The only thing on the television this Thanksgiving weekend was CNN. The events in Mumbai completely dominated our family get-together, not least because as Dawoodi Bohra muslims, we have extensive circles of friends and family in the city, as well as in Gujrat state. So as with the Godhra riots of a few years back, India’s 9-11 takes on a deeply personal significance to my own kith and kin.
I handed out candles to a group of evidently upper class women. A friend, a woman journalist who doesn’t normally have patience with communal gossip, overheard their conversation. She whispered to me that the women were suspicious of me. She thought it had something to do with my beard and the Afghan cap I wear on cold evenings. Only when I introduced myself and declared that India needed a dictator did they look relaxed. I said Narendra Modi was my hero, even though he sports a different kind of beard. This was a ploy that works when there’s no scope for serious discussion. The women said the country needed Modi as prime minister. I endorsed the view so that they could sleep peacefully that night. We parted on this cordial note.
On the way back, my friend and I discussed how beards had become particularly suspect since the advent of Osama bin Laden. And here, the Mumbai terrorists who themselves were probably clean-shaven pub-crawling college kids, had deepened mistrust that was not just rooted in facial hair. They had succeeded in their mission to drive a deeper wedge among Indians as evident at India Gate.
Film actress Nandita Das was among the mourners that broke into a dozen groups or more, each more worried than the other about what was happening to India. Nandita has just made a film about the social isolation of Muslims in Gujarat. She told me some of her close friends had wondered why she was sympathetic to Muslims, and one of them even asked if she had a Muslim boyfriend. What I know is that she has a Gujarati mother.
Let me share a bit of an email Nandita sent to her friends the day before the funeral. It said: “It hadn’t hit me hard enough till Thursday morning…I have to say, it had very little effect on me. My predictable response was, not again…more people will die, more fear, more prejudice and more hatred. But at some level the response was instant and cerebral. But this morning when I got up things felt different. Got a message from an unknown no: “See what your friends have done.” Strangely a close friend of mine got a similar message last night, but from an acquaintance. Just because Firaaq, my film, deals with how Muslims ‘also’ get affected by violence, the terrorists are supposed to be my friends!
“Today a common young Muslim man around town is probably the most vulnerable. I got many messages from my Muslim friends who feel the need to condemn it more than anyone else, who feel the need to prove their national allegiance in every possible way. They are begging to be not clubbed with the terrorists, a fear not unfounded. Then of course there were tons of messages from well-wishers across the world who asked about me and my loved ones’ safety. I too did the same. And strangely that was when tears started rolling down my cheek, almost involuntarily. Guess the thought that if our loved ones were fine, it’s all ok, seemed like a bizarre way to feel. When will our souls ache when anyone is hurt, even those that we have never seen and will never see? The more I wrote back in sms’s and emails that I was ok, the more miserable I was feeling.”
usly conceive that the actions of a deranged dozen is representative of the attitudes of millions? That is the fear that the terrorists are trying to sow – and Mumbai, glamorous and cosmopolitan and diverse, was the perfect target – the crown jewel of India’s democratic and pluralistic ethos, just asking to be shattered by those who care nothing for India, or Islam – only chaos for its own sake.
The voting phase for the Brass Crescent Awards has now begun (though a bit later than expected). We have some really great blogs for you all to vote on, so head over and make your choices!
As it says on the official site, the Awards are named for the Story of the City of Brass in the Thousand and One
Nights. Today, the Islamsphere is forging a new synthesis of Islam and
modernity, and is the intellectual heir to the traditions of philosophy
and learning that was once the hallmark of Islamic civilization – a
heritage scarcely recognizable today in the Islamic world after a
century’s ravages of colonialism, tyrants, and religious
fundamentalism. We believe that Islam transcends history, and we are
forging history anew for tomorrow’s Islam. These awards are a means to
honor ourselves and celebrate our nascent community, and promote its
Join us – it’s as simple as heading over to the Awards site and casting your vote!
