I oppose the acts of ommission and commission. If there is something wrong with the Constitution, it needs to be changed. But it surely cannot be changes with sticks and stones in hands, by burning cars, by killing people. Maybe those people had the "right" to "recover" their place of worship, however I found it hard to support that particular act. Yes, it is the use of the constitution for votegrabbing that should be fought against. In today's world, with a Nation of the March, I cannot see that fighting always has to mean fighting on the streets with bloodbath.
When the constitution has been subverted or rather it is lopsided in favour of one group vs the other, those who are left without a voice will resort to sticks and stones. And you are still using rhetoric here, "burning cars" - who in India hasnt burnt cars? Is this some exclusive privilege accomodated to the Hindu right? "Killing people"- how many people have Hindus killed? How is is that this rhetoric emerges when Hindus express their POV and take to political activism?
If the nation is on the march, then who is responsible and why are those who are part of this nation and have silently endured so much, supposed to sit idly by? When Muslims riot, kill and murder- its acceptable and not worth an iota of introspection by the community or the nation. But if Hindus counterreact- the nation is under threat! What kind of logic is this? Dont you realise how lopsided your own depiction is?
And no, I do not play judge and jury. What is my opinion worth? it does not affect the ground situation in India a slight bit. but hey, I can still have an opinion can't I?
Yes you did play judge and jury. You placed yourself on a moral pedestal because you didnt care about Ayodhya. Ergo those who were bothered were "aggressive fanatics". How is it that when Muslims riot in Bangalore over what GWB does in Iraq, they are not given a sound verbal thrashing and given a go by..but when Hindus engage in political activism, they become "aggressive fanatics"- in this you are just repeating what the leftist intellectuals say. See, without these "aggressive fanatics"- given the pathetic track record of a dhimmi GOI (see what happened to the Pandits), the common Hindu has no political voice. Like it or not, even you are affected and so am I. I loath the Hindu rights occasional idiots who go around attacking Valentines Day shops but dang, as much as it hurts me to admit, without these same guys, my so called Govt wouldnt give a sh*t if I was murdered, killed or converted, as long as my attackers got them the votes they wanted.
I respect your opinion, but I also wish to point out the points where you are still seeking the moral high ground! It doesnt work!
A fanatic for one could be a saint for another. Again my word is not the rule of law so if I think of someone as a fanatic, it does not make them one, except in my eyes. For me, a fanatic is anyone who takes up arms, indulges in mob violence unless they were physically attacked. I don't believe modern India needs any more mob violence.
What kind of cop out is this! So a group is attacked or constantly discriminated against, and it should just sit there and take it. If it approaches the public space, it is tarred with the filthiest epithets, and finally when it tears the edifice erected as a monument to mass murder, it is to blame! Tearing down an imperial structure is "fanaticism". What mob violence did they indulge in? And what is this modern India you keep going on about? Is it the same modern India which has been unable to resettle a single Pandit in his ancestral homeland? They did what they thought was right- if mob violence was to be prevented, why didnt the muslims not riot? Or is it that Hindus should always turn the other cheek, and be reasonable, mild, law abiding people? Does that even work!
By that logic many other Mosques in India are remnants of imperial Islam. They should all be then demolished. Muslims, if they come out on the streets to oppose it, should all be killed. Surely 80 crore+ can overpower some 18 crore by brute force. Indians did not want a mosque before they were defeated by the imperial Islamists, did they? so all, or most mosques were built by the people who defeated the Indians. Now that India is independant again, let us delete all remnants of history that remind us of our defeat regardless of what other Indians of today may feel.
Dont you understand how illogical your own statements are, filibustering doesnt change the fact that what was wrong, remains wrong and it will remain wrong irrespective of doomsday scenarios. It was you who was making the claim that secularism demands that Hindus give up the right to their temples - why cant Muslims do it then given their mosques were built via violence? So now you admit that for all the sophistry, Muslims wont give up what they got by force. Then if that is the case, where is the fallacy in them getting paid back in the same coin? Who is the fanatic here? The person who commits the crime, or the person who seeks restitution?
Who's preventing them from building more mosques the lawful way, but they have to do the right thing. Please read history before making statements that since Indians didnt want any Mosques, all mosques need to be razed. Hindu rulers allowed Arab traders leeway, allowed them to build mosques and practise Islam. We have allowed that to every community and religion that has come to India. But that doesnt mean we turn the other cheek when rapacious fanatics despoil our places of worship!
And who talked of murdering Muslims- again- so Hindus demand their temples back- ergo they will murder Muslims. This leap of logic is what is so bizarre- what is so sad is that many people have been virtually trained to think in the same manner by decades of our Congress/Leftist mandated Indian educational experience. If the GOI states that all these disputed monuments shall be investigated and handed over and matter resolved, then why should the Muslims complain?
