NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
THE STATES
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES
SEARCH REDIFF

Search the Internet          Tips

Recent Columns

Your Regression, My      Honour, We All Fall      Down Quake Diary III: What      I Thought Quake Diary II: What      It Brought Quake Diary: What      It Wrought Most Valuable      Commodity

A Question of Hatreds

It's not just in what drives a bloodthirsty mob to set a railway coach crammed with humans on fire. Nor is it just in what drives bloodthirsty mobs to drag other humans from their homes and burn them, or murder them in other grisly ways. The hatred is also in the viciousness that so many ordinary folks express.

You can find it everywhere; from only the letters I have got in the last couple of weeks, here's a sample.

A man wrote to me that he "would rather exterminate Muslims". Another claimed he was a devout Jain, but "I hate the Muslims like anything". After accusing me of a variety of slimy things, a third dude pronounced me "a shallow-minded m*********** who wears 55inch glasses". And then there was the lady who was irate when I pointed out that the police had denied the story of girls abducted from the train in Godhra -- because hadn't the rioting been "instigated and sustained" by this very story? (Note the remarkably credible logic at work here: the story triggered the rioting, she thinks; the story is shown up as the nonsense it is; the lady is upset that I say so, for now what will explain the rioting in her mind?)

I'm left wondering: What will it take to find a way out of these hatreds? Especially when they twist minds so fantastically?

Whatever it will take, we'll have to find a way. Because the way things are going, the way these hatreds are stoked and acted on, the way everyone seems intent on pointing fingers around (me included), I can see only a frightful calamity ahead. One that will dwarf the calamities we have already suffered.

So this column is my attempt to find a way. It's addressed to you.

I once listened as a journalist I know fielded questions from young journalism students. One asked: Isn't it true that most of these so-called poor people enjoy being poor, so they can beg for money, avoid work and get all kinds of benefits free? The journalist took a deep breath, counted to ten, and replied: Would you enjoy being poor? Then why do you assume that others will? Please, I implore you, imbue the other guy with the same humanity you believe is in you. (I paraphrase both question and answer, but I assure you that at least two words above were actually said: "enjoy" and "implore".)

So here's principle #1 in my attempt, and it underlies everything else: imbue the other guy with humanity.

I cannot accept that the ordinary Hindus I meet daily applaud the massacres across Gujarat -- the massacres revolted me, therefore I presume they revolted them. In turn, I expect people who disagree with me to believe that I did not applaud the Godhra atrocity -- it revolted them, therefore they must reasonably presume that it revolted me. (It did.)

Whatever our political differences, let's grant this much to each other.

Where I sit, this means many things. Consider where one of them leads me. I have no use for temples and mosques, nor for questions of faith. Other, more tangible things are much more important to me. But just as that's so, I must comprehend that faith and temples and mosques are profound issues to innumerable other people. Therefore, the demand for that Ram temple cannot be judged on historical evidence or by courts and legislatures. In the end, the demand is founded on faith. And it will be answered by assessing whether that faith outweighs other considerations.

Take another. During the Bombay riots of 1992-93, I sat through one or two neighbourhood gatherings in which a retired army officer gave us tips about how we could protect ourselves if thugs flooded into our buildings. To me, it was clear: the thugs he meant were the Shiv Sena. Now I myself saw much evidence of Sena crimes during the riots. But no, they never did attack my building. Yet people like me lived in fear for days on end. In much the same way, there were Hindus who lived through days in terror, fearful that Muslims were about to assault them and their families. For several nights, they gathered weapons and sat on the beach at Dadar, ready to battle the invasion by sea-borne Muslims that was rumoured already to be on its way.

People like me ridiculed that particular episode. But the fear those Hindus felt on the beach was no less real than the fear I felt for my home. Or: the terror on the other side is no less real for being on the other side. A subtle point, but one to make and understand nevertheless.

Principle #2, which is related: Nothing is gained by thinking of the other guy as an ogre. It might help me vindicate my own beliefs, but it doesn't help us find solutions. When the starting point in our debate is that you enjoy mass murder, the debate will never move beyond shouting: which is just what we see everywhere.

For example: I don't care for Varsha B's take on the world we live in. I believe she is utterly wrong (which is what she thinks of me). But it serves nobody to also believe -- as people sometimes tell me I must, as people say of Arundhati Roy -- that VB is just "seeking publicity", or says what she does "for the sake of saying something" (whatever that means), or that she is a mindless, unfeeling creep.

The easy thing to do is to think such things. Because it makes me feel good about myself in comparison. After all, I never seek publicity; everything I say comes out of serious deliberation; and I'm such a sensitive, thoughtful young man. Right? In contrast to that caricature of VB, of course I am. So I'm better than a caricature. Yippee! Now what?

No, VB came to her beliefs, her view on the world, through much the same process of reasoning that brought me to my beliefs. Only, she ended up with radically different views. I have to understand, accept, both processes and views: partly because I will fight them every inch, partly because you have to recognize an opponent, understand her worth, before you fight her. After all, not even a Tendulkar goes into a Test believing he will have five-year-olds bowling lollipops at him.

Principle #3 grows from there: compromise begins with examining which of my beliefs I am willing to give up. Then, and only then, can I demand the same of someone else.

In November 2000, the then foreign minister of Israel, Shlomo Ben-Ami, made a remarkable statement about his country. Criticizing a government document listing Palestinian crimes, he told his Cabinet colleagues: "Accusations made by a well-established society about how a people it is oppressing is breaking rules to attain its rights do not have much credence." [Ha'aretz, November 28, 2000].

Think about this for a minute. This was the first time an Israeli leader acknowledged that his country was oppressing Palestinians, that they were a people fighting for their rights. What did it take for Ben-Ami to make such an admission, such a dramatic departure from everything Israel believes about their relationship with Palestinians? What were the prospects for peace his admission opened up? What is the price his country has paid by far greater oppression of Palestinians under Ariel Sharon? (March 28: Palestinian suicide bomber kills 20 in Netanya).

For me: take my beliefs about the wrangle over Ayodhya. Some are: The BJP sees it as a purely political pack horse, to be ridden as long as it can travel political miles. A historical wrong from the 16th century is not righted by destruction today. The whole temple movement has little to do with history and faith anyway, and everything to do with showing Muslims they will never be equal Indian citizens. Which is why December 6, 1992, was a day of shame and tragedy for India. You get the picture.

These have counters on the other side of the fence. I don't like them, but they are there: That mosque was a sign of Hindu, and Indian, subjugation; that's why it had to be removed. Many in the BJP believe so -- certainly many of its supporters do so -- and to them it is truly more than just a political bandwagon. To Hindus, that is sacred ground because Ram was born there. For these reasons, December 6, 1992, was a day of Hindu, and Indian, honour and redemption. A day of celebration. You get the picture again.

Any solution to this Ayodhya mess will have to bridge the yawning gulf between these positions: find a compromise. No compromise is possible if I cling righteously to my views and expect you to throw away yours. So I am faced with the question: which of my beliefs am I willing to give up?

Believe me, I think about this a lot. I have some ideas, though for now they will remain unshared. Meanwhile, which beliefs are you, are each of us, willing to give up? How many of us can find the courage Shlomo Ben-Ami did?

Principle #4: Question everything. Everyone. Yes, me included, this column included. Your hatreds, my hatreds, definitely included.

Dilip D'Souza