A debate between Zakir Naik and Srisri Ravishankar

Recently while wandering on the net I came across a video which showed a full program featuring a debate between Zakir Naik and Ravishankar.  The duration of the video was a little over two and a half hours.  Though the video was found on YouTube itself, it proclaimed "has been deleted from YouTube" alongside its title.  I watched the entire video with keen interest and mulled over it.  Later I tried to watch the video again, but failed to locate it.  I clicked the history item in the browser and YouTube, but to no avail.  During my repeated searches, I also came across a message on YouTube saying that the content has been removed.  It seems that someone had succeeded in reloading the video and I was lucky enough to watch it before it was removed again.  Fragments from this video are still available, but not the complete video that I had the opportunity to watch.  I feel truly sorry that I cannot give you an URL for watching this video.

I must say that the person entrusted with conducting the debate in an orderly manner did an excellent job.  Zakir Naik (ZN) - I am not prefixing Dr as he does not seem to be in that profession any more - came across as a seasoned speaker and debater.  RaviShankar (RS) - I am not prefixing SriSri as it sounds a bit too pretentious - surprisingly found the time allotted to him a little too long.  He also seemed to be ill at ease and a bit fidgety at times.  Once or twice he interjected too while ZN had the floor, which was perhaps against the format.  He got a bit provoked when ZN pointed out some errors in a book authored by him and admitted having made mistakes. But more about it later.

The speed at which ZN quotes book number, chapter number and verse number from a large number of scriptures from various religions, bears out an amazing memory and considerable breadth of his knowledge.  However he seems to be lacking in depth.  He repeatedly quoted from Vedas and Bhavishya Purana to make a point that the arrival of prophet Muhammad was foretold in these books.  Of course, I cannot recall the exact references that he gave.  He harped on three words, Muhammad, Nrishans and Mlechha, found in the Hindu scriptures.  He said that these pointed towards the prophet.  Mlechchha, according to him, merely meant a foreign origin, and Nrishans meant a Nar (man) worthy of adoration (Shansa being the tail end of Prashansa.)  This ignorance is shocking indeed.  Had he known the true meaning of the two words, he would refrain from using these words for the prophet: for it will be blasphemous to do so.  Nrishansa, as all students of Sanskrit and Hindi know, means merciless and cruel.  Making it out to be a combination of Nar and Shansa is far fetched indeed.  Similarly Mlechchha, though associated with persons of foreign origin in a sense, is a highly derogatory word that means impure or unclean.  The same applies to the word Mahaamad, which ZN takes to be Muhammad.  Mahaamad is a derogatory word that means a conceited person with an overarching ego and insolence.

ZN's ignorance could be excused but for the delight he and his followers take in his rattling off references to verses in various scriptures and then presenting their translation with an air of absolute authority.  However what really surprises me is the fact that neither RaviShankar nor anyone from the huge audience pointed out these errors nor did anyone stop ZN from making blasphemous references to the prophet.

Another favorite argument of ZN, one that he presented in this debate too, is that Vedas and Upnishads all say that God is one and formless.  And this is precisely what the Quran teaches. He takes Vedas and Upnishads to be the counterparts of Quran in Hinduism. Then he concludes that we should be worshipping God, the creator, and not the created.  But Hinduism is not restricted to such a single linear strand of thought.  It is more like a container of objects rather than an object itself; maybe a Pandora's box.  It also has in its kitty the Samkhya which maintains that there is no God.   It maintains that there are just multiple Purushas (consciousness principles,) each interacting with Prakriti.  Vedanta chooses not only to combines all these Purushas in one ParamPurusha but also merges the Prakriti with it.  Dualism and non-dualism both exist as valid philosophies and the debate goes on.  For the non-dualists, nothing exists but the God.  There is no distinction between the Creator and the Created.  The Creator, the Creation and the Created are all one.  The differentiation is just Maya and that too is an aspect of the only reality, the Godhead.  So in this container of Hinduism, monotheism, atheism and pantheism, dualism and non-dualism all co-exist and it sees no problem with such co-existence.

