An interesting question-answer session happened at a dinner table some time ago. to be perfectly honest, there weren’t just the two of us, and the conversation is a blend of what the others said as well. So, it was not just him and me, but me and many other ‘hims’. I have edited the ’transcript’ for the sake of flow:
Virat Hindu friend: So how do you feel now that Modi has won?
Me: I think he won fair and square. congratulations to him, best wishes, and luck. To run a country like India, he will need it.
VHf: What, no accusations of rigging?
Me: Nopes. I don’t think it is easy to rig Indian elections at such a vast scale. I think he won fair and square.
VHf: So, what do you think of the riots in 2002 now?
Me: The same as I did before. when as the Chief Minister, he was in charge of the state, and hence, responsible for everything good or bad that happened. By all accounts, it would seem he did nothing to contain the damage to the population, and in fact, is possibly culpable.
VHf: But you just said…?
Me: Yes. I wish him the best as the Prime Minister of the country, and I have respect for the designation he now carries, thanks to democracy, of which I am justly proud. But as a person, I still have little respect for him and his ideas, as well as his style.
VHf: So, now that you have accepted Modi, do you still call yourself secular?
Me: But of course, How is that related?
VHf: But you just said…
Me: He won a democratic election. I respect the post of the Prime Minister. India is a secular country. I do not see any connection between his party’s victory at the hustings and by secularism, or in fact, anyone’s.
VHf: So, have you stopped writing all the crazy shit about atheism and secularism on your Facebook wall now?
Me: No, and I still don’t understand what you are implying.
VHf: Aren’t you afraid? Now that Hinduism has proven what the majority want, how can you peddle your brand of sickularism? Aren’t you afraid of Virat Hindus?
Me: So, now you are a Virat Hindu?
VHf: Since the past 90 days, I have started considering myself a Hindu first.
Me: Yes, an Indian Hindu. I know. I have met quite a few suddenly.
VHf: No, no, not Indian. Only Hindu. That is my primary identity. I do not consider myself Indian, except the passport it provides me. Didn’t you say the same thing? That being Indian is a matter of an accident of birth? Of course, I am happy to be Indian. But I am proud to be a Hindu first.
Me: Yes indeed. I did say something similar. But I did not replace one fantasy identity (nationality) with another (religion). I said that patriotism is as bad as religiosity since both are rooted in fantasy. That is different than you claiming that being a Hindu is your primary identity and being Indian is incidental, though important.
VHf: I am saying the same thing. I am not Indian. My Indian identity is only for the convenience of travel and taxes. I am first and foremost a Hindu.
Me: I want to ask you a question: Please replace the word ‘Hindu with any other religious affiliation, especially ‘Muslim’, and say that sentence again. If a Muslim were to come up to you and say it, what would your response be?
VHf: It is different. Islam is a religion. Hinduism is a way of life.
Me: No, it is not. The way Hinduism is practiced, and the word ‘Hindu is used by a vast majority of people who identify themselves as Hindus, it is a religion like any other. If you want to quote the Rg Veda to prove how spiritual or philosophical or whatever Hinduism is, spare your breath. The garden variety Hindu does not see it that way. The common Hindu sees it as a religion, practices it as a religion, and treats it as so. And, not to put too fine a point on it, so does the law. Hinduism is a religion, with every trait of a religion in it. You cannot say something is undefinable and get away from the responsibility of owning up to the effects of the word you refuse to define, or choose to define in a way that suits only your view-point.
VHf: Come on. I dare you to define ‘Hindu’.
Me: The burden of defining something you claim to be your identity is on you, my friend. no on me. I can only point out if it is either incongruous or incocnsistent with reality. But it is not my job to define who you claim you are, especially if you are using a word that is clearly defined in law. I refuse to be drawn into this.
VHf: That is what I was saying. You are scared now that we are in power.
Me: I do not understand what you mean by ‘we are in power’. I also do not agree that if you call yourself X or Y, the onus is on me to define either X or Y to your satisfaction.
VHf: You Islamophiles are all the same. Tell me, has anyone, absolutely anyone from the Muslim community publicly condemned or apologised for Rotterham. You do know Rotterham right?
Me: I know about Rotterham. I read the news too. However, I cannot agree with you that it is a Muslim’s responsibility to apologise or condemn something that is clearly a crime against humanity. It is the duty of every human to condemn it and make sure that the perpetrators are punished, victims are rehabilitated, and that safeguards are put in place so it cannot happen again. Why do you think Muslims specifically need to apologise?
VHf: Because Muslims used Islam to rape girls.
Me: yes, religion is sick. people do use religion to justify the evilest, cruelest, vilest acts. I agree Islam is a nasty ideology. But then, so is every religion, yours included.
VHf: Muslims rape children. They are unclean. They are lawless. They want to outbreed us. They want to take over the world (As asn aside: I must point out that this was not said so civilly in the actual conversation).
Me: No. That is not correct. What you are saying is that there are people who rape children and want to take over the world, and that they use Islam to justify their acts. I could show you people who do the same and use other justifications, including your religion. These are evil people, period. How is that relevant to this discussion?
VHf: You will soon realise. It is just the beginning. You still have time to switch sides. I will not be able to help you later.
Me: <speechless>
The character of the VHf is a mix of a well-known industrialist and an old golf club-mate of mine who I was meeting after a long time, and others like him. They are all well-educated, well-read, well-travelled, having international exposure, intelligent, play sport, mix with the elite, run a profitable commercial enterprise, employ several hundreds of people, pay taxes on time, are courteous to others, and are in fact, the epitome of what is generally accepted as ‘respectability’.
Here is my problem: If such people can get carried away, how far are we from serious trouble?
