Current Mood: Rotten
Thomas Friedman speaks today of a very particular problem I've been fretting over a lot more since I heard of the bombings in London. For one, the co-ordinated blasts brought back memories of a hot March day in 1993 when Bombay was rocked by 13 blasts, one after another, in one of the worst terrorist attacks ever carried out on a major metropolis.
The locus of my discomfort is my very identity, my name, officially it is Mohammed Ubaid, Mohamed Amin Diyan - a beautiful example of clerical apathy toward a new born and my parents' excitement (inexperience?) gone awry in naming their first baby. If you were paying attention you'd notice that not only do I have two Mohammeds in my name, but also that both have different spellings. I don't know what shackles the name will raise with skeptical immigration officers but as Friedman points out, with the London blasts, everybody in the West loses a bit of their freedom. I won't be surprised if, after scanning my ID, someone gives me a particularly suspicious look, offended and frustrated yes, but not surprised. I detest the fact that I have to actually state out loud how I absolutely hate Osama bin Laden and everyone else of his ilk, shouldn't that be the default expectation from any normal person? Muslim or otherwise? My religious persuasion, or rather the complete lack of it, does not appear on my identification documents but my name does, so though I don't believe in any kind of religious philosophy, the onus is still on me to spell it out for those who doubt my devotion to Salman Rushdie rather than bin Laden. The op-ed points out that though a fatwa was issued against Rushdie, no such judgement has been passed against the man responsible for thousands of civilian deaths around the world and for making everyday life for Muslims a little more difficult. I couldn't agree more, why has no fatwa been issued against him? Actually I don't even know what a Muslim leader is, I don't think the princes and dictators of Arab countries represent me, and the so called Muslim leaders in India are not all that representative of my thinking either. I feel completely helpless right now, I'm not responsible for what terrorists do in the name of Islam, I can't do anything personally to stop them, I don't identify with their ideas or their causes, heck I don't even identify with religion anymore so what recourse do I have except, perhaps, change my name to something more innocuous?
I'm going to India for a month on vacation and my biggest concern right now is what's going to happen when I go to get my visa stamped at the Mumbai consulate, and what happens at the immigration counter when I fly back to LAX. Sigh, this is all so depressing. posted by ubaid - Friday, July 08, 2005 at 11:27 AM - 1 comments - post anonymously

Why The Babri Masjid Needs To Go
This just in, the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya was attacked by four terrorists this morning, to what end I can't fathom, but all were killed and their attack foiled. I don't understand what foiled means here, however, for I can't imagine what they were after in the complex. Idols?
I remember the day when the Babri Masjid was torn down, almost thirteen years ago, and when, a few days later, my hometown erupted in some of the most gruesome riots in recent memory (though Godhra eclipsed even that, we get worse with the years, not better). The dispute is a deep and complex issue, it has historical aspects and entire volumes can be devoted to who has rights over the land, but I personally see no reason for the Muslim community not to renounce all claim over the land and let a Ram temple be built there. For Muslims, the Babri Masjid is just another mosque, not of particularly deep historical or religious significance, for the Hindus it represents the birth place of Rama, perhaps equivalent to Mecca if you had to draw a parallel. Renouncing claim over the land will not only help heal what can only be described a deep wound on the secular character of Indian society, it will go a long way in shaping the dialog that needs to take place between Indian Muslims and Indians of every other religious persuasion. Growing up as a Muslim in India, I think I felt the most threatened only after the Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992, a day described by it's architect as the saddest/most unfortunate day of his life. Irrespective of whether there historically existed a Ram temple at the same spot and whether Babur demolished it, I believe it is not unreasonable for a temple to be built there, it wouldn't deprive the Muslims of a place to worship and it would give the Hindus some kind of closure. The only reasons not to do this would be
(a) It gives the impression of giving in to the strong arm tactics of radical organizations like the VHP and RSS
(b) It is completely possible similar claims will be made in other Hindu holy cities like Mathura and Kaashi, with or without justification.
Just like changing the names of cities to what they were before the British Raj advances nothing but political agendas, so also will demolishing mosques and building temples in their places do little to advance the secular dialog between the country's religious communities.
UPDATE: This morning I realize, the title of this post is a bit off, the Babri Masjid is already gone, but I'm going to profess the idea of reconstructing the mosque and the claim over the land should go, and will leave the title as it is. posted by ubaid - Monday, July 04, 2005 at 11:02 PM - 1 comments - post anonymously