Actions as Against Beliefs

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar, Professor, Editor and Linguist

Gandhi International Study and Research Institute, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09404955338, 09415777229

E-mail- [e-mail];

[e-mail]

Mailing Address- C- 29, Swaraj Nagar, Panki, Kanpur- 208020, Uttar Pradesh, India

 

Actions as Against Beliefs

 

The discussion on Maulana Mahomed Ali’s speech on Islam still goes on in the newspapers. I see that many persons who are otherwise intelligent and can understand things have also not understood the distinction drawn by him or, if they have, they lose sight of it while speaking and writing about the matter. This means that the distinction has not penetrated deep enough in their minds. It is, therefore, necessary to refresh, time and again, our understanding of the distinction drawn by the Maulana. He believes that:

There is a distinction between a man’s actions and his ideas.

A man whose ideas are of the best may yet be unworthy in his conduct.

The ideas of a man excellent conduct may be inferior to the ideas of others. Here ideas mean belief, religious creed, religion; for instance, the Christian belief in Jesus’ unique divinity and the Islamic belief that there is only one God and that Mahomed is His Prophet. Hinduism, according to me, acknowledges the supremacy of truth and nonviolence. There is no dharma greater than truth. Ahimsa is the supreme dharma. In conformity with these principles, the Maulana said:

“As a Muslim, I regard the beliefs of an adulterous Muslim as superior to the beliefs of Gandhi whose conduct is the noblest.” The reader will see that here the Maulana has not instituted a comparison between me and an adulterous Muslim; he has just compared my beliefs with those of an adulterous Muslim. Moreover, out of his liberality and his regard for me the Maulana says that, if one man may at all be compared with another, I would stand higher in point of virtue or conduct than even his revered mother or spiritual teacher. This is an insult neither to me nor to the Hindu religion. The truth is that the whole world accepts the three principles mentioned above. Suppose a European who is the greatest of saints believes that there is nothing wrong in experimenting on animals even by torturing them or by killing them for saving human life, nay, that it is wrong not to do so. Now, as against this, suppose that I am a person of wicked conduct and yet believe that it is degrading to man to kill any animal even to save human life. Then, without the slightest disrespect to that saint, can I not say that, notwithstanding my being a wicked man, in so far as our creed is concerned mine is far superior to his? If there is nothing wrong in my saying this, then there is nothing wrong either in what the Maulana said.

One thing shines out in the current discussion like a ray of hope in darkness. All seem to assert that belief unrelated to action is unavailing and that one can never attain heaven merely through right belief. In the views which the Maulana has expressed, he has nowhere contradicted this idea. I see rays of hope in this attitude, since those who act on their beliefs and those who are indifferent to the matter, both these classes of people admire virtuous conduct. But, while extolling right conduct, one must not lose sight of the need for right belief. When one’s beliefs are full of errors, one’s conduct cannot be of the best. What wanted in the penance practiced by Ravana and Indrajit? By showing that self-control such as Lakshmana was needed to match the self-control of Indrajit’ the Adi-Kavi proved the importance of conduct. In Indrajit creed, the highest importance attached to material prosperity, while in Lakshmana that honour belonged to spiritual good, and so the poet awarded victory to Lakshmana. “Where there is dharma, there is victory”, means the same thing.

Here dharma can only mean the noblest belief and equally noble conduct. There is a third class of persons who have no place at all in this discussion .This is the class of hypocrites who merely profess faith in religion, but whose conduct is nothing but outward show; such persons have no real faith in religion. Just because a parrot repeats the name of Rama, will it be regarded as his devotee? Though, of course, comparing the sounds uttered by two parrots or those by a parrot and a mart let, we can judge the relative value of those sounds. But a friend writes to say: It was all right for the Maulana to have shown fearlessness. What has our country gained by it?

The tension between the Hindus and the Muslims has increased. The Maulana’s statement that a wicked Muslim was better than a self-controlled Gandhi pierced the Hindus’ hearts like an arrow. The Maulana has thrown bomb over our country. The person who wrote this is an admirer of the Maulana and not a fanatical Hindu. He can see the shortcomings of the Hindus objectively. Even so the current atmosphere of suspicion has prejudiced even him. I have already stated that the Maulana never said that wicked Muslim was superior to a self-controlled Gandhi. He had only said that the religious beliefs of such a Muslim were superior to those of a man of self-restraint like me. Between the Maulana’s own view and the view attributed to him by the correspondent, there is as much difference as there is between an elephant and a horse. In the former, two individuals have been compared, while, in the latter, two sets of religious beliefs. The phrases “a man of self-restraint like Gandhi” and “a wicked Muslim” are not necessary to prove the point.

The really important issue is that of religious belief. It is immaterial whether this is A’s as compared with B’s or C’s as compared with D’s. The comparison is not between persons: it is between their religious beliefs. It has no bearing at all on their conduct and nothing to do with their virtues or defects. Now let us consider whether it was really necessary for the Maulana to have expressed his view about religious beliefs. There is a brotherly relation between him and me. Prompted by that, he praises me in season and out of season. At present the number of those who create discord between the Hindus and the Muslims has increased. Some of them have described him as a “worshipper of Gandhi”. Their object in doing so was to lessen his influence among the Muslims. Hence the Maulana said that, though he admired me, he had not accepted me as his religious mentor, that his religion was different from mine, that his religious belief was the same as that of any adulterous Muslim and he placed it higher than my religious belief. This is the substance of the Maulana’s speech. If he does not say something like this, how else can he defend his own position and mine, the relationship which exists between us and his religious orthodoxy at the same time? How else could he have answered his critics?

 

Reference:

Navajivan, 27-4-1924