Sri Aurobindo on how to deal with the Muslim problem.

Sri Aurobindo on how Hindus should deal with the Muslim problem. Present excerpts from his words from 1906 to 1940 (Courtesy Gautam Dey)

In an earlier part we had shared Maharshi Aurobindo’s views on Gandhi. We now present Aurobindo’s views on how the Hindu community must deal with Muslims. These are excerpts from book ‘India’s Rebirth’ that contains his thoughts at various points of time. 

Excerpts are verbatim from the book, format is when spoken and matter.
September 4, 1906 - Partition Bengal
“The idea that by encouraging Muslim rowdyism, the present agitation may be put down, is preposterous and those who cherish this notion forget that the bully is neither the strongest nor the bravest of men, and that because the self-restraint of Hindus, miscalled cowardice, has been a prominent feature of his national character, he is absolutely incapable of striking straight and striking hard when any sacred situation demands this.
Not has it been proved recently, that the mild Hindu is so absolutely helpless and incapable of defending his rights and liberties as he is painted by his foreign enemies.”
June 19, 1909 - Hindu Muslim
“Of one thing we may be certain, that Hindu-Mahomedan unity cannot be affected by political adjustments or Congress flatteries. It must be sought deeper down, in the heart and in the mind, for where the causes of disunion are; there the remedies must be sought.”
September 4, 1909 - Muslim problem
“Every action for instance which may be objectionable to a number of Mahomedans is now liable to be forbidden because it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and one is dimly beginning to wonder whether the day may not come when worship in Hindu temples may be forbidden on that valid ground.”
April 18, 1923 - Hindu-Muslim unity
“(Sri Aurobindo :) I am sorry they are making a fetish of this Hindu-Muslim unity. It is no use ignoring facts; some day the Hindus may have fight the Muslims and they must prepare for it Hindu-Muslim unity should not mean the subjection of the Hindus. Every time the mildness of the Hindu has given way.
The best solution would be to allow the Hindus to organize themselves and the Hindu-Muslim unity would take care of itself, it would automatically solve the problem. Otherwise we are lulled into a false sense of satisfaction that we have solved a difficult problem when in fact we have only shelved it.”
May 18, 1926 - Khilafat
“Take the Hindu-Muslim problem: I don’t know why our politicians accepted Gandhi’s Khilafat agitation. With the mentality of the ordinary Mahomedan it was bound to produce the reaction it has produced: you fed the force, it gathered power and began to make demands which the Hindu mentality had to rise up and reject. That does not require Supermind to find out, it requires common sense. Then, the Mahomedan reality and the Hindu reality began to break heads at Calcutta. (Refers to the riots in Calcutta the previous month).”
June 29, 1926
“If it is India’s destiny to assimilate all the conflicting elements, is it possible to assimilate the Mahomedan element also?
Why not? India has assimilated elements from the Greeks, the Persians and other nations. But she assimilates only when her central truth is recognized by the other party, and even while assimilating she does it in such a way that the elements absorbed are no longer recognizable as foreign but become part of herself. For instance. We took from the Greek architecture, from the Persian painting, etc.
The assimilation of the Mahomedan culture also was done in the mind to a great extent and it would have perhaps gone further. But in order that the process may be complete it is necessary that a change in the Mahomedan mentality should come. The conflict is in the outer life and unless the Mahomedans learn tolerance I do not think the assimilation is possible.
The Hindu is ready to tolerate. He is open to new ideas and his culture has got a wonderful capacity for assimilation, but always provided that India’s central truth is recognized.”
August 1, 1926 - Muslim problem
“The attempt to placate the Mahomedans was a false diplomacy. Instead of trying to achieve Hindu-Muslim unity directly, if the Hindus had devoted themselves to national work, the Mahomedans would have gradually come of themselves….
This attempt to patch up a unity has given too much importance to the Muslims and it has been the root of all these troubles.”
May 28, 1940 - Gandhi’s attitude to Muslims
“Have you read what Gandhi has said in answer to a correspondent? He says that if eight crores of Muslims demand a separate State, what else are the twenty-five crores of Hindus to do but surrender? Otherwise there will be civil war.
(A disciple:) I hope that is not the type of conciliation he is thinking of.
Not thinking of it, you say? He has actually said that and almost yielded. If you yield to the opposite party beforehand, naturally they will stick strongly to their claims. It means that the minority will rule and the majority must submit. The minority is allowed its say, “We shall be the ruler and you our servants. Our hard [word] will be law; you will have to obey.” This shows a peculiar mind I think this kind of people are a little cracked.” June 21, 1940 – Kashmir
“In Kashmir, the Hindus had all the monopoly. Now if the Muslim demands are acceded to, the Hindus will be wiped out.”
November 28, 1940 - Gandhi’s Ahimsa
“Something in him takes delight in suffering for its own sake. Even the prospect of suffering seems to please him… It is the Christian idea that has taken hold of him.
The English are not quite wrong when they say that the Indian must settle their own differences. The Lucknow Pact has become a big political blunder. The Mahomedans, they want to rule India.”

