A Mosque Here And There

A Mosque Here And There

By Gautam Adhikari

Aug 31, 2010

Another mosque, another time, another argumentative democracy. In the US, a dispute has erupted over a proposal to build a mosque; in India, 18 years ago it was about tearing one down. A controversial issue in both cases is: Which central idea forms the essence of any multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation? Must such a society uphold a particular culture that defines the core values of the nation? Or, must it not merely tolerate diverse cultures, but actually celebrate diversity as a defining value?

In December 1992, a band of Hindu militants destroyed an old mosque in Ayodhya, the Babri masjid. Bloody riots broke out between the two communities in several towns, chaos engulfed the nation for days and a fierce argument ensued over what we should understand by the idea of India.

There were those who argued that with the partition of India in 1947 and the establishment of the Islamic nation of Pakistan, specifically created as a homeland for the subcontinent's Muslims, the republic of India was free to become a nation primarily for Hindus, with its core values including tolerance and secularism embedded in ancient tradition. In this view, the demolition of the mosque had been a symbolic act to re-establish Hindu primacy in a nation long misled by "pseudo-secularists".

And there were those of us who countered by pointing out that India was imagined by its founding fathers to be what Pakistan was not. It would be a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, democratic republic, in which a carefully crafted Constitution would guarantee freedom of expression and freedom of religion. The argument continues with the Allahabad high court weighing in with its judgement on Babri masjid.

It is a complex debate, not least because the idea of a diverse, multi-religious democracy is a modern concept incorporated legally, and in writing for the first time, in the American Constitution as updated in 1791 with a Bill of Rights. The framers of India's Constitution studied the US Constitution closely and inserted similar fundamental rights in our document. Those rights have ensured for every citizen the right to be different from every other citizen, and in what we can say or do and in pursuit of religion.

Although on the surface the argument over the proposed Islamic cultural centre in Lower Manhattan is over protecting citizens' constitutional rights versus the raw emotions of those who see it as an affront to the memory of victims of 9/11, the issue is larger. Lurking in the strands of the debate are key questions: What does it mean to be an American today? Is it enough to swear to uphold the Constitution, to enjoy all legally guaranteed freedoms, and to lead life any way you please within the generous limits outlined in the Constitution? Or is it also necessary for all citizens to defer to the preferences and habits of a dominant culture, which is Protestant Christian or, as commonly described nowadays, Judeo-Christian?

The argument has been on for a while. When Irish Catholics began to migrate to the US in large numbers they were not initially welcomed with open arms. It took decades before Catholics could become fully accepted within the mainstream. Ditto for the Japanese; and for the Jewish migrants who escaped European intolerance for a more hospitable society but had to wait a few decades of uneasy coexistence with devout Christians before the term Judeo-Christian could become the preferred way to describe Euro-American civilisation. Hispanic migrants today may be Christian but to many they are the Other.

For Muslims of all hues the case has become immensely more complicated post-9/11. On one hand, they are asked to prove their moderate credentials and condemn the jihadi radicalism of a few. On the other, they are greeted with fury when reformers, like Imam Feisal Rauf, want to set up a cultural centre that will encourage interfaith dialogue, promote moderate Islam and will have a prayer room because it is two blocks away from Ground Zero. A majority of Americans don't want the centre there. They somehow hold, even as they say they don't, the entire Muslim community responsible for 9/11.

The idea of America, like the idea of India, remains a work in progress. For many Americans, national identity is synonymous with a cultural identity; for others, multicultural coexistence forms the essence of American nationalism. But to gain an insight into what the idea of America was to those who founded the nation, we could study the far-sighted spirit embodied in the Bill of Rights. With its guarantee of free speech and the separation of religious preferences from the conduct of public affairs, the US Constitution offers a fine set of principles by which to live in a diverse and rapidly evolving world.

Those who dreamt up the vision of America found no contradiction in endorsing tolerance while remaining true to their faith. Wrote Thomas Paine in his 1776 pamphlet 'Common Sense': "I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us: It affords a larger field for our Christian kindness." Today, going by nationwide opinion polls, American common sense seems surprisingly reluctant to accept such ideas.

Source: Times of India

--
Asadullah Syed