by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions
Frank F. Islam
The killing of George Floyd has resulted in actions of various types against historical statues in the United States that may celebrate or demonstrate bigotry or racial bias. These actions have sparked a national conversation on what to do because of those statues.
In our opinion, the statues under scrutiny are America’s statues of limitations. They are part of America’s history. They communicate messages intentionally and unintentionally regarding the historical limitations of this nation and the persons they represent.
The statues that have been acted upon include not only the usual suspects, such as representations of Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson, but also of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Ulysses S. Grant. What these actions have revealed is that what is in our American memories regarding these figures may be incomplete and/or inaccurate. Consider the following examples.
Many of the statues that have been assailed fall into a category known as Lost Cause Confederate Statues or Monuments. The majority of these statutes were erected in the South in the early 20th century with the support of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Their purpose and placement were to reposition the Civil War defeat as a valiant and worthy effort, as well as to ensure that whites returned to power while black progress and the potential for integration was retarded.
White superiority and racially insensitive attitudes in the U.S. have not just been restricted to the South. In spite of all his notable accomplishments, Theodore Roosevelt considered blacks inferior to whites. There is a statue of Roosevelt mounted proudly on a horse with a Native American on one side and a Black American on the other side that has stood at the entrance to the American Museum of Natural History since 1940. Because of its hierarchical depiction, the optics of that statue have been a cause for concern and controversy for some time. On June 21, the Museum asked the city to remove Roosevelt’s statue from its entrance.
Likewise, on June 28, Princeton University decided to remove Woodrow Wilson’s name from the building that has housed the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at the University. According to Princeton President Christopher L. Eisgruber, the Board of Trustees made that decision because, “…racial thinking and policies make him an inappropriate namesake for a school or college whose scholars, students, and alumni must stand firmly against racism in all its forms.”
In 2020, the times are changing. Statues that have survived over a century are being removed, toppled, defaced, or otherwise confined, if not to the dustbin of history, to an uncertain fate. The question becomes what is the proper manner to deal with the remaining statues that for a variety of reasons may be offensive.
Some advocate destroying or warehousing them. The Washington Post advises in an editorial to make it a matter for public discussion. The Post observes that this should not be the province of “… a crowd in the middle of the night, consisting not always only of good faith protesters but also of chaos-hungry opportunists.” Instead, it recommends, these “…are determinations suited for democratic and deliberative decision-making.”
We concur with the Post’s position. We would take it one step further, though, because this is about much more than statues. This is about American history.
It is a chance to make the historical record complete and to promote learning among current generations and for generations to come. This is a teachable moment and it needs to be treated as such.
That is the point Pulitzer Prize winning art critic Holland Cotter makes in his article for the New York Times in which he writes, “…the disposal of monuments should be approached case by case…It’s necessary for history’s sake, that we first stand back, look hard and sort them out.”
In his piece, Cotter proposes that the Roosevelt statue be removed from the entrance at the National History Museum and displayed in a slightly modified version accompanied by a detailed historical examination and explanation of it in one of the Museum’s galleries. In its editorial, the Washington Post states that while some statues might go into museums, “Others might reside in an outdoor space committed to cataloging a disgraceful era; Lithuania’s Grutas Park displays more than 80 statues that communists installed when the country was controlled by the U.S.S.R.”
The importance of viewing these statues in a historical perspective is highlighted by the debate regarding the “Great Emancipator” Statue — also called the Freedmen’s’ Monument — of Abraham Lincoln in Lincoln Park in the Capitol Hill area of Washington, D.C. The statue was erected in 1876 and shows Lincoln standing with the Emancipation Proclamation in his hand over a kneeling black man who is breaking his chains.
Protesters have recently called for the removal of the monument because it does not project the proper image of the black man in relationship to Lincoln. D.C. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has questioned the statue’s design. And, D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser has stated that the city should debate the removal of the statue.
What makes this debate of particular import is that the iconic black leader and orator Frederick Douglass spoke at the unveiling of the Emancipation memorial. Douglass was equivocal in his praise for Lincoln in his commentary. On the one hand, he said,
… we, the colored people, newly emancipated and rejoicing in our blood-bought freedom, near the close of the first century in the life of this Republic, have now and here unveiled, set apart, and dedicated a monument of enduring granite and bronze, in every line, feature, and figure of which the men of this generation may read, and those of after-coming generations may read, something of the exalted character and great works of Abraham Lincoln, the first martyr President of the United States.