Queen Rania of Jordan is just the coolest head of state ever. She was nominated for a YouTube Visionary Award, so she spoofed David Letterman to accept, poke a little fun at herself, and promote her ongoing message of cultural tolerance and peace. Her YouTube Channel is actually pretty entertaining and thought-provoking at the same time, so check it out.
The historic victory of Barack Obama has left the various factions within the Republican Party scrambling to lay claim to conservatism’s mantle. I for one am rooting for the technocrats at The Next Right, the pragmatists at The American Conservative, or the crunchy conservatives at Culture 11 to prevail over the political hacks like RedState. All of these various factions are attempting to unite, launching a ten-point action plan for rebuilding the Republican Party, but their plan is focused exclusively on process rather than principle. Nowhere is there a comprehensive definition of what conservatism actually is, around which everyone can rally.
The only point of concensus between them seems to be the abortion issue, with the basic pro-life position seen as a litmus test for the American Right as a whole. And even on that issue, there are dissenters, pro-life proponents who supported Obama like Douglas Kmiec and the Pro-Life Pro-Obama organization, which taps into the evangelical movement’s dissatisfaction with the polarized politics offered them by the GOP. These types are treated as pariahs within what remains of the conservative movement.
Presently, the Right is focusing on the campaign promise by Obama to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would remove all legal barriers to abortion at the state and federal level. Even the normally restrained Larison can’t help but portray Obama as a “radical pro-abortion extremist” for promising to sign it, and speculate darkly about the bill forcing the closure of Catholic hosptals. That last bit is particularly misleading; the Catholic bishops have said that they would rather close all Catholic hospitals than be “forced” to perform a single abortion therein, which is a straw man argument since the bill does not in any way mandate that a doctor perform an abortion. The bishops warn that closing the hospitals would disproortionately impact the poor, which is certainly true; why then are they threatening to hold the poor’s health care hostage to a hypothetical that would never occur anyway? This is abortion-scaremongering, nothing more.
Given the narrow focus of the Right around being dogmatically pro-life (and reflexively anti-Obama), it’s hard to imagine how the Republican Party will succeed in building the kind of broad coalition needed to expand beyond its increasingly limited geographic base. But is there really an alternative? The Republican Leadership Council, a collection of moderate GOP politicians, is trying to argue that the GOP should return to its fiscal and libertarian roots, and disavow explicit religious and social litmus tests. The nickname of the “failure caucus” for their efforts gives a sense of the uphill climb they face, and it’s true – only the social and cultural issues are enough to excite the conservative base, as evidenced by the still-astonishing success and enduring popularity of Sarah Palin.
Amidst all this is something genuinely new – the argument that there is such a thing as a “secular right”. Notable pundits who seem to be promoting such a concept are Republican iconoclasts like John Derbyshire and Heather McDonald. This is in some sense a repackaging of the same general “Republican coalition minus the religious conservatives” that is advcated by the RLC. There’s even a Wikipedia entry, but it is rather sparse. The new Secular Right blog, meanwhile, has a picture of David Hume and a paean to “human flourishing”, but not much else in terms of unifying principle or broad vision.
Can such a thing truly exist? What separates the secular right from the secular left, or even run-of-the-mill libertarians? In discussion of the new concept at Talk Islam, Willow ponders whether secular humanism is compatible with the secular Right, or whether humanism is itself a purely Left phenomenon. And it should be noted that many of the new proponents of the Secular Right also have more than a passing belief in transhumanism, which has its own supernatural and spiritual aspects. These are all interesting questions but I confess to being skeptical whether the stranglehold on the Right of the social and religious wing can seriously be weakened. The best place for a secular right to flourish may well be the political Left. The same might even be true of conservatism itself.
Related reading: Here at Beliefnet, Douglas Kmiec responds to questions about Obama and the FOCA, among other aspectso fthe abortion issue. Also, at Crooked Timber, John Holbo talks about liberalism and conservatism in the American context.