t has become a common practice to view people with contempt if they speak for their community, even if what is said is true. This is specifically true of the people belonging to minority. It is sad to know that individuals derive their conclusions from incomplete facts and information that is being fed to them in the mainstream media. We talk about democracy and freedom of thought and yet it is them that we have sacrificed in the process of creating the mirage of a secular nation. Secularism which was originally devised as a tool to combat religious intolerance has become a tool for greater biasness against religions. An atheist can today easily speak against religion but a religious person has no right to speak publicly against atheism. A feminist is glorified for fighting against the oppressions by men, but, a man cannot stand with confidence against a woman if she is wrong, he is then branded as a male chauvinist. There have been laws created in the country against early marriage but sex and live-in relationships before the legal age have been decreed legal. I do not understand any sane logic behind the law which is meant to protect young people but unfortunately makes the same young people vulnerable to unwarranted problems. How are we supposed to believe in such a crippled system of justice where pressure from western culture and countries has made them to create laws that are fundamentally against the culture of this country.
The problem is now fundamentally deep rooted within the minds of the common people, it has infiltrated and hacked their sense of wisdom and has become a disease that needs immediate attention.
The process of this diabolical change started as a fight against the priestly system that had established under the umbrella of religions and had against the principles of its proprietor oppressed the people it governed. To fight a system that was believed to be backed by religion had to be a difficult task, hence it was thought that the easiest way to fight this system was by propagating contempt against the religion itself. A standard strategy used very often; if a building is to be completely destroyed then destroy the pillars it stands on, religion was that pillar. But the common people that were brainwashed to become the part of this propaganda failed to realize that destroying the pillar itself will also destroy the sense of all their morality; since their morality was derived from the ethical code of the religious scriptures. Hence to change the system the whole humanity was drowned into anarchy and were promised a new Utopia of liberal ideals. But what was disguised was that liberalism could never survive without the support from socialist ideals. For more than three centuries now man is being slowly and steadily consumed by these liberal ideals, meanwhile, growing distant from religious and spiritual values. To people who do not take events as it is but analyses the background of its occurrence, have lucid understanding of the vicious and elaborate scheme that has been in work constantly in order to create a world exactly like the world we presently live in, the world lacking Humanism and Justice. Ironically Justice was what this world was created for, or at least that was what the common people were informed. It is now a common knowledge that the world is now more unequal and unjust than it ever was any time in the past.
What worries me the most is the realization of the ideological enslavement of most individuals in accepting the worldview propagated by the select few that profit from it. To kill an evil that was not religious but exploited religion for its purpose another evil was created that was far more destructive than its predecessor. What we failed to realize is that it was not the religion which was at fault but the people who exploited the religion for their benefit. These same people became the leading proponent of this new evil because only they were the ones who were resourceful enough to benefit from it. Man was put into new chains and these chains were created by his own willing support. This New World Order reminds me of the quote by Rousseau,
“Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.”
But why did men consent to this unfortunate state of affairs?
Homo sapiens are the species of animals that happen to possess freewill. This means that man is free to take his own decisions conscious of its effects. This part of humanity is what was twisted and presented in a way that seemed to philosophically synchronize with the liberal doctrine. Although man is free by will but that freedom has ways to be unconsciously imprisoned. Man has the freedom to choose between various choices, but what if those choices have been devised to deceive him. This is exactly what happened to him. He was given the choices that were beneficial to the designers of the liberal doctrine. Media played the role of creating the consent among the people that the choices provided to them were the best possible. Noam Chomsky has vividly described the process of ‘Manufacturing Consent’ by the media in his book by the same name. He has shown that the mainstream media that is controlled by the people who control the present world order only shows those views regarding events that are beneficial to the propagation of this world order. This displays the elaborate plot that has been laid and employed to control the minds of the common people by rewiring their tastes according to their doctrine, where the value of an action is determined economically and not morally.
This doctrine became so successful because the biggest threat to its existence was dealt with from the very moment of its conception; the threat was religion. Homosexuality, live-in relationships, alcohol, drugs, gambling, prostitution and other vices could never have been institutionalized to the scale they have been now. Anyone who would now speak for the religion would be branded communal and anybody who would fight against the liberal values would be declared obsolete in his thinking. The intellectualism would be dominated by the propagated doctrine in any field be it science, literature, politics philosophy, economics et cetera.
The reason I described the above historical analysis was because of my recent experience, the experience that left me deeply saddened. I was branded communal due to my voice for my community. I was asked to leave my country because I raised my voice for my community. I was questioned whether I had my allegiance to my country or my religion. The question itself is absurd because if people have their allegiance only to their country, religions would cease to exist and there would be wars and crimes without any responsibility towards any other country. I was asked whether I was first a human being or a Muslim. The question was again absurd because I am a Muslim that believes in one God who has created me and all the other human beings. So all humans are practically kin. But do kin not fight based on selfish interests. They do, and they do it often. I am then a human being who is an Indian Muslim who believes that he has the right to fight for himself and others who are being oppressed or not given proper justice because they belong to certain community. I am also human enough to fight against the Indian Muslims and Muslims from other countries who falsely employ Islamic Principles for the suppression of others. I am also equally vigorous to fight against the people from other religions who misuse their religious values in order to suppress others. My ultimate fight is against the oppression of minorities in all the countries of the world. In the sphere of violence my fight is for the punishment of same scales of violence with same scales of punishment be it from any religion, community, region, caste et cetera. My fight is for true egalitarian society where justice is itself free and not imprisoned.
I would now quote from two different scriptures from, two different religions that make me fearless for my fight against the above vices.
“If anyone slays a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.”
Silence, it is said, is better than speech, if speak you must, then it is better to say the truth; if truth is to be said, it is better to say what is agreeable; and if what is agreeable is to be said, then it is better to say what is consistent with morality.
The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa
- Ali Javed is a student of Amity University and can be reached at email@example.com