— Samyukta Mahesh
The speaker begins her address by pointing out two examples of clashing religious identities in public forums: the Tanishq Ekatva campaign and the Rasputin challenge by medical students in Kerala. In both these cases, there is a visible intersection among the fault lines of religious groups. The concept of ‘transgression of boundaries’ thus becomes significant to the case study. In convivial spaces, certain interactions are seen as acceptable and others are not. These boundaries are often contradictory, transient and messy. There is also a feeling of trust and betrayal, respect and recognition associated with these boundaries. This specific case deals with the Kot in Ahmedabad and the micro-neighborhoods or Pols that it encompasses. Each of these Pols have specific narratives that control how and where religious intersections take place. This goes beyond conventionally religious places like temples, mosques or funerals. Widening the net, the Pol is seen as a convivial space where there is a feeling of intimacy between the neighbors and anyone who visits. In specific, the feeling of Ekatva or Maza is emphasized on. Manifestations of these can be seen in a custom where a cyclist announces the death of anyone in a pol through a speakerphone, following which all residents go over and offer their condolences. Residents also claim that there exists a very amicable relationship between neighbors to an extent that help can be sought whenever necessary. This is where the concept of “Vatki Vyavahar” becomes relevant. It is a model in which neighbors help each other out knowing that they will also be helped in return. This underlines the concept of reciprocity within a Pol. When a person is treated with aggression and hostility, they treat their neighbors the same way. When there is a healthy exchange of goods and favors, the kindness is reciprocated. Even in the latter scenario, there exist certain inviolable boundaries with respect to personal space. As long as these are accepted and respected, a peaceful co-existence occurs. The speaker also brings about a sub-narrative of a predominantly Muslim Pol that used to celebrate Diwali by lighting diyas outside their homes. Soon, a particular leader intervened and demanded the Bohras to not borrow culture markers from the majority population. He re-emphasized that the Bohras were a minority and they had to hold onto their culture so as to not let it get erased or subsumed. Therefore, the Pol no longer lights diyas or celebrates Diwali. However, they continue to visit their Hindu friends, exchange gifts and sweets. Thus, a negotiation has been drawn where the Bohras retain their cultural identity without subverting the communitarian spirit. It is also noted that religious riots originate from the transgression of these accepted boundaries. The communal places turn into religious places during occasions like Ram Navami or Muharram. However, a dargah within a Pol is seen as a perennially communal space that fosters interaction at all times of the year. Other examples of convivial living include tea shops or open verandahs where men often gather to read newspapers. All of these narratives reflect on how religions intersect along these walls. Contrary to popular opinion, these are not fixed walls but rather have doors and windows on them that allow the seepage of cultures. This opens up a spatial negotiation for the co-existence of religious identities. The case of Ahmedabad becomes pertinent as the neighborhoods offer cultural diversity even though each Pol has a dominant and minority religion of its own. This lecture was followed by an interactive question and answer session where the speaker spoke about buying, selling and rental transactions. She pointed out the historical evidence in this case that showed how the Pols were self-governed by an authority that determined the allocation of houses in the past. The lecture thus concluded with all the participants gain a collective understanding of convivial spaces and how
Article 19 