4 - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, March 13, 2002 OP/ED 0 abe Abg Id 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 letters@michigandaily.com EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 JON SCHWARTZ Editor in Chief JOHANNA HANINK Editorial Page Editor Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of the majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other articles, letters and cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. NOTABLE QUOTABLE Remember: Prisoners, good. Boy Scouts, bad. Only in Ann Arbor. No: Only in America." - Jon Nordlinger in his "Impromptus "feature in this week's National Review. Nordlinger is the magazine's managing editor. 0 CHIP CULLEN GRINDCNG THE NIB An intense challenge to Indian secularity MANISH RAIJI NOTHING CATCHY 40 he strongest sort of government is a demo- cratic, secular one - it's the only kind that can really impress upon all of its citizens the validity of its actions. I once wrote about the ridiculousness of calling upon a higher power, which the entire population does not believe in, to justify policy. For Americans, the push and pull of secularity versus religiosity seems dim; besides some silly "God Bless America" slo- gans and our faith-based president, it seems clear that America is a secular state. Though the Christ- ian majority certainly tries to use "God" as a good explanation for legislation, we are by and large sheltered from religious intrusion in our lives. This struggle exists elsewhere. Save for a few exceptions, the Middle East is theocratic. The Vat- ican is a Christian state; Israel is a Jewish one. Many of the problems facing Middle Eastern states today stem from their adamant ties to Islam; Vatican City will never be an inclusive society and Israel, once it solves the host of issues it faces now, will have to face up to the obvious contradictions of being Jewish and democratic. Others have faced this struggle by simply eliminating religion. The Soviet Union and China spring to mind as states that took anti-religiosity to an extreme - refusing not only to be influenced by religion, but refusing to allow its own citizens to practice their religion freely. There is a state that is facing the secular/theo- cratic struggle today. It is the birthplace of four major world religions; its history has been marred by religious strife and its conquerors have often had vile contempt for one religion, in the name of another. That state is India. India, since its inception in 1947, has prided itself for being a secular democracy - a status that forces Indians to hold themselves to a high stan- dard of governance. Yet religion in India, more so than perhaps anywhere else in the worlds, cannot simply be ignored - Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism sprung from it. To many, India is considered a holy land. There is nothing secular about holiness. One of the greatest epics in Hindu mythology is that of Rama - the perceived incarnation of God on earth, whose kingdom's capitol was Ayo- dhya. In 1526, the first of the Moghul emperors, Babar, set up his kingdom and built a mosque in Ayodhya - the Babri Masjid. Of all the religious tensions in recent Indian history, the Hindu-Muslim one has been the most vitriolic, the most violent and the most devastating. Starting from its birth as an independent state, the partition of India and Pakistan proved an impetus to a level of bloodshed that shocked rational peo- ple on both sides of the still-disputed border. India pledged to itself to rise above religious strife - to practice a form of government that led with demo- cratic values, not religious ones. This government secularity has been India's one and only saving grace throughout its short life. There have been setbacks; Indira Gandhi's 1984 attack on extremist Sikh terrorists operating from the Golden Temple in Amritsar - one of the holi- est sites in Sikhism - led to her eventual assassi- nation by two of her own Sikh bodyguards. The lessons of Indira Gandhi are sadly being forgotten in India today. In .1989, amidst a rising current of Hindu nationalism in India, members of the Bhartiya Janarta Party (the party now at the helm of Indian politics) and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (a right- wing Hindu nationalist group) arrived in Ayodhya under the auspices of the Rcan Janambhoomi (Ram's Birthplace) movement to lay down the first stone in what they pledged would be a recla- mation of the holy city. At the time, the army stood watching, taking precaution to ensure that the mosque was not torn down, as had been planned. Three years later, that precaution was not taken; the Babri Masjid was razed by fanatic Hindu nationalists - with the army watching in smiling acceptance. The Indian Supreme Court had pledged to deal with the legal issue of Ayodhya - does Indian secularity mean a negation of valid reli- gious/cultural beliefs? The Babri Masjid in Ayo- dhya was paramount to having a church in Mecca, a temple in the Vatican - Hindus have a valid reason to demand that their ties to Ayodhya be respected. But this demand should have been settled through the courts. Hindus had a claim to the city; though it would have been difficult for the courts to settle the issue without stepping on some toes, provisions could have been made to respectfully move the Babri Masjid to another site. This would have preserved a historical Indian monument (with its own importance to a religious minority) while reclaiming the holy city for Hindus. The 1992 raz- ing of the Babri Masjid did nothing more than incite some of the most violent riots the country has seen. Until now. Against the backdrop of 800 dead Indian Hin- dus and Muslims, the Indian government faces one of the fiercest challenges to its secularity. There is no rebuilding the Babri Masjid and even if a gen- uine legal process allows for the building of a Hindu temple in Ayodhya, there needs to be a sea change in Indian politics - a concerted effort by moderate Hindus to usurp the right-wing fringe and reclaim Indian secularity. If such a change fails to occur, India risks becoming like the very neighbors it so strongly criticizes. Manish Ravi can be reached at mraji@umich.edu. I a LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 6 Undergraduate education should not have to suffer for quarreling GEO, 'U' TO THE DAILY: I am perplexed as to why any undergraduate stu- dent would