Designing for Tolerance

Uday Dandavate

The provocation for this article comes from the current controversy over the plans
to build an Islamic community center and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero
in New York. In the recent past there have been many instances of religious
sensitivities surrounding art, architecture, literature and design. (e.g.
Mapplethorpe and Serrano controversy in the united states, Hysteria surrounding
Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons
controversy in Denmark, and the Controversy surrounding the Babri Masjid in
India). These events have often generated heated conflict between the
proponents of secularism and those championing religious sensitivities of the
groups that feel offended. The impact of such controversies has a reach far
deeper than meets the eye. The challenges posed by these events are much
larger than the law and order situation they lead to or the conservative political
movements they generate support for. These events strike at the vary fabric of
democracy and make it harder to shape contemporary societies that can learn to
harness the immense potential of cultural diversity.

There is a need to rise above the passion and anger currently generated by this
issue, and instead consider an innovative way of addressing the issue of
tolerance. Controversies surrounding design artifacts need solutions born out of
design thinking.

The Wiesenthal museum of Tolerance (MOT) in Los Angeles, serves an example

for finding innovative solutions through design thinking for “creating an
experience that would challenge people of all backgrounds to confront their most
closely-held assumptions and assume responsibility for change.” (From the
vision statement of MOT).
This museum is first its kind in the world.  At the opening of the Museum in 1993,
Federico Mayor, Director General of UNESCO proclaimed, “it is crucial for all of
us to give new meaning to the word ‘tolerance’ and understand that our ability to
value each and every person is the ethical basis for peace, security and
intercultural dialogue. A peaceful future depends on our everyday acts and
gestures. Let us educate for tolerance in our schools and communities, in our
homes and workplaces and, most of all, in our hearts and minds.” (Mayor 1993).

The fire that is lit by such controversies is often fueled by shortsighted political
considerations. No wonder, key criteria for taking a position on the Islamic center
in New York, for both democratic and republican politicians, is how it might
impact their prospects in November elections. Obama seems caught between a
fire and the deep blue sea, between his expressed convictions and the electoral
compulsions of those running for November elections from his party. It would be
futile to expect a political decision emerging from the current controversy that
could lead to a lasting solution. Cultural conflicts call for creation of an
experience platform that evokes contemplation, encourages cross cultural
communication and inspires evolution of a modern mindset that embraces rather
than rejects diversity. The Museum of Tolerance (MOT) is an example of such a
platform.

There are parallels between the Babri Masjid (Mosque) Controversy in India and
the Current controversy over the construction of the Islamic Center in New York.

In the town of Ayodhya in India, on 6 December 1992, an ancient Monument, a

mosque build in 1528 by a Mughal invader was demolished by a frenzied mob of
about 150,000 religious activities. More than 2000 people were killed in the riots
following the demolition. A section of Hindu religious scholars and political
activists believe that, the Mosque was built by destroying a temple that existed at
the site of the birthplace of Hindu God Ram in the year 1528. The movement for
re-construction of Ram temple gained momentum in India where Hindu
population is in majority, and ultimately led to the installation of the Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP), in the government at the National level. Fifteen years later,
The site of the Babri Masjid site remains a symbol of unresolved controversy that
caused many deaths and created a big set back to the efforts to build religious
harmony in the country, torn apart by the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947.
The only achievement of this movement was putting the BJP, which championed
the cause of reconstruction of temple, in the government. Any reconstruction
activity at both sites is not possible due to unresolved controversies. The sites
only remind people of two magnificent pieces of architecture (one modern and
the other ancient), reduced to a rubble by religious fanatics.

The emotions and religious sensitivities tied to these controversies at the two
opposite ends will make it difficult for the political administration to take sides and
allow construction of a place that leads construction of a mosque (or a temple) at
either sites. A bold initiative needs to be taken that helps re-construct the spirit of
accommodation and intercultural harmony and becomes a symbol of tolerance
that both the countries stand for. Both U.S. and India draw their strength from the
diversity of its people. Like the Wiesenthal museum of Tolerance (MOT) in Los
Angeles, both the sites need to conceptualize a magnificent architectural and
institutional platform for the visitors to experience a modern manifestation of
tolerance, innovation and intercultural living.

Architectural constructions symbolize the time they were conceived in. They
reflect both the glory and the aberrations of history. We cannot change history,
but we can create an architectural representation of our will to shape the future.
As I write this article, sitting in my hotel room in Shanghai, I realize the immense
potential of architectural design to convey a nation’s resolve to embrace the
future with conviction. Ground Zero and Babri Masjid sites offer India and the
United States a great opportunity to express their vision for the future- to foster
unity in diversity, to discover opportunities for innovation in diversity.