Thus any religion on the face of this earth could find parallels in one object or the other in the box called Hinduism.  And yet, any religion that wants to build bridges with Hinduism need not demonstrate any similarities.  Just a willingness to reside in the container is enough.  When you meet someone holding a view that is diagrammatically opposite to yours, don't scowl and growl, just wink and smile.  Yes, I understand and I am sure so do you.  Just accept the diversity and be at ease with it. It is this ability to wink and smile, rather than your belief system, that makes you a Hindu, or Hindustani, if you please.

Having said that, I must add that all is not hunky-dory in this container.  This container also has, for example, the most divisive and discriminatory caste system.  This single anomaly is beating down at the walls of the container to break it down.  There are many others too.  If a confluence of different and differing belief systems inside the container could join hands to cast away the toxic contents in the box, there indeed would be an utopia in this wonderful container.

PS: If you can find the deleted video on the internet, please post the URL as a remark to help other interested readers watch it.

Religious Fanaticism - A Challenge to Humanity

A friend used to tell me of his uncle's prescription for ridding India of all the evils plaguing it.  It was to ask all people above 8 years of age to stand along the shoreline of India and then push them far out into the ocean!  He firmly believed that once you have crossed that age threshold, you would never be able to unlearn or rid yourself of the belief and value system that the society has drilled into you.  Religions understand this and want initiation to start with birth itself.  ISIS, doing unthinkable crimes in the name of a religion, also understands the principles well.  And this is why they are training children as young as 3 years into beheading dolls, handling firearms and killing people.  These hapless children will grow up into criminals beyond reform.

Thus it is of paramount importance in secular societies that reason and secular values be instilled into children at an early age, alongside any religious training imparted by their communities if not before it.  Imparting these skills and values later on in life does not help.  The values and beliefs imbibed earlier in childhood prevail and hold fast.  This is borne out by well educated software engineers and doctors turning into terrorists.

States are not doing enough to instill secular values from early childhood.  But there are, and I would like to believe that all along there have been, parents who pass on overt or covert messages to let their children know that it is okay to question whatever is being taught in the name of religion.  Some communities have even stopped or allowed to wither away formal religious instructions.  Priests in such communities often openly rue about this loss.

Today Muslims are seen as one community that persists in indoctrinating their young children hard with their network of Madarsas.  It is unfortunate that these Madarsas are patronized by governments too.  And this may explain prevalence of terrorism among even well literate Muslim youth.  I say this at the risk of being accused of religious profiling.  And yet I say this because this is what Muslim community needs to do to get rid of this branding and this evil plaguing their community - go easy on religious instructions and make your children understand that their religion is just one of many that exist on this earth.

When you have not been indoctrinated hard in your childhood, you are more likely to grow into a person who appreciates his religion as merely a legacy, both good and bad, from his forbears, and yet realizes that it is not worth killing or getting killed for and that it may have weaknesses in the current age and context.  It is like a happy child who grows up to realize that his father isn't really a superman but only a man and an average one at that, and yet loves him for all the care and love he bestowed on him.  Such a person will not kill or maim another person who refuses to acknowledge his daddy as the best!  Only such persons can truly appreciate the beautiful in a religion and reject the ugly in it.

Also any hope for reform of errant fanatics from a religion can come only from saner members of the same community.  They alone have a chance of being heard.  They wittingly or unwittingly contribute to the common resources of the community that are then usurped by the fanatics.  Chetan Bhagat recently argued in an article in Times of India that peaceful moderate members must not be forced to oppose the fanatics from their faith.  I do not agree with his argument and the community must assume responsibility for its errant members rather than relying on others to reform or eliminate them.  They must raise their voice loud enough to startle the fanatics and reassure potential victims.  And then mankind as a whole must vow to eliminate this clan of demons who are killing and demonizing children and abusing womenfolk.  Will the mankind unite to do so?  Well, we have not done so for eliminating global poverty or deforestation.  Let us hope we do better on this front.