​​Fields Of Blood

The most imperative thing here is the reason why I started reading this book. Because this defines the context in which I saw its content. It has been some years since I started wondering what the cause of violence by religious people is. Violence is part of human nature. But if we blame certain religious beliefs incite violence then why, why Buddhist majority countries like Vietnam and Sri Lanka persecuted their minorities. If religion does grant you peace then why another majorly Buddhist country, japan, turned out to be one the worst offenders of war crimes in world war II. Do their beliefs not create an inherent conflict? Where nationalism triumphs religion? And where religion directs nationalism. Most of the Tibetan protests have been non-violent. But at the same time, can you ignore the firebrand Buddhist monks of Sri Lanka? I wanted to know how such deeply religious people could live a life that is in complete contrast to the ​​original teachings of their dharma. Although this book did not answer all my questions, it sure has taught me a lot and has definitely broadened my perspective.

Let's get started with the mundane things. First thing first, finishing this book is a test of patience. The size of the book is deception. Do not fall for it. 500+ pages with fonts extremely small to read comfortably actually have more data than you first assume. I finished this book, after putting it down several times over several months (sometimes due to boredom, sometimes due to lack of ability to comprehend so much at go). This is not the book you can read cover to cover in go. And for the good reason too. There is no need to try this stunt. As you will need time to comprehend and analyze the data and form your opinion. And be ready to change them when counter-evidence emerges later. It requires you to be patient, attentive, and flexible. This book is a journey. It’s not for a casual reader. This one dangerously toes the line of becoming a textbook.

So the cons first.

Length. Its length. But playing the devil’s advocate here. The length is required to explain such complex inter-relationships of different societies. There are only so many details you can read. But again, the truth is that the devil lies in the details. For complex issues like this, reading a summary will never give a complete truth.

And then the fact that this book has highly focussed demographics and has a target audience too. For the people not from the USA, this is akin to getting lost in a maze sometimes.

There were the portions that tempted me to skip the pages. Was this much bombardment of information required? This book could have done with a bit tighter editing.

At some point, details of ancient history went for overkill. Although this explains the background of societies which were just starting because for obvious reasons, their reasoning and actions are not relatable, not that they should be. So we do need to understand their action in the context.

It is deeply focused on Abrahamic religions. This is a con in my opinion because I had different expectations from this book. The rest of the major religions are more like footnotes in this book. One explanation for this focus is that only these religions have clashed out in the international arena. Rest of the conflicts were more or less localised. But for this reason, I could not get all the details I wanted. It failed to give a complete answer as to why peaceful religions also turn violent.

Now for the pros.

The first con I mentioned is also a pro. It's lengthy not because of random stuff in between. This is because it has been thoroughly researched. So much so, you can use it for referencing and making a part of the library for it has corroborated almost all the statements.

Even when there is less focus on non-Abrahamic religions, their parts are also thoroughly researched. She has not made any statement just out of blue. As a researcher, she has my respect for that.

In the whole book, she does not indicate religion. It has been emphasised repeatedly that violence has grown out of the need of societies to come over others and it has been present in almost all religions.

The most eye-opener point from this book was that she makes us understand that in the modern scenario, secularism and nationalism are no less guilty of inciting violence. That separation of religion and state is a modern concept. For the people before, it was all one and the same. Before this, I viewed secularism with some kind of reverence. Now I understand where it went wrong.

It excellently dispels the widespread myths such as suicide bombing (here I learned it was commissioned into the action by LTTE, not some Muslim group but they have now heavily appropriated it) and how extremists throw their out their scripture to suit their narrative.

In the context of India, it does have some quality content. It explains the difference between religion and the concept of dharma in India. You ought to understand how the western concept of monotheistic religion and British rule has affected India in terms of its religious identity today. Slowly you start to understand the rise of modern Hindutva.

Here you will also learn how people ignore their cardinal teachings to suit their convenience and preferred narrative.

Initially, some of her statements seemed like she did not understand the basics of my religion. But give her some time and patience and she will walk you through a wider understanding for which I am grateful for her.

And she sums it up quite nicely.

Bonus point – I had planned to read another book to understand the historical reasons for ongoing conflicts in Arab regions. Turns out, she has explained enough for a novice like me where​ I​ decided another dive into history is not warranted.