"इतर धर्मांबद्दल असहिष्णुता हा अब्राहमिक धर्मांचा एक सिद्धांत आहे तर हिंदू धर्म सैद्धांतिकदृष्ट्या सहिष्णू आहे."
— अस्तित्वात असलेल्या दहशतवादाकडे दुर्लक्ष करुन emerging म्हणजे येऊ घातलेल्या तथाकथित काल्पनिक हिंसेला झोडपू पाहणार्‍या काही घटकांचा डाव उघड करताना आज संयुक्त राष्ट्रसंघातील भारताचे प्रतिनिधी श्री टी एस तिरुमूर्ती यांनी या प्रयत्नांच्या चिंधड्या उडवल्या.
- असे वर्गीकरण जागतिक दशतवादविरोधी परिषदेच्या स्थापनेमागील तत्त्वांच्या विरोधात जाते. बाँबस्फोट आणि बंदुकांद्वारे मनुष्यहत्यांसारख्या वास्तवात घडवून आणल्या जाणार्‍या घटनांच्या मागे असलेल्या कारणांचा शोध घेणे हे या परिषदेच्या स्थापनेमागील कारण होय.
- दुसरं म्हणजे असे वर्गीकरण काही प्रगत राष्ट्रांनी ९-११च्या दहशतवादी हल्ल्याच्या आधी जन्माला घातलेल्या "चांगला अतिरेकी आणि वाईट अतिरेकी" या फसव्या कल्पनेकडे नेणारे आहे.
- तिसरं म्हणजे हे समजून घेणं गरजेचं आहे की लोकशाहीत उजवी विचारसरणी आणि डावी विचारसरणी यांच्यापैकी काय निवडायचे ही जनतेच्या निवडणुकीतील निर्णयावर अवलंबून असते. जनता उजव्या किंवा डाव्या दोन्ही विचारसरणीमागील अतिरेकी विचारांना नाकारतही असते. तेव्हा, अशा प्रकारे वैचारिक संघर्षाला दहशतवादावरील चर्चेत सामील करुन त्याला थेट हिंसक अतिरेकी कारवायांच्या पंगतीला बसवण्याचा अव्यापारेषू व्यापार हा निव्वळ दहशतवादाच्या मुळाच्या अर्थात त्यामागील सत्याच्या शोधाकडे जाण्यापासून लोकांना रोखणे याच उद्देशाने केलेला वाटतो.
- चौथा मुद्दा असा की दहशतवाद्यांचे वर्गीकरण करताना तयार केलेली छद्म-लेबले राष्ट्रीय किंवा स्थानिक पातळीवरील मुद्द्यांना लावून संघर्षाच्या स्थानिक मुद्द्यांना दहशतवादाच्या पातळीपर्यंत उंचावणे आणि मग आपोआप प्रत्यक्ष घडत असलेल्या दहशतवादाला सौम्य करणे असा दुहेरी डाव साधण्याचा प्रयत्न करण्यात आला. परराष्ट्रमंत्री श्री जयशंकर यांचे विधान उद्धृत करताना श्री तिरुमूर्ती म्हणाले की "दहशतवाद हा दहशतवाद असतो, दहशतवादी हा दहशतवादी असतो, आणि चांगला दहशतवाद आणि वाईट दहशतवाद वगैरे असं काही नसतं." अशा प्रकारे ठामपणे घेतलेली ही भूमिका ही खोडसाळपणे व मुद्दाम दहशतवादाची सौम्य स्वरूपात खोटारडी मांडणी करण्याच्या विरोधात भारताने उचललेले एक महत्त्वाचे पाऊल आहे.
Transcript
Anchor:
We have a very influential voice tonight in the shape of Mr. S. Gurumurthy, the
editor of Tughlaq to get a perspective on what monumental step this has
actually been. Mr Gurumurthy, thank you for once again speaking with Times Now
and me in particular. Thank you very much.
Mr Gurumurthy:
Thank you. Welcome please.
Anchor:
How significant is it that India has called out the United Nations for its
selectivism over its emphasis on certain kinds of religious discrimination, but
not others like Hinduphobia.