General Elections and Whatsapp Wars

In the run up to the general elections in India, for at least about a year, a phenomenon

everyone has noticed, and many have been involved in (including me!) is what I am calling “whatsapp wars”. In the many whatsapp groups of which almost all middle class Indians are part, the more political minded ones have engaged in fairly heated arguments, and in many cases, separation and end of friendships. I too left my engineering group permanently, and my relationships with a few of my neighbors / batchmates / acquaintances have pretty much ended. I have known many others in similar situations. In fact, the phenomenon was even reported in the mainstream media sometimes.

What really happens that makes people, otherwise friendly, to start hating each other with such intensity? And what should people do to moderate things? Are relationships more important, or are political biases masquerading as principles and values more important? Having been a part of it a few times, I have some thoughts around these questions, and I thought of putting them down and sharing with some folks I know and perhaps care about.

First lets see what happens – a “Right Wing” (called RW, but not really right winger in the classical sense) Hindu Nationalist pro – Modi person posts something that a secular / liberal person, or rather, one who believes he is one, finds highly objectionable. The number of occasion when the reverse happens are relatively few. Now once objection is raised, a complaint is lodged with the admin of the whatsapp, usually with a threat to quit the group. The admin, who is usually anxious to maintain the group integrity, goes to the offender and requests him to moderate. At times, this leads to behavior change if only temporarily. Other times, the damage is permanent and someone or the other leaves the group.

This is usually the cycle. I found some of the batchmates of one of my colleges too foul mouthed. Not because of their views, but because of the language they used – one of them, in reply to something I posted just said “you are scum”, I quit the group. I was willing to put up with political views, howsoever extreme, but not this kind of outright personal abuse. I, by the way, am a right winger myself, a strong supporter of Modi. On other occasions, I have caused people to quit one of my groups, though thankfully never permanently. I derive some solace from the fact that even those who went to the extent of quitting the group because of my views later acknowledged that I was never uncivil.

To me, it is always a source of distress when this kind of a “separation” happens. Sure enough, some of our views will be considered extreme by someone or the other and vice versa. But personal abuse, threats, demands to silence, that is something I never am able to come to terms with. However, like with everything else, I did endeavor to understand why this happens, and here is what I think goes on:

With me, things on whatsapp group have always gone out of control only on one issue – the nature of Islam. There is something about this matter that some people, instead of responding to a comment with a counter – logic, as they usually do in other matters, simply go ballistic and try to silence me and some others with similar views. On every other matter, I can write the most provocative message, and it will at most elicit a frown and someone pointing out why I might be wrong. On Islam, the outrage of secular / liberals is palpable instantly. Of course, they claim they are upset by the tone of religious discrimination. But that does not explain extreme emotion. Why, for instance, won't they answer me with some logic? Why won't they first show me how exactly I advocated discrimination (I don't think I ever do), rather than demand belligerently that I be silenced.

There is an answer to this. I will lay that out before you. But to start with, I will tell you a very small episode from my life that is analogous to the overreaction of political partisans on whats-app, and illustrate the phenomenon more clearly.