On the other hand, he said:
Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. He was pre-eminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country.
What Douglass was saying was that Lincoln was not perfect and he was providing a history lesson in his dedication remarks. It is a lesson worth hearing and learning.
Most Americans have only a superficial knowledge of history and much of what we have learned has been filtered through a white lens. This is a chance to change that, not by revising or rewriting the history of the United States, but by getting history right and presenting it through a technicolor lens and in 3-D.
One of the ways this can be accomplished is by putting together a collection of photos and readings or a book on the Statues of America similar to the book John Meacham and Tim McGraw authored, Songs of America: Patriotism, Protests and the Music That Made a Nation. In his New York Times article, Holland Cotter reports that in 2019 the American Museum of Natural History produced a documentary on the Theodore Roosevelt statue “…which details the work’s history and includes commentary by contemporary ethnologists, social historians, art historians and artists.”
Imagine something comparable available to the America public for information and educational purpose. Imagine a segment of a civics or history curriculum for students in their later elementary and middle school years devoted to America’s statues, to inform and inspire them to inquire about why the statues exist, what they represent, what stories they tell, what stories they do not tell, what new stories need to be written, and how actions should be taken to address past deficiencies and discriminations.
Imagining does not change things but not imagining means that nothing ever changes. In the year 2020, the United States appears to be poised to address its statues of limitations. This should be a monumental undertaking structured to engage all concerned and caring citizens. To maximize its impact, the undertaking should reach students in classrooms when their essential knowledge, skills and dispositions, and enduring values, attitudes and beliefs are being shaped.
Properly prepared and equipped, those students will shape the nation’s future. They will create a more inclusive and perfect union. They will construct America’s statues of tomorrow as ones of opportunity and equality and not of limitations.
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions, World
“The life of the arts, far from being an interruption, a distraction, in the life of the nation, is close to the center of a nation’s purpose – and is a test to the quality of a nation’s civilization.” – John F. Kennedy
Frank F. Islam
By Frank F islam
COVID-19 put the arts industry to the test in ways not experienced in living memory. The pandemic shut down virtually every museum, library and performance venue across the United States and around the world. Despite this, the artists and others in the industry have remained steadfast in their commitment to sharing their craft with the world. Here in the U.S, museums such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City are conducting virtual tours. The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, where I was on the board, is providing daily Digital Stage offerings, including National Symphony Orchestra “NSO@Home”, Couch Concerts, Family Concert and other online programming. Artists of all types, from Yo-Yo Ma’s live streaming of Bach’s classic cello suites to Garth Brooks free on-line country music concert, have taken their shows digital too.
Internationally, Lady Gaga created a Global Citizens telethon with numerous performers and guests. In Italy, Andrea Bocelli sang his Music for Hope concert on Easter Sunday, and a violinist comes out on his balcony each evening to play for his neighbors listening from their balconies. The Smithsonian Magazine reports that street artists have painted murals and graffiti art on public spaces sending messages of hope in countries such as Spain, England and India.
The artists and their associates have given of themselves to fight against COVID-19 in inspiring and creative ways. They have been met in return by an outpouring of generosity.
In the U.S., the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act provided $75 million to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to provide grants to non-profit art organizations. The NEA and many others posted blogs listing organizations for artists to contact for resources and grants during the pandemic. States, local governments, philanthropic foundations and individual citizens stepped up to the plate and provided financial assistance as well.
Many of the U.S. philanthropic foundations such as Global Giving and the Center for Disaster Philanthropy have directed emergency funds at those in vulnerable communities located around the globe. This would obviously include “struggling artists”. And, sadly there are many of them, even in the best of times.
The charitable outpouring has been significant. Unfortunately, given the magnitude of the virus and the devastating effects around the world on health care, educational and economic systems of all nations, most economists and experts now agree that the recovery will be very slow – and especially slow for those who are self-employed or gig-workers in low paying jobs.
Many artists fall into this category. How can we sustain the support artists during these transitional times and provide them with a more solid foundation going forward after the Covid-19 pandemic has ended?
Lovers of the arts should engage in what I call purposeful philanthropy. Purposeful philanthropy is making investments directed at eliminating underlying social and economic problems and improving circumstances and conditions over time.