Or is it that they want to have the cake and eat it too? If they want to enjoy the victors spoils, then I am sure there are countries out there that can accomodate the maulanas and mullahs who rabble rouse. But as far as Indian muslims are concerned, its high time they realised that blood was spilt in their name, and by continuing to soft peddle on Islams track record, they are only making things worse.
Now it would have been nice is the Muslims community had said okay, this place is of religious significance to you and one of the rulers in the past broke a temple and built a mosque (provided it is proven, like Shiv says) so in the interest of national harmony, we give it to you. Would that be better? maybe, but even of many Muslims agree, the political gainseekers will never let that happen. There will be leaders among the Hindu community who will come out as the 'protectors of the minority'. The issue will linger on. And what if Muslims don't agree, should the place be forcibly snatched?
Here you go again. "One of the rulers"- did you even understand what Shiv said? He said the whole of India is so soaked in blood thanks to Islam, that one temple pales into insignificance. And his point should be understood by you, before you trivialize this into "one temple", "proof" and "what will Muslims do". FYI, the number of temples that have been destroyed thanks to Islam are countless. The number of lives that have been lost incalculable. No amount of rationalization will make these events and their impact disappear.
So who cares what the Muslim gatekeepers think. Is it not enough, that Hindus continue to be killed by Muslims in India and that the Muslim community has NO sense of shame over the temple breaking and iconoclasm? Is it not enough for the Indians to themselves say "enough" and if you will not make symbolic restitution than we will. Will it return those millions of lives and thousands of temples? No it wont. But at the very least, it will draw a curtain on one of the most sickening and macabre acts of any religion, by giving the victims a final call on the issue.
"Anyone who is different is an aggressive fanatic". No, I defined whom I think to be a fanatic. You have a different POV than I do but as long as you don't cry from the rooftop to kill innocent people, to blindly destroy property just because your POV is not being heard, you are not a fanatic in my eyes. Even if you were, I don't think you'd give a rat's behind about it.
Who killed whom here? So the workers broke down a mosque and you called them fanatics! Now you are introducing murders and killing into it. That is a red herring. FYI, once Babri Masjid was torn down, who initiated the riots in India? Did Muslims come forth and say "Hindu brothers, we are shocked by your anger and the hurt that you must have had, we understand & will willingly compromise on all the locations that we think were taken over likewise"? If they had done so, I assure you a million Hindus would have fallen over themselves out of gratitude (and sentimentalism and even sheer kinship) to find alternate places for reconstructing mosques and what not. Instead, what did we see?
Riots. When riots occur, can you tell me what happens? Do you think one group will just get killed and walk off? Please wake up- even though you think these people are "very very bad", it is entirely this law of the jungle that exists because the GOI has done its votebanking to ridiculous levels. As a Sindhi says in the ebook on Partition- before partition we were dhotiwaalah, papad eating fools, now we strike back, we are terrible fiends. So it is, either way Hindus lose, either way you are already called a fanatic or an effete coward.
That is my point of contention. How far back in history are we willing to go? How many 'mistakes' or atrocities of the past are we willing to revert in the present? I don't support what Babur did but India as I know it today is different from what it was then. Yes, India lost and I accept that fact. Had we been strong or united enough back then, the picture of our nation would have been entirely different. But history cannot be changed. Lessons can be learnt from it. What I learn from it is to make India so impregnable, so strong that no other invader, whether openly or covertly can ever defeat it and impose their way of life over our Dharmic way.
How far back? As far back as the first temple we can discern was knocked over by a Muslim invader and is still being used as a mosque. Kindly read up on the topic- the number of mosques of this manner has been catalogued and well recorded. Statements like "India was a different country then"- so what?! Does that make the continued usage of mosques and Islamic iconoclastic behaviour acceptable? You talk about "lessons learnt"- what lessons have we learnt when we allow these symbols of Islamic barbarism and imperialism to still exist in an ostensibly free India? They are a disgrace and a shocking reminder of what Hindus went through and we should let them be? The rest is all sentimentalism- you talk as if Dharma will be defended, when the most brutal and open violation of the so called dharmic way is considered ok, and euphemisms to scaremongering are used by others to justify the same! Given that, what lessons have we learnt?! Or what lessons will we ever learn, when the most shocking examples of imperial barbarity are allowed to be and even protected via "secular speech" and the like?
Their predecessor's was a time when you needed to fight with swords and guns....they were right when they fought. Today, the need is to fight with the law, with the legal system, and not with stones. That is my opinion.
Hello, the legal system is defunct. If it were functioning, half of Indias ills wouldnt be around. You keep talking law, while the other side uses social mobilization and has laws amended, what then! But you dismiss that as aggressive fanaticism! As disrespect for the Constitution! This when shariah is being practised separately in India and that is ok! A country where genocide was committed against the native population and now the same kind of laws and justification that had it done, are now openly proclaimed! Is this acceptable?
IF a Hindu is being brutalized today, then fight against it. If a bunch of Muslims come with torches in hand, ready to burn you, then you don't talk about dharma and secularism. You collect more of your people and kill them. However, I did not see the same situation in Babri masjid.
