This is in response to Keith Bernard’s comment (November 20) in which he stated he was flummoxed by all the excitement surrounding the Modi visit. He also made comments demonstrating a lack of knowledge of Indian history as relates to a historical religious site in Ayodhya and India’s internal politics especially with regards to Modi as well as on religious practice and worship in Guyana. These need correction. Contrary to what he penned, Modi did not support the demolition of a masjid and replaced it with a temple. The Indian Supreme Court awarded ownership of the land to a Hindu group that decided to build the Ram Mandir.
While Bernard was or is flummoxed by Modi’s visit in Guyana, almost everyone else is enthralled and very happy that the leader of the world’s most populous country and largest democracy has come bearing gifts to Guyanese and the region and offering practical advice and a supportive role on development.
Mr Bernard is one of the finest commentators, one who, in recent past, demonstrated objectivity, balance, and fairness and whose arguments or advice and suggestions had or have merit. But this one on Shri Modi ji and religious tolerance in India as well as about Islamic worshipping in Guyana is deeply flawed. It reveals how much Guyanese misunderstands cultural and religious practices of each other. If we don’t understand the faiths practiced in our country, how can we criticize Modi on religion in India. And if we don’t know the history of matters of a subject, then we should not comment on it. Besides being devoid of scholarship, Bernard’s comments and
advice come across as mischievous.
Guyana is blessed to have the leader of one of the largest economies to visit in its history as a colony and a nation. Mrs Indira Gandhi, another Indian PM, was the only other leader of a large economy to ever visit Guyana. All other PMs or Presidents to visit Guyana, except Brazil, were from a small country or economy. Guyanese politicians on both sides are very pleased with the visit, and Muslim Guyanese have welcomed Modi. No Islamic bodies have protested or objected to the visit or complained about Modi while he was in Guyana. No controversy there!
Anyone who followed the presence and movements of Modi in Guyana would recognize that President Irfaan Ali, a devout Muslim, showered glowing accolades on Shri Modi. He was praised for his leadership and advocacy of the less developing nations.
Mr Modi is a Hindu and the leader of a country that is 80% Hindu, but he is not the head of Hindus as the Pope is of the Vatican (Holy See) state. He was not invited to Guyana as a Hindu and to worship or perform puja but as head of a country of 1.45 billion to cement ties. Thus, President Ali could not have invited him to “his” family masjid or mosque as suggested by Bernard. Mr Modi did not visit a temple despite invitations to several. How could he have gone to a Church or Masjid having not visited a temple or even invited to one as part if his program? Invites were made to visit mandirs but time was an issue. It was a state visit controlled by the Guyana government.
As best as I know, President Ali and Muslims do not have a ‘home masjid’. Hindus are the only group that have a place for worship at home called a family mandir or kutiya where prayers or puja take place; Buddhists also have family temples at home, but Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jews, and others do not have such a practice. Hindus have pictures of Cheddi Jagan, Gandhi, and other Hindu leaders, including Bharrat Jagdeo, at their kutiya as ‘deities’, worshiping them. Muslims and Christians are prohibited from such religious hero worshiping.
Modi is an Indian nationalist who also happens to be Hindu. That is not equated to being a Hindu nationalist. He is no more a religious nationalist than leaders of other countries like Biden, Obama, Mandela, Trump, Irfaan Ali, etc. Being a Hindu or a Hindu nationalist does not make him anti ‘any other group’. He has represented a constituency that is a third Muslim. He has provided effective representation of Muslim and other constituents. Modi is more tolerant of non Hindus than Islamic leaders or Christian leaders are of non Muslims and non Christians respectively. He has provided large amounts of grants to Muslims craftsmen in his constituency and in other areas. He also provided grants to Muslim and other children. Muslim and other poor people get welfare payments and rations. He has championed equality for Muslim women putting an end to the archaic practice of divorcing a female Muslim simply by telling her three times ( triple talaq) that you divorce her and abandoning her and kids. Modi made it law that a divorce must be endorsed by the court with the woman and young children getting the lion share of all property and assets. He entertained Muslims and Christians for events relating to their festivals. Muslims voted for him. His staff comprises Muslims.