I had a very good friend some 35 years back. In fact we are still connected and he is still a good friend though we have not met for decades. We were the sort of friends who pulled each others' legs with impunity, fully assured that we will remain friends even after taking liberties with each other. I am going to call this friend Markos. He is a Keralite Christian and a really good human being.

As it happens, Markos had a tendency which in my mind was a minor flaw. I did not at all care that he had it. But something interesting happened when I used it to pull his leg once.

Markos liked to pretend that he liked art movies. I thought he really did not enjoy the boring insipid fare that passed for high art. I thought he was just putting on an appearance of liking them, just to come across as a sophisticated guy who liked high art. So what happened when he saw one of these flop movies and came back and told me “I really liked the movie”. I was the wise guy and shot back, full of mischief: “You only think you liked the movie”. I would not do that with anyone but a close friend like Markos. And how do you think Markos reacted? He ceased to be a dear friend instantly! He absolutely went ballistic! He raved and ranted against me and started pointing out every flaw he noticed in me since we first met a few years previously.

I was taken aback of course. I protested that I was only having some fun at his expense. But he was not soothed. He continued his tirade for quite a while more. I did not react after this. After a few days, as it happens with youngsters, our friendship was back to nearly normal.

Moral of the story: If someone fools himself about something, and you point it out, he will go berserk on you.

Now back to Islam and whatsapp groups.

Those secularists who read these thoughts of mine will again burn with rage, but I am certain that they go ballistic because some RW guy reminded them that they are fooling themselves about the nature of Islam. Let us look at some beliefs they hold, or rather, fool themselves that they hold about Islam:

1. Islam is a religion of peace

2. Islam is just like any other religion

3. Muslims are just like other people, they should be seen as such

4. A demographic change has no implication for peace in society

5. Most Indian Muslims feel no loyalty for Pakistan

6. Most Indian Muslims feel loyalty to India

I can list several more.

It is immaterial here how true these assumptions are. Of course, I believe much in these assumptions is false. But that point is not central here. The central point is – deep down the secularists also believe these assumptions are mostly false. It is just that they won't admit it to themselves. In fact, they go to great lengths to continue to lie to themselves. They never examine the whole matter with any rigor. Because they are afraid of what might come out if they did.

Like Markos fooled himself that he liked the movie, they too fool themselves.

And then, when someone brings home to them about the self – deception, they go ballistic!

What is the way out of it then? And when I discuss this final part, I will even admit the possibility that my analysis might be faulty. But first let me proceed on the assumption that it isn't.

If indeed they admit the possibility that they might be engaging in self – deception, they owe it to everyone, including themselves, that they thoroughly study the subject. Islam is the number one political issue in the world. It literally takes thousands of lives every year. In extreme cases, such as when ISIS ruled parts of the world (supported, I might add, by a “mainstream” nation) women were raped and sold like cattle! If mankind is faced with something so horrifying, then every thinking person must have full knowledge of the roots of the problem. No one has to believe people like me, though I do think we spent a lot of time and energy studying it. But they must do it for their own sake if nothing else. It is not an innocuous matter like a boring art movie that can be left alone.

Assuming I am wrong (very unlikely IMO). Then they must answer why they react with such fury when the subject comes up. After all, no one ever sees this kind of fury when similar statements are made about Hindus for instance. In fact, they themselves engage in fairly offensive commentary about other religions, particularly Hinduism, and at most get a rebuttal from some RW guy. No one ever demands to silence them. Moreover, I would like to see at least one common assumption held by “anti – Muslim bigots” (which is how they describe anyone who puts question marks on Muslim behavior) proven false by them clinically and rigorously. Not responded with outrage, rhetoric and non – sequitur.

Is Sam Pitroda Crazy?

Sam Pitroda has put his foot in his mouth thereby giving the BJP a huge stick with which to be beat Congress. A statement of that kind made three or so weeks away from general elections seems suicidal. This begs the question – Is he crazy?

