Somewhat
belatedly, I find that my adventure at the first India Ideas Conclave in December
2014 (https://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2015/01/ideas-and-angst.html) seems to
have been noticed by veteran journalist Tavleen Singh. In her book Modi Messiah. A Tale of Great Expectations (HarperCollins, Delhi 2020, p.223), she writes that the thinkfest
"began with a blessing from Sri
Sri Ravi Shankar. I saw this as an indication that the India Foundation was not
afraid of sending the message that it functioned in a country in which 80 per
cent of the people were Hindu.”
It was indeed widely expected to be a
Hindu gathering, with the caveat that most Hindus careful about their
reputation say “Indian” when they mean “Hindu”. As for “80%”: in the usual
manipulation of the definition of “Hindu”, this is a maximalist interpretation,
including groups who have partly or wholly acquired the status of non-Hindu
minority (Sikhs, Jains, Veerashaivas, the Sarna, Donyi Pollo and other
tribals), or who are anti-Hindu though born Hindu (crypto-Christians, Naxalites,
Urban Naxals a.k.a. secularists). But leave that for another discussion.
However:
“If this was indeed the plan it unraveled
early that morning when a Belgian Indologist and Hindutva sympathizer called
Koenraad Elst had to be sent home in disgrace because of his remark on Islam.
It was not what he said about Islam that was wrong so much as the offensive
manner in which he said it.”
The session in which I participated was
a debate about the question whether Islamic terrorism, in particular the then-fresh
atrocities committed by the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, was genuine Islam.
My two debating partners, encouraged by the moderator, argued that it had
nothing to do with Islam. This was obviously also the message that the
organizers wanted to promote, which is why it is strange that they had invited
me; apparently they hadn’t read me carefully. I argued that the IS or the
Taliban knew Islam far better than any of those present and that they could
easily hold their own in an Islamic court by showing how their actions were
imitations of Mohammed’s model behaviour, the very basis of Islamic law. No
Islamic judge could give a verdict that amounted to saying: “Mohammed was
wrong.”
And speaking of “wrong”: what was deemed
wrong about my performance was not “the offensive manner in which I said it”
but very much “what I said about Islam”, and to which nobody there had a
convincing answer. Nor does Tavleen Singh, even after having had a few years to
think up one.
There was nothing wrong with the
manner in which I spoke, which was quite good-humoured. Indeed that was precisely
the indignant objection of one (self-declared Swiss) Islamophile’s objection
during Q&A time: that I looked like having a good time linking the
terrorists’ actions with Mohammed’s model behaviour. He must have had this
image of fanatical foaming-at-the-mouth “Islamophobia” in his mind and became
angry when I failed to live up to It. Looking back, there was indeed something humorous
about how my adversaries in the debate were contorting themselves while I had
the full force of scriptural authority on my side.
“A Muslim diplomat stood up halfway
through Elst's speech and walked out. Ram Madhav, who was seated in the front
row, intervened and the session was abruptly ended.”
Here she proves to be poorly
informed. That the (to my knowledge: two West-Asian) Muslims present showed
their displeasure, is a fact. But the session was not ended abruptly, nor was
Ram Madhav publicly involved. After the session’s normal completion, and during
an exceptionally enthusiastic applause from the audience, one of the organizers
(if memory serves: Swapan Dasgupta) came on stage to apologize for what I had
said. Everything went normal until late that evening, when two youngsters came
to find me in my room to tell me the organizers wanted me to leave (indeed,
they had already rebooked my airplane ticket). This was not “in disgrace” but
because they reportedly feared someone could go to the police accusing me of
disrupting religious harmony, a non-bailable offence.
“The next thing we knew was that Elst
had been put back on a flight back to Belgium. The conference was intended to
create a new idea of India but definitely not one in which there would be no
room for Muslims."
Did anyone say that “there would be no room for Muslims” in India?
Having written a lot about communal issues, I challenge Tavleen Singh to find
any such utterance in my work. In particular, let her face the actual contents
of what I said there and then, readily available: https://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-gentle-cure-for-intolerance.html.
Anyway, the topic in that debate was not what political conclusions to draw
from the facts about Islam, but first to establish clearly what those facts
are. After that, we can consider whether any practical implications follow from
them.
Read more!