Bernard’s comment about the (Babri) mosque in Ayodhya needs correction. It is difficult to determine right and wrong in religious matters and to correct historic wrongdoings done in the name of faith. Historical records revealed that a temple dedicated to the Hindu God Shri Ram was destroyed by Islamic invaders, their ruler Babur, who also converted Hindus and slaughtered millions who resisted, according to claims made in writings. Hindus continued to worship at the shrine which they believed was the spot where Lord Rama made his appearance. The temple was rebuilt and knocked down repeatedly. Hindus continued to worship at the spot. The small Babri mosque was built over the Hindu shrine deterring Hindus to worship there, but Hindus continued to worship adjacent to the masjid seeking blessings of Lord Rama.
Over time, the mosque felt in disrepair and ultimately abandoned. Namaz or Islamic worshipping was no longer offered there. Hindus cared for the area surrounding the small mosque because of its relevance to their God, Rama, and eventually a murthi was placed inside the masjid, attracting Hindu worshippers from around the holy city of Ayodhya and nationally. For all practical purposes, the small mosque became a temple with millions of Hindus performing puja or prayers. Controversy erupted over Hindu claim to the site and court papers were filed by two competing claimants, one side Hindu and the other Muslim. The Muslims claimed the land and the Hindus the right to worship to their God. Nama was not offered at the site for centuries. The mosque was shuttered for a while and then reopened at the directive of PM Rajiv Gandhi under whose tenure Ram Lalla murthi was consecrated. Rebuilding the Ram Temple became a nationwide rallying cry. Millions flocked for worshiping, and it also attracted tourists including thousands of Guyanese and other Indo Caribbeans. This writer, when as an exchange scholar in Delhi in summer 1985, was taken to the site as a tourist and offered prayers inside the mosque, now a makeshift temple, to Shri Ram murthi. The small masjid was demolished in 1992 by an angry Hindu crowd of karsevaks at a religious event using their hands and primitive equipment. A small makeshift temple was built overnight wherein the Ram murthi was consecrated by holy sages and Pandits. The police swooped in and arrested participants. Mr Modi was not among those arrested (stand to be corrected). Contrary to what Bernard penned, Mr Modi did not encourage the demolition of the masjid.
There was a court trial. It took over twenty five years to clear the accused by the court. Hindu worshipping continued unabated under police protection as the court maintained the status quo while determining the matter. Hindus laid claim to the site as a place for worshipping. Muslims laid claim to the land as property and not as a place for worshiping. The site where the grandiose temple is built is very auspicious and sacrosanct for Hindus as it is where they believe Lord Ram made his appearance. The site has no religious significance to Muslims and they never made such a claim.
Archeologists, including Muslims, attested that artifacts, including murthis and drawings on stones used to construct the mosque, that are centuries old, revealed that a Hindu temple existed there. The court eventually resolved the dispute to the land matter or site some four years ago by granting it to Hindus and awarding land to Muslims for construction of a masjid at another site. The full Supreme Court, that included Muslims, rendered a ruling that was accepted by the Muslim organizations that filed claim to the land. The ruling was one of mutual respect and inclusivity. It is wrong therefore, for Bernard to pen that a masjid was demolished to build a temple. The temple, which was visited by this writer last April and again earlier this month for Diwali, was built wit court permission and with donations of US$250 M including small contributions from this writer and thousands of Hindu Guyanese and other Caribbean Hindus. Blessed water from Guyana and several Caribbean countries were used in its construction.
It is important that every effort be made by Bernard and others to write historical matters as accurately as possible especially on religious matters and to objectively present both sides of an argument. A biased account, as presented by Bernard, could lead to tensions and or further strain religious relations between our communities on a matter that is very far from Guyana, some 10K miles away, and one that is not a factor in our politics or culture and that is distanced from our consciousness as Guyanese. One other point: Hindus or Christians or Muslims worshipping at each other’s place of worship may not necessarily change how we see each other. And how can we achieve such a feat when some religions see theirs, as written in their holy books, as the only path to salvation. Hinduism see all paths lead to the same God.