There are many avenues that can be taken to accomplish this. Here are a few ideas:
UNESCO, the cultural agency of the United Nations, has launched the ResilArt movement. This movement “among other things will consist of a series of global virtual debates with renowned artists and draw support from the cultural world throughout the crisis.” It will also develop guidelines that can be drawn upon to improve the protection of artists in the future.
Shovana Narayan writing for the South Asia Monitor in India observes that UNESCO in 1980 issued a resolution on the status of artists, which was a statement on the need to address the social security, labor and the tax conditions of the artists. She advocates taking actions to accomplish this in response to the pandemic. Philanthropists could embrace and support governments and groups advancing this inclusionary movement.
Another thing that philanthropists could do is join together in an international interconnected philanthropic network (IIPN) to finance the development and implementation of plans to fuel the recovery after the coronavirus. One element of those plans could be a focus on artists and art organizations. While an IIPN might seem a little far-fetched, the seeds for it already exist. For example, The Co-Impact global collaborative which includes donors such as Bill and Melinda Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation is focused on “system change to improve the lives of millions by advancing education, improving people’s health and providing economic opportunity.” Artists need this type of help.
Artists also need jobs. Recognizing this, one of the proposals that I have put forward to legislators here in the United States is the creation of a Civilian Coronavirus Corps (CCC).The CCC would be similar in nature to the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration Federal Arts Project, which produced more than 18,000 works of sculpture and posters during the Great Depression. This CCC in 2020 and for the next several years, until it would not be necessary, could provide jobs that create art of all forms: architecture, sculpture, painting, literature, music, film, performances and concerts in communities across this nation – and even mail art.
The need is great and the time to act is now. It is imperative for all of us who love the arts to discover our inner artist. For some, the artwork may consist of calling on your local officials to invest in the arts or perhaps its merely signing a check. For others, it may mean devoting the time and talent to finish an uncompleted painting or drawing upon a blank canvas to create innovative and collaborative ways to keep artists on the playing field.
Wherever that inner artist takes us, we will have passed the test of making a meaningful difference for those artists who are difference makers in terms of the culture of a country, the world and a civilized society.
—————————————————————————–
This post was first appeared on Meridian. Frank F Islam is a member of Meridian’s Cultural Diplomacy Leadership Council. Meridian is committed to implementing the arts and culture as an instrument to promote diplomacy and global leadership and exchange.
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions, World
Frank F. Islam
By Frank F Islam
Since the brutal death of 46-year-old African American George Floyd at the hands of a white Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin on May 25, the United States has witnessed civil strife of the kind not seen in more than five decades. In a video that has been streamed around the world millions of times, Chauvin is shown kneeling on Floyd”s neck for nearly nine minutes, even as the black man is heard crying, “I can”t breathe.”
For several years running up to Floyd”s death, American society has been a combustible mix of racial and political divisions, ready to explode. In the past four months alone, two young African Americans lost their lives to racial violence and police brutality in two highly-charged incidents.
In February, 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery was killed in southeastern Georgia, while jogging, by a white father and son who chased and fatally shot the African American man. In March, Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old emergency medical technician, was shot and killed by cops in Louisville, Kentucky.
Floyd”s death became a trigger that brought hundreds of thousands of American citizens to the streets protesting. Under the broad banner of Black Lives Matter, a movement that fights systemic racism, inequality and violence against African Americans, these protests spread to hundreds of cities across the country and around the globe.
While the protests have largely remained peaceful, in a few cities they resulted in riots and looting. Police enforced curfews and used tear gas leading to fatalities and injuries.
These protests bring back memories of the mid to late 1960s when there were racial protests and riots in several major American cities in response to police violence and racial incidents. As then, the public mood is one of discontent and dissatisfaction. According to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 80 per cent of Americans feel that the country is spiraling out of control.
There are some major differences, however, between the chaotic events of the 60s and today”s turmoil. The current chaos is occurring at a time the country is dealing with the worst health crisis in its history and resulted in the catastrophic collapse of the economy.
The 60s protest movement happened under the watch of President Lyndon Baines Johnson who signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of the most progressive legislative measures in the history of the country. The law banned discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, and national origin, and increased minority political participation.
The current protests are unfolding under the watch of a president, whose actions have worsened life for ethnic and religious minorities in the country, and undermined democracy and institutions.
