This post has been prompted by the celebration of a piece on American tolerance by an Indian American published here. Reading that piece makes one realise that not only is the columnist horrendously uninformed, such pieces somehow manage to strike a chord with probably well meaning, but yet again, the informed, and become a part of the mainstream discourse.
This article by Shikha Dalmia claims to analyse the ongoing debate on the proposed mosque on Ground Zero, in New York and comes up with two conclusions; one, that the American is a very tolerant creature, when it comes to religious freedom and the other, that the mosque is very much desirable at that spot.
Though I don’t have any particular view on whether Americans should or should not have the mosque (it is their choice, after all), I do have issues with the fanciful assertions and conclusions which Shikha has managed to draw out of thin air.
Firstly, taking the case of American tolerance, no doubt that it is a tolerant country. However, at the same time, the US President has to proclaim many a times that he belongs to the Christian faith. It is a country where the religious belief of the lawmakers plays an extremely important role in deciding whether they will or they will not be elected as lawmakers. Other than Obama, recall the public proclamation of faith which the much hyped Bobby Jindal and Nikki Randhawa Haley had to make. Any whiff of their being a Hindu or a Sikh and presto, the chance of election would be out of the window. Forget about religion, the USA is so hung up on being a Nation founded on Protestant values that Kennedy’s election was in jeopardy on account of his Catholic beliefs. Yet again, policy decisions in the USA are still very much dictated by religion. Opposition to abortion, gay rights, stem cell research and countless other issues are not based on morality or logic! It is simply religion all the way. Compare that to India. Has ever Indian Prime Minister publicly proclaimed his/her faith? We don’t know anything about the religious beliefs of Late Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi and her two children and frankly, do we care? We’ve had two Christian Chief Ministers in Andhra, many Christian Chief Ministers in Kerala, a Sikh for a Prime Minister, three Muslims as the President and numerous other minorities in Constitutional positions. Ever heard any of these ever becoming a topic of discussion? Likewise, which policy decision has been supported or challenged on account of religious beliefs? The Cow protection movement took care to stress on the importance of bovine economy and the Save Ganga movement is yet again focused on the importance of the river in the economic sense. Where have religious beliefs dictated policy decisions ever in India?
This is not to say that the Indian tolerance is greater than that of the USA. It is simply that both of them are distinct Nations and have evolved culturally in a different manner. To say that my tolerance is greater than yours is only symptomic of a fluffy, woolly headed analysis.
Coming to the other part on why the mosque is a good idea, the columnist makes the following points (reproduced verbatim):
It will house a place of worship, but it won't blare muezzin calls summoning Muslims to pray five times a day, suggesting that it has a fairly relaxed attitude toward Quranic strictures. Nor will it be a Muslim-only place where members of other faiths are unwelcome; rather it will be open to anyone willing to pay its dues. est (or worst) of all, it won't be "on" Ground Zero, but two blocks and a bend away at a spot not visible to World Trade Center visitors.
None of this is preventing some opponents from bizarrely suggesting that the center represents a surreptitious attempt to glorify Islamic victory on American soil. But a victory statement communicated through esoteric means negates itself because such means signal weakness, not strength. What's more, it is one odd victory statement when its alleged authors are not claiming any moral high ground for their putative side. To the contrary, the couple, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan, who are spearheading the center, have "refudiated" the 9/11 attacks in particular and Islamic terrorism in general.
They have qualms about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that plenty of nonterrorist Americans would share. And they are Sufis, the moderate and mystical sect of Islam that is known for its refined music and art, not its militancy.
Now the ‘refudiations’:
Local laws in most US towns restrict such loudspeakers in public places. That there will not be a muezzin doesn’t make it different from any other mosque. Likewise, most mosques, even in India do not restrict entry of non-believers, (except for the pulpit). No temple or church restricts entry of non-believers in the USA either. So what’s so special about the ‘openness’ of this mosque?
Most laughable is the assertion of the building being symbolic of defeat, if that is the motive. This is precisely the danger of pop-psychology. Anyone can read something somewhere, consider oneself certified and make all sort of out of the world assertions, expecting others to lap up anything. Of course, people all over the world are fools that they still go to ruins to marvel at the strength and achievements of empires of the yore or admire majestic structures. Using the columnists' logic Qutab is a symbol of Islamic defeat in India and the Vijay Stambh in Chittor is a symbol of Rajput defeat at the hands of the Turks. The tricolour, rather than the Union Jack, over the Red Fort is only an esoteric symbol, certainly signifying that India lost but Britain won. Bah!
