Many people in university chaplaincy must have asked the same questions that gripped me in starting this academic year at the height of the Park51 controversy.  How do we convert this situation into an Obamaian “teachable movement” around religious pluralism in a democracy?  How do we sensitively extract the central issues for those in favor of and opposition to the project without polarizing participants?  How do we organize programming to promote intellectual wonder and self-discovery while allowing the campus community to safely share unpopular ideas and emotions?

Before we proceed, I must make several disclosures.  As a Hindu, I feel like an outsider to what seems like another Semitic family feud.  Moreover, in no way do my views represent my role as the Hindu Fellow (popularly known as “The Hindu Chaplain” at Yale University), the University Chaplain, the Chaplain’s Office, Yale University or any other professional body to which I am affiliated.  In fact, I cannot guarantee that this post will represent me over time – I reserve the right to alter my views with the proper inspiration or temptation.

Here, we won’t rehearse the history and development of the Park51 space.  These facts are easily accessible elsewhere.  Instead, consider the intent of Park51 from the blog of its organizers (http://blog.park51.org/).  In an entry from September 8, 2010, they write:

“About Park51: Park51 is a nonsectarian community, cultural and interfaith spiritual center along with a Muslim prayer area and a monument to honor all those we lost on 9/11. Park51 enriches lower Manhattan in body and spirit, with ecologically conscious design and operation. Our goals are pluralism, service, arts and culture, health and healing. A group of downtown Muslim-Americans envisioned a sanctuary where everyone is welcome to learn, experience the arts and culture and explore their relationship to faith. In the near future, Park51 will offer green, world-class recreational and educational facilities, and a friendly and accessible platform for conversations across our identities.”

I must admit two viewpoints not yet reconciled: I don’t understand the hostile resistance to Park51, especially in light of the goals above.  At the same time, I don’t understand the determination of the organizers to proceed despite overwhelming opposition in the country.  I want to ask the organizers about their inattention to public relations– why not promote public interreligious dialogue with your worst opponents to answer their concerns?

As the Park51 debate evolved, a huge story broke with little heed in the United States but with non-stop coverage in India: the Supreme Court issued a verdict in the contentious case of the Babri Masjid.  Tomes have been written in the lay and academic literature about this issue with both sides accusing the other of revising history.  From what I gather, these facts are not in dispute:

–       The Mughal emperor Babur (1526-1530 CE) is held to have ordered the mosque’s construction in 1527 (hence, the adjective Babri).

–       On one side, many Hindus believe it to the birthplace of Lord Rama, a popular devotional incarnation of Vishnu.

–       On the other side, many of other religious persuasions dispute that it was ever the birthplace.

–       Records from the 1800s suggest that Hindus and Muslims jointly worshipped there until it became used almost exclusively by Muslims.

–       The mosque was ordered closed by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in 1949 after Hindu idols were found despite the presence of security.

–       The Vishwa Hindu Parishad successfully agitated for its re-opening in 1986 after which the mosque started to be used as a Hindu temple.

–       A gathering of Hindus destroyed the mosque in 1992 after months of political mobilization, leading to riots and the deaths of many Muslims.

–       Hundreds of Hindu temples in Pakistan and Bangladesh were destroyed in response as minority Hindu communities were attacked.

Few issues inflame passions so violently in the subcontinent like the Babri Masjid.  All throughout, I have heard many reasonable questions: Can Hindus really prove that this is the very birthplace of Lord Rama?  Did Hindus drum up the narrative of Lord Rama’s birthplace to consolidate a political vote bank against the Muslim minority?  How would Muslims feel if other religious groups built their institutions at Mecca or Medina?  Why couldn’t the Muslim community simply move the mosque given the sacredness of Ayodhya for Hindus?

After eighteen years, the Supreme Court ruled in September 2010 that two thirds of the land now belongs to Hindus and one third to Muslims.  Some groups have vowed to appeal the verdict, arguing that it belongs to their community exclusively.  Some Hindus think that the court pandered to minorities while some Muslims charge the court with displaying majoritarian sympathies.  Many others seem thankful that the issue is temporarily resolved.

The ruling is pleasantly unexpected: the judicial bench essentially mandated spatial pluralism.  Hindus and Muslims must now choose to do what they will next to each other.  No community can claim exclusivity to the entire site.  Allotment percentage notwithstanding, the verdict surprised me in its bold vision of compelling both groups to share sacred space.

I have juxtaposed the Babri Masjid with Park51 to ask about the possibilities of sacred space in Manhattan.  The objections to Park51 seem to coalesce around the symbolism of Muslim prayer space commemorating the triumph of a terrorist attack.  As a friend recently pointed out, Park51 ultimately reflects disagreements about who claims Ground Zero as space since Park51 cannot be seen or heard from Ground Zero itself.  That said, how could the goals of Park51 be met in a win-win situation?  What if the organizers were to share their prayer area with other religious groups?  Could the organizers stagger times to accommodate Christians and Jews also?  Why not make the area a site for private spiritual contemplation?  Such solutions might incorporate contrarian voices productively and start us toward the elusive destination of pluralism.