Prometeo:
Has dedicado dos reflexiones, “
El insulto de los musulmanes a los estadounidenses” y “
RE: El insulto de los musulmanes a los estadounidenses”, al asunto de unos musulmanes por su insistencia de eregir una mezquita cerca del lugar donde cayeron las Torres Gemelas en Nueva York.
Mis respuestas a tu reflexión fueron muy duras, como a veces ocurre en momentos en los que tocas algunos temas de religión, cosa rara cuando coincidimos casi siempre en asuntos políticos y sindicales. Tu segunda reflexión de esta serie de dos capítulos pretende amarrar vela para re-evaluar lo antes dicho, que me parece un acto de mucha honestidad tuya, que admiro porque suelo ser más terco que tú a la hora de cambiar de opinión. A veces se debe a que a esta edad que tengo, pienso mucho más las cosas antes de decirlas, no por las consecuencias porque en eso admito que me amarro a mi torpeza de no considerar mucho las consecuencias de mis palabras, sin embargo, pienso mucho en la coherencia de mis ideas antes de decirlas o escribirlas.
Pensé escribirte en tu foro de comentarios como en la vez anterior, pero, al escribir me di cuenta que el espacio merecía un post. Esta vez, déjame salir del contexto de USA versus los ataques terroristas de Al Qaeda, y visitar otra historia: Mahatma Gandhi y su acercamiento al asunto de los musulmanes.
Nadie puede dudar del liderato de Mahatma Gandhi a la hora de la lucha independentista de la India contra los ingleses. Esta lucha se trató de denigrar por parte de los enemigos de la independencia de India y uno de los estandartes para lacerar esa lucha fue la división religiosa entre hindúes y musulmanes, al punto que después de que India lograra su independencia, parte del territorio tuvo que dividirse para formar un Estado musulmán en lo que conocemos hoy como Pakistán.
Lee parte del
discurso de Nathuram Godse, el asesino de Mahatma Gandhi, quien justificaba este asesinato, a cuenta de que el líder pacifista favorecía, según él, a los musulmanes en detrimento de la “mayoría” hindú, al punto de echarle la culpa de la división de India para favorecer el nuevo Estado de Pakistán, el cual se construiría a partir de una base religiosa musulmana.
Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan. People may even call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider to be necessary for sound nation-building. After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, but I did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds of Birla House.
I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots.
I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy, which was unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi. I have to say with great regret that Prime Minister Nehru quite forgets that his preachings and deeds are at times at variances with each other when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan, and his job was made easier by Gandhi’s persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims.
I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But I would like to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism levelled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some day in future.
Pero, Gandhi no se distinguía por defender o condenar a las religiones a las que no pertenecía, y no era musulmán. Como dije, el conflicto entre musulmanes e hindúes se utilizó para dividir la lucha por la independencia de India contra los ingleses.
Parte de esta estrategia de desprestigio contra Gandhi incluyó la utilización de la imagen de su hijo Harilal quien se hiciera musulmán.
Mahatma Gandhi le escribió unas letras a sus muchas amistades musulmanas para explicar el entuerto de su hijo al ingresar sin ningún respeto a su nueva religión:
TO MY NUMEROUS MUSLIM FRIENDS:
The newspaper report that about a fortnight ago my eldest son Harilal, now nearing fifty years, accepted Islam and that on Friday last 29th May in the midst of a large congregation in the Juma Masjid at Bombay he was permitted to announce his acceptance amid great acclamation and that after his speech was finished, he was besieged by his admirers who vied with one another to shake hands with him. If his acceptance was from the heart and free from any worldly considerations, I should have no quarrel. For I believe Islam to be as true a religion as my own.