While the political polarization and coarsening of civic discourse predate Trump, they have dramatically declined during the nearly 41 months he has been in power. President Donald Trump is perhaps the most divisive president since Andrew Jackson who left the White House 183 years ago.
Trump is singularly focused on keeping his base happy, rather than being a president for all Americans. An influential part of that base, unfortunately, includes a large segment of America that is still stuck in the Antebellum South.
The Republican Party has been communicating in dog whistles on race and immigration since the presidency of Richard M. Nixon who won the office in 1968 by running as the “law and order” candidate. The Trump era has injected the mainstreaming of anti-immigrant rhetoric and Islamophobia.
So where will America go from here?
There is no doubt that there is systemic racism and injustice in America. That is not good news. There is good news though in what these protests portend for the future of America and all of its citizens.
Unlike the 60s, when those in the streets were primarily blacks, those protesting in 2020 are of all hues. Among them, there are Americans of all backgrounds and heritage, including whites, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Indian and other South Asian Americans. Millions have made their voices heard by coming together in a coalition through protests and speaking out for a more just and inclusive and tolerant America.
In less than five months, they and tens of millions of other concerned and caring citizens who want to extinguish systemic racism can change the country”s trajectory by voting and consigning Trumpism to history. Putting a new president in place will start the process of healing the country”s wounds and reducing the structural violence against blacks and other minorities.
In addition, the protesters have forced the country to take a fresh look at race relations and police brutality. As a result, many cities have begun to redefine the way local police are doing their job through a shift toward community policing.
Another source of optimism is the 244 years of America”s history. Every time the country has taken a regressive step, it has followed with several steps forward.
The nation has been led in the past by Presidents such as Jackson, Nixon and Trump, who tried to erase progress toward racial equality. America”s story has also been written by leaders such as Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama, who have brought the country and its citizens together in the collaborative pursuit of the common good and a more perfect union.
The Negro spiritual and civil rights protest song of the 60s begins with these memorable words:
“We shall overcome, we shall overcome
We shall overcome someday
Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe
We shall overcome someday.”
In 2020, this appears to be the day. Where America will go from here is on the journey to overcoming the racism that has shackled it since its establishment as a nation.
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions
Frank F. Islam
In a Fox News virtual Town Hall held on March 24, President Donald Trump declared that he “would love to have the country opened up” by Easter Sunday, April 12. In that same Town Hall, he asserted that measures like social distancing and self-quarantining were “very painful for our country and very destabilizing for our country. We have to go back to work much sooner than people thought.”
After Trump made those comments, on March 26, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a member of the Coronavirus Task Force, in a CNN interview, called Trump’s Easter target an “aspirational projection” set “to give people some hope.” On March 27, Vice President Mike Pence joined Fauci in stating that Easter was an “aspirational goal.”
By Sunday, March 29, Trump himself had gotten the “aspirational” message. During a Rose Garden coronavirus briefing, in which he extended social distancing until the end of April, Trump said that Easter was “purely aspirational.”
Following nearly a week of being less aspirational in his daily remarks, Trump spoke out in this manner again on Saturday, April 4. In a coronavirus briefing he advised Americans, “This will be the toughest week…. There will be a lot of deaths unfortunately.”
Then, after Dr. Fauci talked about the absolute need to adhere to the social distancing guidelines, Trump came to the podium and proclaimed, “We have to open our country again. We have to open our country again. We don’t want to be doing this for months and months and months.”
While “aspirational” had become the party line for describing Trump’s remarks related to Easter and getting back to work, the fact is they were “irresponsible.” Completely irresponsible — in that they created false hopes and unrealistic expectations among American citizens regarding the war that this nation is fighting with the coronavirus.
President Trump has been making those irresponsible remarks and setting the country up for failure in fighting the war since January 22 when he responded to a question regarding the pandemic by stating, “It’s one person coming in from China and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.”
Trump continued these misleading and harmful pronouncements for approximately two months. (See this timeline put together by Linda Qiu, Bill March and Jon Huang of the New York Times for his inaccurate commentaries running from January 22 to March 17.)
There is substantial evidence that our President, our Commander in Chief during this “national war on an invisible enemy,” has been acting irresponsibly. There is also overwhelming evidence that he has been acting inconsistently and incompetently.
Trump’s acting inconsistently is best seen publicly in his self-centered and self-aggrandizing coronavirus press conference briefings. One aspect of this inconsistency in messaging during these briefings is Trump providing his facts or opinions and then his health care experts contradicting him.