Now comes the defence of the promoters of the mosque and they are presented as angelic figures. The columnist only fails to mention that the angel like male figure had contended “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened". Only today, there was another item on the angelic female asserting that the mosque would be raised at the precise spot and nowhere else. Shades of the Babri Masjid assertions, anyone? The American tolerance and polite requests for shifting of the proposed mosque obviously have no impact on these very American citizens. Yet again, the couple’s supposed Sufi background is highlighted to underline that these are indeed enlightened moderate people. Wish that the columnist had highlighted that alongwith music and mysticism, Sufis have been the sword arm of Islam, their own warrior monks, who carried the Quran by sword in the various parts of the subcontinent; Sylhet, Deccan and Kashmir included. Why go back so much in history when the partition in 1947 threw up powerful pirs who led holy jehad against the Hindus and Sikhs in NWFP, Punjab and Bengal? Being a Sufi is not being a Jain Monk practicing Ahimsa to all!
The columnist then moves on to comparisons with India:
And it would never happen in India, my native country, where Hindu lynch mobs, aided and abetted by the ruling Congress Party, orchestrated a mini pogrom of Sikhs following the 1984 assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguard.
It is out of question that a Sikh gurudwara could ever be erected next to Gandhi's residence, where she was assassinated, against the will of the majority Hindu population. And Indian Muslims have yet not been allowed to rebuild the mosque that Hindus led a national march to tear down with their bare hands in 1991—not even as recompense for the bloodletting they visited upon Muslims following the mosque razing.
“Hindu lynch mobs, aided and abetted by the ruling Congress Party,” – What does the columnist want to say? That the Congress party does not comprise of Hindus or whether the mobs were not connected with the Congress? How does she know that Muslim Congressmen were not a part of the mobs? Wouldn’t it have been more factual simply to state that Congress mobs attacked people from the Sikh community?
The contention on the Gurudwara near Smt Gandhi’s assassination spot is all the more laughable. Firstly, unlike the Ground Zero plot, the place were the assassination happened is not a private property but is owned by the Government. How can the Government of a supposedly secular state build a place of worship? Most importantly - has any such demand ever been made? Will any Hindu ever have any objection to a Gurudwara? Also, will any Congress Government ever do anything that disturbs soil made sacred by the most important family in India?
Finally, the must have Babri reference in the article. The challenges faced by the columnist comes through in her assertion that the mosque was demolished in 1991. In reality, the structure demolition happened in 1992. She then talks of recompese. Recompense would be unending - where to start? It start with the Muslim conquest of the subcontinent or the various temples which were destroyed during riots or those which were destroyed in 1990, in the aftermath of the first Kar Seva, or those which were destroyed post December 6, 1992? Also, shouldn't we get into the point that almost all riots in the demolition aftermath, be it Mumbai, Kolkata, Ahmedabad, Dhubri, Goalpara, Mau, Aligarh, Vadodara, Azamgarh, Indore and other cities were started by Muslim mobs attacking Hindu places of worship? What bloodletting does she talk of, when in each riot, at least a third of all casualties would be from the so-called majority community! The columnist further makes a point that perpetrators of Muslim and Sikh massacres in India have not been brought to justice. While true, she could also have highlighted the fact that killers of Hindus have also not been brought to book in India. It is more a systematic failure of our judicial and law enforcing system that anything else.
One is free to have any belief and support the cause one believes in. However, uninformed and ill-baked assertions are dangerous to the society for they create a make believe world which does not exist and negatively impact the thinking of the reader population. Unfortunately, sloganeering and mouthing of platitudes seems to have replaced respect for facts in the media world.
Brilliantly written.
ReplyDeleteIt is true.
People often write without
possessing the relevant information,
and journalists have a higher degree of responsibility to first get their facts right and then write. After all, the whole world is reading.
Anyways, now a days, the Media just wants to fill the paper and doesn't really care much about its basic duty to provide correct information.
We do live in interesting times.