Indeed, miracles are the biggest money-spinners of institutionalized religion.

  CHAPTER THREE

  THE BEAUTY OF THE QURAN

  The Quran is one of the world’s greatest scriptures and some of its prose is as powerful as that of the Old Testament …. Numerous passages can be read for their moral messages or their literary excellence. Several of the shorter suras [chapters] have powerful poetic imagery. And the Quran has lot a lot of music in it.