support the Graduate Employees Organi- zation strike Monday. Why should undergraduates support a group which, through its "strike," clearly shows that it does not have the best interests of stu- dents at heart, a group which can heartlessly deny thousands of tuition paying students an education which they deserve? On top of the fact that the GEO is forcing under- graduate students to lose a full day's education, it is also making demands of the University that will have a direct negatiye impact on the affordability'and qual- ity of the undergraduate education in the future. They are demanding, among other things, increased pay and subsidized services including child care. Since the University already has a strapped budget, these changes will clearly result in tuition hikes in the near future. They also want to change the University poli- cy on English Language Proficiency so that graduate students who clearly do not have the language profi- ciency necessary to teach can receive the financial benefits of working as graduate student instructors. GSIs have a difficult job and they may have a legitimate claim to better working conditions. How- ever, undergraduates should not be forced to sacrifice their tuition and their education because the GEO and the University cannot get along. KATHERINE ADAMS LSA junior Raiji's viewpoint 'biased;' was misrepresentative of Shafir's speech TO THE DAILY: As someone who attended the Israel confer- ence this past Sunday, I found Manish Raiji's viewpoint on General Relik Shafir's speech (Israel under attack, 3/11/02) ironically very differ- ent from the viewpoints Shafir expressed at the conference. Raiji's viewpoint was not the picture painted by Shafir, who acknowledged among other things the fact that the Israeli settlements -in Palestine are aggravating the Middle Eastern con- flict and that their removal is necessary before a peace agreement can be established. Raiii asserts that Pales.'tinian refusa~l to recov- Palestinians massacred in a refugee camp last Friday, who were shot by invading Israeli troops and then run over with tanks once injured or beaten with pieces of a Palestinian ambulance that was stopped and destroyed at a checkpoint). However, since the 1970s Arab nations have agreed to recognize the Israeli state in return for an independent Palestinian state and Israeli withdrawal from occupied land, land which coincidentally already belongs to the Palestini- ans under international law. Shafir himself stat- ed in his lecture that in order for both parties to receive justice, Palestine must be recognized as an independent state by Israel. Furthermore, Raiji writes his article as if Arab and Muslim states are the worst enemies the Jewish people have ever had, when in fact it was stated by Shafir clearly that Jews have his- torically have received far better treatment liv- ing in Muslim countries than anywhere in the West, where Christian anti-Semitism is ram- pant. In my admittedly humble opinion, a govern- ment that wants peace does not roll into refugee camps a few days after a peace plan is proposed and start telling people to vacate their homes or they will be killed by the hundreds, which hap- pened last Friday after the Saudi peace plan was proposed. In short, Raiji has written a biased, unfair piece which misrepresents the message present- ed at the conference and furthers his obvious personal agenda of painting Arabs and Muslims as uncivilized. While admitting that Israeli actions may have been "harsh" and that Arab Israelis are treated unfairly, Raiji irrationally draws the conclusion that because of Israeli "suffering" resulting from their illegal occupa- tion, these actions are justified. What about the suffering of those people crushed outside their homes by tanks, or who are humiliated and shot at Israeli checkpoints? I suppose from this one- sided perspective, their suffering shouldn't be considered at all. SARAH BEDY LSA junior Undergraduate population should not cross picket lines To THE DAILY: I never had any intention of crossing the Grad- uate Employees Organization picket lines on Mon- such as food service employees, they are not expendable and highly valuable, and thus have should fight for the best contract that is possible, including a pay raise that is above the rate of infla- tion, as well as additional training to make them not "suck" as much. Additionally, I believe that a large part of the undergraduate population simply does not under- stand what it means to cross a picket line. After hearipg what many undergraduates have had to say regarding unions and picket lines, it is obvious that most of my classmates do not realize the bene- fits brought about by unionization in this country. I can say with confidence that almost every student has either a parent or a grandparent who is or once was in a union, and that union's struggles for better contracts has led to a more affluent way of life, including the opportunity to attend the University. KYLE METEYER LSA sophomore MSA reps, parties should put aside 'business-as-usual politics' To THE DAILY: In a victory for the defense of affirmative action, the Michigan Student Assembly voted to pass a pro-affirmative action resolution at last Tuesday's meeting. The only executive candidates who spoke for the motion and declared openly their endorsement of the resolution were we, the Defend Affirmative Action Party candidates, Agnes Aleobua for President and Ben Royal for Vice-President. Neither the Students First nor Blue Party candidates spoke for or explained their split vote on the motion. In a cynical electioneering tac- tic, the presidential candidates for both parties voted for the resolution while the vice-presidential candidates abstained This week, in another critical campus issue, the Graduate Employees Organization walkout, DAAP again declared our support and endorse- ment of GEO's struggle and actively campaigned to get undergraduate support for the Monday boy- cott. Again, Students First did not publicly declare their support for the GEO struggle. And the Blue Party remained silent on the issue. Students have the right to know where the par- ties stand on the key issues facing campus life. The way to overcome voter apathy and disgust is for the parties running to stand openly and proudly on their principles and take clear public positions on 0 0 0 m -_ - -- -.. _ ...Y,. a ,ss o. ,+'^'n -ra -r i0Z X s^ c% '6^'a ^3 'T 4" a.'TS^t-fd" a