CLASH OF MEANS
I have since long adhered to
the view that the first step in curing communalism is the ‘realization of or
the acceptance of the fact that we humans are not seculars’. In my previous writing
‘understanding the fight against Communalism’ I have proved that the communal
instincts prevail in all of us and how it would be wrong to tag oneself a
secular being. I had even concluded that the only way to fight communalism is
by paralyzing it, paralyzing through economic and educational prosperity.
There are however many who do
not adhere to this view. There is a parallel view and a parallel solution to
the menace of communalism which is, giving up our religious identities, which
primarily divide us, and consequently turning atheists. Thus, by turning
atheists we can truly liberate ourselves with the idea of religion and look
beyond it as our means to sustenance and would ultimately nip the evil of
communalism. Spreading atheism is the parallel solution to communalism.
It was during a presentation wherein
I was trying to communicate my view that ‘communal instincts prevail in all of
us and thus we must consider ways to fight them’ after the presentation, I was
asked a question ‘if I through my presentation am trying to promote atheism?’ It
was this question that made me question the validity of atheism as an alternate
to religion and I came up with the following thought.
Atheism
a failed idea
Communalism, as pointed out in
my previous writings, is the sense of belongingness to a community and thereby
having an intuitive duty to protect and promote that community. Communalism
today thrives in the face of religion because structurally religion is the
factor which majorly divides the human race into communities. Hence as long as
communities live communalism will also. What Atheism does is that it tends to
liberate mankind of its religious identities and therefore it is believed that
by turning atheists we can kill the source which empowers the fire of
communalism, or in other words, ending communities to end communalism. I
however have my sincere doubts that atheism as the means to secularism would
lead to a secular and stable world. My skepticism in this regard is founded on
the following two grounds.
1. A
universal spread of atheism is impossible:-
The spread and adoption of
atheism should be quick, sudden and also universal. Such a transition is needed
because if atheism as an alternate to religion does not spread universally then
there are chances that it would end up being yet another community and a
parallel community. Those who would have turned atheists would like to and
would try to promote atheism for according to them atheism would be a higher
and a better way of life while those who would still adhere to their religion
would like to defend it by all means at their disposal. In such a case there
would be an escalation of hostilities and conflicts. Currently the conflicts
are limited to one religion vs. another while if the transition is not
universal then there would be an addition to it. The conflicts between
religions would still prevail and what would rise and add on to it would be a
conflict between religion on one side and atheism on the other. The only way in which it could be avoided is
when each and every person who is capable of conflicting with other is turned
into atheism and that to in a quick time. Such a transition is impossible to
achieve and what seems a lot more possible is that atheism which is being
advocated as an alternate to religion would itself become one and the
atrocities which are a result of communalism and which we condemn would only
increase and thereby killing the entire purpose of a tiresome transition.
2. Atheism
is not foolproof:-
Before the advent of religion
or more accurately religions, we must have been atheist human beings who lived
their lives not by practicing or following any religion but by the simple laws
of life, the atheist world which we today dream of must have been present
before prophet Mohammad or Jesus Christ or Moses or whichever god or messenger
first, came down to our earth and created this institution of religion or
religions and consequently bringing the entire atheist world to an end.
Now let us consider that we as
humans manage to (re)create a world from where the entire concept of religion
is abolished, a world where there wouldn’t be any religious community and a
world where the only way of life would be the atheist way of life. Now, is it not
possible that after such an arduous achievement, one day someone from amongst
the existing atheists would come out and start advocating his or her own way of
life and thereby initiate the re bifurcation of the atheist world itself. How
can we ensure that in an atheist world no Jesus or Mohammad would be born who
would lead us back to social divisions.
Thus atheism itself is not
foolproof and a mass conversion to atheism would lead us back to where we
started from. Hence, it is but foolhardy to engage in such an attempt.
Conclusion
It has been noticed that the
petty and disturbing communal conflicts are majorly limited to those who are
economically weak or educationally backward. The well offs and the educated do
not take part in these conflicts. What keeps the rich and well off away from
such conflicts is not their unwillingness to fight for their religion but the
economically unaffordable nature of these conflicts. They tend to stay away
from these conflicts because they value their money more than their religion.
This is a mere observation and I am pretty sure that a study of the parties to
religious conflicts in the past would only render my observation true. In fact,
the only countries where communalism is a major cause of conflicts are those
which are either economically weak or educationally backward.
What can be inferred from this
observation is that economy and education can be used to deter or to do away
with communal conflicts. The only way out of communal tensions is economic and educational
prosperity. Communalism cannot be killed so why not paralyze it by economy and
education.
Comments
Post a Comment