Another aspect of the inconsistency is due to Trump’s rambling, disjointed and hyperbolic speaking style in which he contradicts himself or discredits the message he is sending. There are examples of these in each press conference. Here are just a few:
“This is a very contagious virus. It’s incredible. But, it’s something that we have tremendous control over.” (March 15)
“You’re talking about 2.2 million deaths. “So if we can hold that down, as we’re saying, to 100,000, it’s a horrible number, maybe even less, but to 100,000, so we have between 100 [thousand] and 200,000, we altogether have done a very good job.” (March 29)
“The CDC is advising the use of non-medical cloth face covering as an additional voluntary public health measure. This is voluntary. I don’t think I’m going to be doing it.” (April 2)
Trump’s speaking inconsistently and sending mixed messages in these coronavirus briefings is confusing and disheartening.
While these briefings highlight one area of Trump’s incompetence, the sad fact of the matter is that he is deficient in many of the core competencies required to perform satisfactorily as the President in this time of crisis. Three basic competencies that he lacks are a clear understanding of the job (a president’s roles and responsibilities); management expertise; and organizational and problem-solving skills:
Understanding of the job: Benjamin Wittes has written a book with Susan Hennessey titled Unmaking the Presidency: Donald Trump’s War on the World’s Most Powerful Office. In their book, Wittes and Hennessey point out that the Presidency is a management office and the fundamental job of the President is to run the government and manage process. Trump instead wants and works to elevate the “personal and expressive” elements” of the office and make it all about him. Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institution and author of Why Presidents Fail and How They Can Succeed Again makes a similar point in her article “Trump’s Failed Presidency.” She writes, ‘…the importance of mass communication leads presidents to believe that the words and activities that got them into office can work, once they are in office: more rallies, more speeches, more tweets, and more television advertising. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
Management expertise: In an ironic moment, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, at a coronavirus briefing on April 2 said “What a lot of voters are seeing now is that when you elect somebody to be a mayor or a governor or a president, you’re trying to think about who will be a competent manager during the time of crisis.” After Kushner said that, we did think about it — as we are certain so did many bipartisan Americans — and Donald Trump did not come to mind. We thought instead of six hotel and casino bankruptcies, over four thousand lawsuits, and the countless number of employees who lost their jobs in his failed businesses.
Organizational and problem-solving skills: The President either has those skills or needs to have a strong core group than can bring them to bear to bring order out of chaos and calm in a time of crisis. Trump by contrast is planning averse, revels in creating chaos, and has had such high turnover in the White House and key agencies that deal with matters of this type that there is a void in this critical competency area.
Add to these deficiencies Trump’s constrained understanding of federalism; attacking and blaming communications style; and an inability to collaborate and build teams with others.
These deficiencies in combination explain why the federal government under Trump’s failed leadership to date has not met the following fundamental requirements to fight this war effectively and successfully:
- Do a comprehensive situational analysis to determine how to proceed
- Put a shared national battle plan led by the federal government in place to be used to manage the response and monitor the results in the war
- Bring state and local governments and American citizens together in a unified effort to combat and defeat the coronavirus pandemic
In summary, the model that Trump is providing as a war-time president is one of irresponsibility, inconsistency and incompetence. It is totally inappropriate and insufficient for these trying times.
What model do we need? What lessons should we learn and behaviors should we expect from a war-time president. For recommendations on that we turn to historians Michael Beschloss and Doris Kearns Goodwin.
Beschloss is the author of Presidents of War. In an April 1 Washington Post article, based upon his studies of U.S. wartime presidents, he presents the following “seven lessons not only for Trump but also for leaders of all kinds”:
- Level with the public.
- Work to unite the country against the common enemy.
- Show empathy for the warriors, the scared and the suffering.
- Build confidence in your plan for victory.
- Warn of impending bad news as soon as you know it.
- Trust wise, experienced experts.
- Stay focused and avoid mission creep.
Pulitzer prize winning historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin is the author of several books on U.S. presidential leadership, her most recent being Leadership: In Turbulent Times. In a recent interview with Lily Rothman in Time Magazine when she was asked how our leaders are doing during the coronavirus crisis, she responded:
Forgetting what we don’t know, which is what would have happened, if they’d responded earlier, the big difference between the situation in World War II and now is that when Roosevelt spoke to the nation, it was really a single voice, it was a trusted voice. We don’t have that single voice in the government right now that can command the facts.
