Promoting Nonviolence Violently!

 I had forgotten all about it. Who remembers incidents that happened 52 years ago? But then, as I watched the 1923 movie ‘Society of the Snow’, it started gradually coming back. On October 13, 1972, a short-duration chartered flight had crashed over the Andes. Search for the aircraft was abandoned after eight days, and the survivors were left to fend for themselves under extremely cold conditions. There was hardly anything to eat. A single biscuit for three days, cotton stuffing of the seats, leather of belts and shoes—the survivors tried everything till their body started consuming itself. Their urine output reduced to a few drops of black liquid. The ordeal continued for more than 70 days for the final survivors, who were left with no option but to cannibalise the dead co-passengers.

            Some creatures are carnivore. Other animals are their food. The herbivore mostly eat plants but may also drink milk which is an animal product; and the omnivore eat plants and food of animal origin. Humans, and many human deities, are omnivore. The Muniyandi Swami temple in Madurai offers chicken and mutton biryani as prasad on its annual three-day festival, the Vimala temple in Puri doles out fish and mutton dishes during the Durga Puja festival, the Tarkulha Devi temple in Gorakhpur serves mutton during the Khichari Mela, the Parassinik Kadavu temple in Kerala has a prasad of fish and toddy, and the meat or fish at the Kalighat temple in Kolkata, the Kamakhya temple in Assam, the Tarapith in Birbhim in West Bengal and Dakshineswar in the same state are not unknown (The Times of India, July 13, 2022). Some years ago my aunt was appalled to see eggs being offered at the Pashupatinath temple in Kathmandu. I have seen meat dishes being enjoyed at Durga Puja pandals. Bengali and Maithil priests relish fish and meat. The meat and seafood delicacies served to Budhhist monks in Thailand can easily be the pride of the best gourmet meals. The Dalai Lama is not averse to eating meat. Some people quote an instance of Ram and Lakshman eating deer meat from the Valmiki Ramayana, while some others point out meat-eating instances in the Mahabharata.

            As per a mythological story, the Buddha-to-be was a hare in a previous birth. He decided to perform sacrifice by offering his favourite food, green succulent grass, to humans. Finding no takers, he realised that humans didn’t eat grass but loved to eat animal meat. Exercising the highest sacrifice, he resolved to offer himself as food. Learning about it, Lord Indra came to him in the disguise of a hungry Brahmin and asked for food. The hare jumped in the fire to get cooked. However, Lord Indra saved him and commemorated the ultimate sacrifice by placing an imprint of the hare on the moon. Some other versions of this story also exist, but the gist remains the same.

            Violence, a killing to be exact, is associated with meat eating (to be fair to him, Dalai Lama advocates eating naturally dead animals). Seekers of non-violence oppose the consumption of meat because of that reason. American Indologist Wendy Doniger writes about (Non)Violence as below in The Hindus - An Alternative History:

            The term “nonviolence” (ahimsa) originally applied not to the relationship between humans but to the relationship between humans and animals. Ahimsa means “the absence of the desire to injure or kill,” a disinclination to do harm, rather than an active desire to be gentle; it is a double negative, perhaps best translated by the negative “nonviolence”, which suggests both mental and physical concern for others. The roots of ahimsa may lie in Vedic ritual, in animal sacrifice, in the argument that the priest does not actually injure the animal but merely “pacifies” him; the primary meaning of ahimsa is thus to do injury without doing injury, a casuist argument from its very inception. In the Rig Veda (the earliest Sanskrit text, from c. 1200 BCE), the word ahimsa refers primarily to the prevention of injury or violence to the sacrifice and his offspring, as well as his cattle (10.22.13). 

            For Mahtma Gandhi, nonviolence was the search for truth and love in the sense of selfless service of one’s fellow beings. He considered poverty as the worst form of violence.

In other words, a soldier killing the enemy may be simply performing his duty, a butcher slicing strips of meat may just be creating food for the needy, and an eagle picking up a mountain goat may be just carrying its meal. At the same time, a thief stealing money, a policeman slapping a helpless widow, and a youth setting fire to someone’s house may be indulging in violence.

What must be opposed—meat eating or violence? If meat eating is synonymous with violence and so must be opposed, is it justified to make that protest violent? Isn’t that a fallacy?

Why Singh is King but Syed is not?

 

Let us play a game of guessing!

 

Are you ready? Let’s begin.

 

Imagine for a second that you have just joined as the chief recruitment officer in an organisation in India. You have to fill up positions right from the lowest level to the highest rank, post-haste. As a list of candidates is thrust in your hands, you realise that you don’t know any of the candidates personally and that they belong to the following communities: Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, and Adivasi or tribal.

 

You look only at the religion column on the first CV and think: Perhaps this candidate would be a little foolish, flexible, liberal, hardworking, and brave. The next CV, again only a glance at the religion column, and your thoughts are: This candidate is likely to be conniving, rigid, partisan, pleasure seeking, and cruel.