The simple answer is NO. He is not crazy or suicidal (politically). So what explains the outburst? A “cui bono” analysis is needed here. A lot of peaceniks and left wing loonies will talk about peace even over dead Indian bodies. Guys like Sudheendra Kulkarni, Judge Katju or the entire aman ki asha brigade are repeat offenders of this. But they can afford to say it and get away with it because they do not have to face the voters. Pitroda is very closely associated with Congress and knows what he says has political ramifications for Congress especially the Gandhis. So on whose behalf did he make the statement?

Twitter handle @DrGPradhan has my support despite being reviled by many twitteratti on the right. I consider him as a fellow Modi supporter. For me that is enough. One thing he harps on is an active cooperation between 10 JP and Pindi. On the face of it, both have a common enemy – Narendra Modi. But the theory of cooperation between ISI/Pakistan and the grand old party of India, even to avid Congress haters, may seem a bit farfetched. It would seem too much. But it is this context, Pitroda’s intentions can be explained.

Imran Khan is an isolated man. His plans for Pakistan’s economy lie in tatters. He looks weak in front of the public and knows can be made a sacrificial goat by the army. He knows that there is no talking to Modi sarkar without giving them what they want (and he can’t acquiesce to those demands because the army would not let him). The only thing he can do is influence the Indian voters through his proxies. First attempt was through JeM who carried out the Pulwana attacks. They had hoped for a Manmohan Singh like response which would lead to Modi’s electoral loss. Instead they got the Balakot attack which totally changed the security paradigm in South Asia forever.

So Imran reached out to his other proxies and asked them if somehow public opinion can be changed in the favor of Pakistan. In face of Indian media’s inability to do so, that responsivity fell on Congress. Enter Sam Pitroda who though he was close enough to Congress be taken seriously but removed enough to not damage Congress. Maybe what he said could have been worded better but evern as it was, it would’ve worked with anyone except Modi. Unfortunately, Modi is such skilled politician that he turned it around and made it all about nationalism. Boom! What was supposed to be a favor for a friend across the border has now become a millstone around the neck of the very people Pitroda was supposed to protect.

Maybe, just maybe, Gaurav Pradhan's worst case scenario is correct and 10 JP and Pindi really are connected.

Peace Was a Possibility

Imagine a Scenario.

It is after 25th Dec 2015. PM Modi’s visit to Pakistan is over. A strong and allegedly a hawkish Indian leader touched the Pakistani PM’s mother’s feet. The symbolism screams peace.

PM Sharif decides a radical turnaround of decade old policies. Realistically assesses friendship with China. Looks back at history and realizes that long lasting peace can only be possible when negotiated between strong leaders (the old edict of Roman Emperor Hadrian (AD 76–138) "peace through strength or, failing that, peace through threat). Sharif decides to abandon the failed strategic depth policy in Afghanistan and leaves the hapless Afghans to their own devices. He then, safe under the nuclear umbrella, puts J&K on the backburner and negotiates mutually beneficial trade deal with “Baniya (a common Pakistani invective for Hindus) Modi and turn the South Asian Subcontinent around. Modi becomes the new Reagan and Sharif the new Gorbachev.

Imagine that. How many lives would’ve been saved? How much profit would’ve been made? Every economic initiative of Sharif and then Imran Khan would have yielded dividends.

But it did not. Fueled by a false sense of security and superiority, terror attacks continued Modi kept getting pushed into a corner until Pulwana attacks. It then led to Balakot attacks and now Pakistan and their army stands naked in front of the world and worse in front of their own people. The money from Saudi Arabia is now being spent on defending Pakistan and the infrastructure help from China has now become an easy target.

Pakistan has had all kinds of advantages in the past. It is their intense Hindu hatred which has destroyed all those advantages and continues to destroy any and every opportunity they get. Balakot attack has destroyed the myth of Pakistani army as their only functioning organization. Modi gave them the biggest opportunity for peace in their short history. Instead of taking advantage of that, they are standing over the ruins of Balakot and any hope for betterment of their unfortunate country.