Beschloss and Goodwin provide sage advice and insights for charting the course and sailing our ship of state through the stormy and dangerous waters in which our nation and its citizens find itself. Unfortunately, because of his irresponsibility, inconsistency and incompetence our current President is incapable of hearing those messages.
That means it is up to all of us (citizens, elected officials, business and religious leaders, health care providers) to step into what Elaine Kamarck refers to as “the leadership vacuum that has been the Trump presidency.” The coronavirus pandemic has grown in that vacuum and it has cost America and Americans many unnecessary lives and economic casualties.
That is why we must come together to sail this ship of state to save ourselves and others. In doing so, we should remember these words from the American Poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow that U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt sent to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill which Churchill used in a speech in 1941 early in World War II:
Sail on, oh ship of state, Sail on, oh union strong and great; Humanity with all its fears, With all the hopes of future years, Is hanging breathless on thy fate.
This is not World War II. It is a different war and it is now up to all of us to win it.
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions
Frank F. Islam
By Frank F. Islam
In his Independence Day speech on August 15 this year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi proclaimed, “One nation, one constitution — this spirit has become a reality and India is proud of it.”
Prime Minister Modi is correct when he says that “one nation, one constitution” should be the goal for the Indian democracy. He may not be so correct, however, when he states “this spirit has become a reality.”
Achieving the goal of “one nation” requires a unifying nationalism. What India has achieved over the past several years instead is an overriding and overbearing form of religious nationalism. To my knowledge, Prime Minister Modi has never declared himself a nationalist. And, I am certain that he would never declare himself a religious nationalist. Still, he is proud of his religion and there may be an encroachment of it into his governance. This is evidenced by the plans to build a wide path from the Hindu Kashi Vishwanath to the Ganges River in Varanasi.
I grew up in Varanasi, and even though it is Hinduism”s holiest city it was a place where youth of all religions worked and played together amicably because they were bound together in the service of others. I believe this interdenominational history should be maintained and recognized by placing stations of all religions along that path.
Many pundits in India and in the free press around the world have criticized the Modi administration”s actions in seizing control of Kashmir and revoking Articles 370 and Article 35A of the Constitution which gave considerable autonomy to Kashmir as an example of religious nationalism. I do not know whether that characterization is accurate or inaccurate. The one thing I know unequivocally is that this action does not bring India or all of the Indian people closer together as one nation.
India was founded deliberately as a nonsectarian democracy. In her book, How India Became Democratic: Citizenship and Making the Universal Franchise, Ornit Shani, a scholar at the University of Haifa, Israel explains that India was established from the outset as a country empowering its entire and extremely diverse population as voters. This empowerment of all with a commitment to the country as opposed to a religion is a hallmark of the Indian democracy.
Ruchir Sharma, in an article for the April issue of Foreign Affairs cites India”s pluralism as a strength observing that “India”s diversity is also a source of political resilience, as strong subnational identities provide a check on ethnic and religious nationalism.” He ends that article by asserting, “At a time when democracy is said to be in retreat around the world it is still thriving in India.”
The Indian democracy needs a unifying nationalism in order to continue to thrive. What is a unifying nationalism? The Merriam Webster dictionary defines nationalism as “loyalty and devotion to a nation especially: A sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” Patriotism is a form or twin of nationalism.
Several years ago, American historian Thomas Bender stated, “Nations are among other things a collective agreement, partly coerced to affirm a common history as the basis for a shared future.”
More recently, Andreas Wimmer, professor of sociology and political philosophy at Columbia University, wrote, “At their core, all forms of nationalism share the same two tenets: first, that members of the nation, understood as a group of equal citizens with a shared history and future political destiny should rule the state; and, second, that they should do so in the interests of the nation”.
Each of those statements supports the need for and importance of a unifying nationalism. Wimmer”s is especially powerful. As I have stated before, “athe Indian democracy is not perfect — far from it. But India”s democracy shines as a beacon of light in a world that is becoming increasingly darker.” By embracing a unifying nationalism and elevating it above religious nationalism, India can ensure that democratic beacon continues to shine and grow to be even brighter.
(The author is an entrepreneur, civic and thought leader based in Washington DC. The views expressed are personal)
