Dear Editor,
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 commented on a controversial religious matter pertaining to the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya that needs explanation and clarification. 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 Modi and religious tolerance in India is deeply flawed.
Contrary to what he penned, Mr. Modi did not support the demolition of a masjid. He was not among those charged for its demolition. 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 once existed there. The full Supreme Court, that included Muslims, used the evidence of archeology and rendered a ruling that was accepted by the Muslim organizations that filed claim to the land. The court granted it to Hindus and awarded separate land to Muslims for construction of a masjid at another site. 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 was built with court permission and with donations of US$250 M including small contributions from Hindu Guyanese and other Caribbean Hindus. Blessed water from Guyana and several Caribbean countries were used in its construction. It is important to note that the Indian Supreme Court awarded ownership of the land, where the Babri Masjid once stood, to a Hindu group that decided to build the Ram Mandir there. Modi’s government followed the law.
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. Modi is an Indian nationalist who also happens to be Hindu. That is not equated to being a Hindu nationalist. 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 and in his third five year term. He has provided effective representation of Muslim and other constituents.
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.
Sincerely,
Vishnu Bisram
