[Reader-list] Ways of Life and Transgressions

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Dear All,

I have been intrigued by the exchange on the list of late that has  
preferred to jettison the term 'religion' and prefer in its stead the  
euphimistic phrase - 'ways of life'. I am referring to the exchange  
between Chanchal Malviya and Jeebesh Bagchi, arising out of the  
heated correspondence on the disruption of a small exhibition devoted  
to M.F.Husain.

i am quite convinced that the term 'religion'  which derives from the  
latin root of the word religio (bond) and religare (the verb form of  
'to bind') remains for me a useful word to name the act of committing  
oneself in any form. In this sense, atheists and agnostics are just  
as religious (in their commitment to doubt) as are those blessed with  
faith. I would describe my religious commitment as agnosticism - a  
commitment to doubt everything, (including the value of doubt) and a  
certainty that we cannot speak certainly of anything at all, because  
there are always counterfactuals, and hitherto unimagined, or unknown  
possibilities, that goad us on to yet newer possibilities, or to  
return to some very old ones. This is just to say that it would be a  
mistake to assume, as is often done with some arrogance on the part  
of the more pronouncedly 'faithful', that atheists and agnostics have  
no 'spiritual' quests. They do, and they dont, just as those who are  
ostentatiously 'religious' do, and dont, or do only in as much as it  
allows them to burn a few churches as they go questing. If Hindu  
fundamentalists have chosen to renounce the ties that bind (religio)  
them to life, who would I be to object, because, I am not a Hindu.  
But I have no quarrel with the term 'ways of life'. The more words we  
have, the better.

This discussion arose out of a rage felt by some that a group of  
zealots had broken and disrupted an exhibition that featured some  
images of and by Husain, and the counter rage felt by others that the  
zealots had no right to be criticised because they were acting to  
protect the honour of the Hindu deities that they felt Husain had  
insulted.

The second case is as follows - what right has Husain, a Muslim to  
insult Hindu deities by portraying them in a manner that is offensive  
to the sentiments of many Hindus. (Husain's motivations, or the  
aesthetic merit of his images are not the issue here, what is at  
issue is the insult seen to have occurred when a non-Hindu 'touches'  
a sacred Hindu icon with his 'insulting' imagination. Those so  
enraged, also throw the following challenge, has the opposite ever  
occurred?

I am not here to make a case for Husain. (As I have said before I do  
not have a very high opinion of his work as an artist). I am here to  
make a case for what is considered to be transgression. No one can be  
sure when they have transgressed. Because transgression can be seen  
to occur even when the motives of the person concerned are far from  
transgression. Husain can say in his defence, and indeed has on  
occasion said that his paintings are an index of his appreciation of  
Indic culture and its diversity of expressions, of his closeness  
(since early childhood) to forms of iconic imagery in popular Hinduism.

Here his intent is clearly not to insult, on the contrary, it is to  
declare his appreciation for the beauty of the iconography of popular  
Hinduism, a charge for which he would be equally hated by both Hindu  
as well as Muslim fundamentalists.

It has not been noticed that no Muslim fundamentalist or even Muslim  
religious figure has come out in defence of Husain. They are in fact  
in tacit agreement with their Hindu peers. A Muslim making images,  
and that too of Hindu goddesses, because he is drawn to them, can  
only be seen as blasphemy in their eyes. On this, like on so many  
other issues, Hindu and Muslim fundamentalists are in total agreement.

Let me come now to an interesting counterfactual argument. I refer to  
the life an work of a little known late nineteenth century and early  
twentieth century Urdu poet of Delhi called Dillu Ram Kausari. Now as  
his name suggests, Dillu Ram was a Hindu. The trouble is, throughout  
his life he composed deliriously passionate elegies (na'at)  to the  
Prophet Muhammad.

One of his quatrains went as follows

Kuch ‘ishq e Muhammad mein nahin shart e Musulman!
Hai Kausari Hindu bhii talabgaar e Muhammad!
Allah re! kyaa raunaq e bazaar e Muhammad
Ke Ma’bood e Jahan bhi hai kharidaar e Muhammad!

Being a Muslim is not a condition for loving Muhammad!
Kausari, the Hindu, is also a seeker of Muhammad!
By Allah! How delightful is the bazaar of Muhammad
For the Lord of the Worlds is also a buyer of Muhammad!

This kind of sentiment shocked both Hindus and Muslims. Hindus,  
because how could a Hindu sing what amounted to love songs to a  
Muslim prophet, and Muslims, for the same reason. Both felt slighted  
and insulted by the transgressive way in which the imagination of the  
poet had 'touched' the body of what was sacred for one, and not, for  
the other.

Another poem, which proved to be even more controversial, went like  
this -

Rahmatulilalamin kay Hashar mein maana’ khulay
Khalq saari Shaafa e Roz e Jaza kay saath hai
Laykay Dillu Raam ko jannat mein jab Hazrat gaye
Ma’loom huwa kay Hindu bhi Mahboob e Khuda kay saath hai!

The meaning of “Mercy unto the Worlds” became apparent on Judgement Day:
The whole creation is with the Intercessor of The Day of Acquittal
When the Prophet took Dillu Ram with him into Paradise
It was known that this Hindu too is with the Beloved of God!

This poem, especially scandalized Muslim orthodoxy, because it dared  
to suggest that the prophet himself would intercede on behalf of an  
unbeliever on the day of judgement.

It is interesting to note that Dillu Ram never became a Muslim, at  
least not in his lifetime. An article in the interesting web portal  
Chowk  http://www.chowk.com/articles/12692 by one Asif Naqshbandi says

"It is also said that Dillu Ram, delirious with his love, would  
sometimes stand in the middle of the bazaar in Delhi, put chains  
around his neck and feet and shout at the top of his voice to all  
passers-by, “Muhammad! Muhammad! Muhammad! Yes! Muhammad is the  
Beloved of God! Muhammad is the first and only Beloved of God! If God  
loves you, He loves you because of His Beloved!” Some people even  
stoned him and he would often come home covered in blood but he was  
totally lost in his love of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon  
him!)"

There is an apocryphal story of how on his deathbed Dillu Ram Kausari  
had a vision of the Prophet himself, who came to him, and that he  
read the Kalima with him. But as this vision is reported to have  
appeared only to him, as he lay dying, and as he is no longer with us  
to either confirm or deny this deathbed conversion, we can only  
surmise that it was a generous, but somewhat disingenuous method of  
having Dillu Ram's somewhat unorthodox Muslim apologists claim him  
for themselves.

As far as we are concerned, Dillu Ram Kausari, caused grave offence,  
by his love for the Prophet, both to Hindu as well as to Muslim  
zealots, as long as he lived.

If, the things we call religions are 'ways of life' then we can  
always determine for ourselves whether we want to walk on a one way  
street that runs into a dead end, or to cross many paths, walking  
down one way, for one purpose, down another way for another, and  
sometimes just standing in between paths, figuring out our journey,  
as we go about our lives.

I find cases like Husain and Dillu Ram Kausari interesting not  
because of what they paint of what they say, but because they seem to  
cause such prolonged traffic jams on the 'ways of life'. And all they  
were doing was crossing the road.

thanks and regards,

Shuddha

-----
Shuddhabrata Sengupta