But I have the gravest doubt about his acceptance being from the heart or free from selfish considerations. Every one who knows my son Harilal, knows that he has been in the habit of visiting houses of ill fame. For some years he has been living on the charity of friends who have helped him unstintingly. He is indebted to some Pathans from whom he had borrowed on heavy interest. Up to only recently he was in dread of his life from his Pathan creditors in Bombay. Now he is the hero of the hour in that city. He had a most devoted wife always forgave his many sins including his unfaithfulness. He has three grown up children, two daughters and one son, whom he ceased to support long ago.
Not many weeks ago he write to the press complaining against Hindus- not Hinduism- and threatening to go over to Christianity or Islam. The language of the letter showed quite clearly that he would go over to the highest bidder. That letter had the desired effect. Through the good offices of a Hindu councilor, he got a job in Nagpur municipality. And he came out with another letter to the Press about recalling the first and declaring emphatic adherence to his ancestral faith.
But, as events have proved, his pecuniary ambition was not satisfied and in order to satisfy that ambition, he has embraced Islam. There are other facts which are known to me and which strengthen my inference.
When I was in Nagpur in April last, he had come to see me and his mother and he told me how he was amused by the attention s that he were being paid to him by the missionaries of rival faiths. God can work wonders. He has been known to have changed the stoniest hearts and turned sinners into saints, as it were, in a moment. Nothing will please me better than to find that during the Nagpur meeting and the Friday announcement he had repented of the past and had suddenly become a changed man having shed the drink habit sexual lust.
But the Press reports give no such evidence. He still delights sensation and in good living. If he had changed, he would have written to me to gladden my heart. All my children have had the greatest freedom of thought and action. They have been taught to regard all religions with the same respect that they paid to their own. Harilal knew that if he had told me had found the key to a right life and peace in Islam, I would have put no obstacles in his path. But no one of us, including his son now, twenty-four years old and who is with me, knew anything about the event till we saw the announcement in the Press.
My views on Islam are well known to the Mussalmans who are reported to have enthused over my son's profession. A brotherhood of Islam has telegraphed to me thus, " Expect like your son you truth-seeker to embrace Islam truest religion of world."
I must confess that all this has hurt me. I sense no religion spirit behind this demonstration. I feel that those who are responsible for Hiralal's acceptance to Islam did not take the most ordinary precautions they ought to have in a case of this kind. Harilal's apostacy is no loss to Hinduism and his admission to Islam a source of weekness to it, as I apprehend, he remains the same wreck that he was before.
Surely conversion is a matter between man and Maker who alone knows His creatures' hearts. And conversion a clean heart is, in my popinion, a denial of God and religion. Conversion without cleanness of heart can only be a matter for sorrow, not joy, to a godly person.
Observamos a un pacifista que es matado por alguien que odia la religión musulmana a nombre de un “nacionalismo purista hindú”, mientras ese mismo amante de la paz condena a un hijo por convertirse hipócritamente a la práctica muslmana, no por el asunto del fervor religioso, sino por servirle a los intereses de otros fanáticos musulmanes.
Gandhi ve la conversión como un acto de religiosidad donde impera un CORAZÓN LIMPIO… Y ese principio lo aplica a TODAS las prácticas religiosas.
Esto no tiene NADA que ver con que USA sea una nación de libertades o que otras naciones no lo sean, o que ambas premisas sean falsas o ciertas. El meollo de este asunto es la CONVERSIÓN y el proceso de DISCERNIMIENTO después de esta conversión, que debe ser coherente con el principio del AMOR…
A la larga, los que ostentan el poder político de las naciones están guiados por sus castas “nacionalistas” e inventan historias “religiosas” que justifican la guerra. ¿Cómo nosotros, los que hemos sido tocados por el amor en un mundo que ataca ese amor, confrontamos a los fanáticos de un lado y del otro, a la vez que abrazamos a los justos de un lado y del otro…? Esta es la pregunta que debe surgir en el momento en que nos despertamos al nuevo día, y también antes de acostarnos cuando acaba ese mismo día. Esta es la pregunta que debe dirigir siempre nuestras oraciones. ¡AMÉN…!