 

Guess, what are the religions of the two candidates?

 

My guess: If you are a Hindu, your answer would be “The first candidate is a Sikh and the second one is a Muslim”.

 

If your guess was different, I stand to be corrected and shall be thankful for your views on the matter.

 

Though Sant Kabir died some 900 years ago, even now popular Hindi film songs are created on inspirations from that great Indian poet and philosopher. We are aware of his poetry, but are not sure whether he was a Hindu or a Muslim. His religion is irrelevant.

 

For that matter, we don't bother much about the religious bent of the original inhabitants of India, be they the Bhils, the Jarwas, the Santhals, the Bodos, the Mundas, the Bhutias, or some other tribe. The Buddhists and the Jains also mostly pass unnoticed. The gruesome murder of the Christian missionary Graham Staines with his sons, Philip (aged 10) and Timothy (aged 6), by burning them while they were asleep in their vehicle, has also become a twenty-five years old incident now.

 

However, we can’t say the same about the Muslims. They matter. They have been living in India for about 1700 years and form about 14% of the population of the country (census of India, 2011). Though the Sikhs constitute only about 2% of India’s populace (census of India, 2011), they, too, matter significantly in modern India. The Sikh religion was introduced initially about 900 years ago among the residents of the Indian sub-continent.

 

The Adivasis are the original inhabitants of the land, followed by the Jains and the Buddhists, both of whom enjoyed prominence before the Christian Era. These three do not ruffle the behaviour of a common Hindu in India as much as a Sikh or a Muslim does.    

 

Several traits are common between the Sikhs and the Muslims:

 

1.     Both are foodies. They love to eat and cook elaborate and exotic meals. You can’t ignore the popularity of Amritsari Machchhi, Chhole-Bhature, Kulcha, Lassi, Kebab, Samosa, Biryani and Sewai served at a Sikh or a Muslim eatery.

2.     Both respect Indian culture and participate in the festivals of other religions. For example, many effigies in the Dussehra festival across India are made by Muslim artisans. The Haji Ali Dargah in Mumbai and the Hazrat Nizamuddin Dargah in New Delhi are decorated with special lights on Diwali. Important Sikh festivals coincide with Diwali, Dussehra and Holi.   

3.      Both are not shy of picking up the sword. Brigadier Mohammad Usman laid his life in the 1948 Indo-Pak war and was awarded the Maha Vir Chakra. Havildar Abdul Hamid Idrisi was posthumously awarded the Param Vir Chakra for his valour in the 1965 Indo-Pak war. Similarly, Subedar Joginder Singh Sahnan and Naib Subedar Bana Singh were decorated with the Param Vir Chakra during the Sino-Indian war (1962) and Operation Rajiv (1987) respectively. On the flip side, Muslims have been engaged in many communal riots and street brawls. Two Sikh bodyguards, Beant Singh and Satwant Singh, assassinated Indira Gandhi, India’s prime minister, in 1984. Some Sikhs demanded the creation of a separate nation, Khalistan, in India in the early Eighties.  

4.      Both don’t believe in idol worship. They follow the scriptures of the Holy Quran and the Adi Granth and condemn badmouthing other religions.

5.      Both indulge in charity and social service.

 

Muslims have a distinct edge over the Sikhs in certain areas:

 

1.      The number of Muslim exponents of Hindustani classical music far exceeds that of the Sikh maestros.

2.      Muslim artisanship; be it woodwork, brasswork, embroidery, weaving, or calligraphy; is known for its refinement and quality.

3.      Muslim poets, litterateurs, scribes, and journalists have greatly impacted the Indian culture with their work. 

4.      Unlike the Sikhs, who must sport facial hair and a turban that easily distinguish them from the common man, the Muslims are under no such obligation and can easily merge with general public.

 

Though the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 are a blot on India’s constitutional ethos and hate crimes against Sikhs are not uncommon, why is it that a Sikh is generally more acceptable than a Muslim to an average Hindu?  The following points immediately come to mind:      

 

1.      Welfare activities organised by Sikh bodies or individuals are publicised and the general public is encouraged to take their benefit. The needy get free boarding and lodging at Gurudwaras and special relief camps are run by the Sikh after natural calamities.        

2.      The wealth and employment generation by the Sikhs doesn’t remain confined to people of their religion.

3.      Sikhs are never shy of showcasing their achievements. When they do something good, they let the world know about it. 

4.      Sikhs have a magnificent ability to ignore ridicule and move on.

 

While hurting a Sikh may also mean indirectly hurting the Hindu interest, hurting a Muslim doesn’t pose such qualms before misguided Hindus. The common people in present day India may continue to be suspicious of the Muslims till they realise that doing so is not in their favour. Their mindset will change only when the Muslim image is given a makeover. Will that happen? When? All peace-loving Indians would like to know.