Mr Gurumurthy:
See the International Counterterrorism Conference, what T S Tirumurthi did is something
outstanding. He made two great points. One, he demolished the effort to dilute
the battle against terror by changing the narrative of what is terror. Over a
period the very definition of terror was being diluted to include everything
into terror so that the real terror escapes. This is point one he made. The
second point was he exposed the bias against non-Abrahamic religions in the UN
discourse, which has never, never happened. In 70 years, I have never seen an
Indian representative attempting to defend the Indian civilization. This is the
first time it has happened that India has opened its mouth to defend the Indian
civilization in a world which has been running on the Abrahamic civilisational narratives
and discourse. I will just take a minute to explain how he demolished the
dilution of the concept of terror. They introduced the concept of “emerging
threats”. Instead of dealing with the actual threats, they introduced the
concept of emerging threats and began categorizing terror. Who are the people
who were doing it? “Some interested Member States”, he says, “driven by
political, religious, and other motivations.” It is not that they were driven
by any intellectual or motivations of an unbiased nature, so they said they've
been trying to label terrorism into categories. You see the categories they
were making:
1. Radically and ethnically motivated violent extremism.
2. Violent nationalism
3. Right wing extremism
From the battle against terror, which means throwing bombs and killing
people by AK47, the whole concept was diluted into almost what would be a
political battle in a democracy. So he cited 4 reasons why this dilution is
fraudulent. I mean I am using the word fraudulent, he didn't, but he meant it.
He said it goes against the accepted principle of Global Counter Terrorism Council’s
very formulation. It was intended to find the actual terror of someone throwing
bombs. Second, it goes back to the pre-911 label of your terror versus my
terror. My terror is softer terror, your terror is a harder terror. So this is the
second thing. Third thing, he said it is necessary to understand that in a
democracy, right wing and left wing ideological battle is a matter of electoral
choice of the people. So when people are choosing, there is nothing called
right or left wing extreme thought, people will reject the extreme thought. So
this whole idea of reducing spectrum of ideological battle into the idea of
terror is only to dilute the actual terror.
The 4th point he made was that even such labels were given to
so-called threats, which are limited to national or regional context. So they
were trying to raise even the local disputes into something like global terror.
He quoted the foreign minister Jaishankar’s statement to say “Terrorism is
terrorism, terrorists are terrorists, and there is nothing like good terror and
a bad terror.” I think this is a very, very major step. India has taken to stop
the dilution of terror by intended and deliberate narratives, false narratives.
Second thing is he exposed the bias against non-Abrahamic religions. Never in
the international discourse the idea of Abrahamic religions and non-Abrahamic
religions were ever debated or discourse, though in the intellectual discourse
whether it is in the fundamentalism project study or in the intellectual
discourse elsewhere, religions were categorized in the world as Abrahamic and
non-Abrahamic. And I will tell you what is the impact of this. He said that
while the phobia against Abrahamic religions that there is Islamophobia, there
is Christian or phobia there is anti-Semitism —all these are Abrahamic
religious pools are hurt. But he said there is also bias against non-Abrahamic religions.
You have never discussed about it. There is anti-Hindu bias, there is anti-Sikh
bias, there is anti-Buddhist bias. Why have you neglected the bias and the
phobia against non-Abrahamic religions? This is the question he raised. The
most important point is that we feel for the first time that we are defended. We
were always, I mean Hinduism itself was taken as something which is backward
and all that, it is something which has to go. This is the kind of discourse
which has been going on in the world for the last three centuries.
Now I want to mention three facts, three facts Mr Rahul. One is that in
Abrahamic religions there is doctrinal intolerance. This is accepted by all intellectual
discourses in the world. In non-Abrahamic religions there is no doctrinal
intolerance. This is important. Individuals can be tolerant or intolerant. In
fact, only to moderate individual intolerance, you have religions, so that
religions moderate the individual intolerance. But if the religions themselves
are doctrinally intolerant, you can understand how individual intolerance will
be multiplied by doctrinal intolerance of religions. It is accepted by all
global literature, including the Encyclopedia Britannica and other literature
that including the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya case, Justice Bharucha and Ahmedi
said, “Hinduism is doctrinally tolerant.” The Hindus may be intolerant, but
their doctrine will make them tolerant. That is the virtue of non-Abrahamic
religions, which is never debated or discussed in the Indian intellectual scene
or in the world. The second thing is there is nothing called fundamentalism in
non-Abrahamic religions. In fact I would like to quote what the fundamentalism
project said about Abrahamic religions. The fundamentalism project said “The
idea of fundamentalism is unique to the Abrahamic religions which are text
based. Textual inherency is presumed, and textual deviation is not allowed. And
Fundamentalism Project goes on to say that Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Taoism
and the eastern religions do not suffer from the vice of fundamentalism. Have
you ever heard it in Indian discourse? This Fundamentalism Project started in
1980 and delivered 5 volumes by 1994, and this is an international research. So
first there is no doctrinal intolerance in non-Abrahamic religions and there is
no fundamentalism. To these two things taken together, we are not in a position
to establish it in the world, we are not even treated on par with the Abrahamic
religions — this Tirumurti has demolished.