You are willing to fight Muslims via riots and kill them. But you are not willing to remove a monument to genocide. Doesnt that strike you as the least bit bizarre? Understand this- the existence of a Babri Masjid is equal to brutalizing the Hindu pysche. The intransigence of Muslims in refusing to admit that they did wrong provokes violence. If Muslims in India were a tenth as accomodating as their Hindu brethren, there would be no torches or killing. There is a huge historical sense of guilt- they have to acknowledge it and stand up to their responsibility.
The line is not mythical. Let me use an example. There is an institution in massaland called CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations). Now these people target any public figure that says anything against Islamism by claiming it as an attack on religious sentiments and against Islam. They immediately file a lawsuit and "legally threaten" the person to take their words back. Like we know, the legal system in massaland can be and is often misused in this manner. It is a sue-happy society. But if you come out with stones in your hands in massaland, unkil will throw you out in the pacific. These people know that and have adopted to the modern way of warfare. They have quite a few court cases going on, I hear. Now they may not succeed because they are fighting for the wrong cause in my opinion. However they cannot be called dhimmis. This is what I want to see. Change the Constitution if it is discriminating against Hindus, be united to throw out the reservation BS but do it in the right manner. Have a team of lawyers defending Hindutva. Have teams of doctors dedicated to the cause of Hindutva who will go out to help Hindu victims of natural disasters or riots. I would not object is one of them says in Kaleem Khwaja's tone "The doctors being Hindus have a natural sympathy towards Hindu victims, so they treat them first".
Have teams of Hindu businessmen who donate and have programs to have the common Hindu donate for the cause of Hindutva. Have consciousness. Once the 80% plus Hindus become conscious of their Hindutva there will be no need for violence. The constitution will change in a flash and no one will be able to suppress them.
Sorry archan, you are talking pie in the sky stuff here. Given the way the current vested interests have taken power, CAIR is the de facto ruling Govt in India. They are the ones who run the law, who make sure that shariah is acceptable and what not. I'll tell you a simple thing- if things hadnt reached such stupid limits, there would be no BJP or whatever. It was the constant use of the law and the so called constitution by the INC and its chamchas against the majority which led to the current mass mobilization. And it will continue till a tide develops. The only way this tide can be checked is not by law or order or by constitutional nit picking, its by open and frank redressal of legitimate grievances. Which include the complete whitewashing of Islamic history in India to be stopped. Ordinary Muslims have to live with it and they better! If I as a Hindu can acknowledge that Hindus need to improve, so do they, vs their community!
What are the "Muslims doing whatever they feel" today? if they come down to break another temple, and the administration cannot stop them then I support that a Hindu mob collect to defend the temple and punish the perpetrators, preferably by dispatching them to meet their houris.
Of course they are doing what they want, or rather their execrable mullahs are and the general community is going along with it while calling any criticism as victimization. Just see the indianmuslims blog for eg- those are the educated indian muslims who use the net mind you! Its all hidden in the bylines of national papers as "two communities clashed". Tell me, what happened in UP recently? Whats happening in Assam? How dare a UPA Minister stand before a court of law and defend shariah? How dare a Muslim attack Taslima in non Muslim India? But it happens all the time. And you keep waiting for the proverbial straw to break the camels back? And then of course when violence escalates we'll have hand wringing.
No sir, I do not have zero empathy for them. I just don't think they needed to use brute force that resulted in many lives being lost. If there is such a strong will to fight, the fight can be fought on different fronts. "Icons or Islamic depravity" - if they are unacceptable, then by all means demolish all mosques, mazars and madarassas in India. They are ALL a symbol of India's defeat of the past. Why only the one that was built over a temple? why not all that were build on our holy land? and our ancient holy land means Pakistan and Bangladesh too.
Please understand what I had written before going off on a tangent and putting words in my mouth.
All mosques and mazhars and madrassas in India are not
icons of Islamic depravity.
But those built on captured temples, captured land definitely are.
They have to go- no two questions about it.
As regards pakistan and bangladesh, they took independence from India and we are not bothered about them. As far as I am concerned, those nations dont exist- the people themselves there have gone over lock stock and barrel and theirs to reason why and deal with it. Committing genocide is not an option for me- they will suffer and rise on their own, and thats that. Perhaps over time, we can negotiate pilgrimages etc if you and others who are concerned over the sacred land etc wish. That would be reasonable.
Brute force was needed at Babri Masjid because of the sheer shamelessness with which muslim leaders approached the issue.
Here is the
temple marking the birthplace of the consort of Lord Ram, and the gents are not willing to give it up, despite it having been built via violence. Nothing works for them, no ASI reports nothing. So tell me, what would you have Hindus do? Beg them? And in practical terms, even that was tried.
One word against the prophet and in a non Muslim country we have threats! The actual areas of historical and religious significance of Hindus in India- first, ravaged by Muslims, captured and then on top of it, abused by building symbols of imperial domination on their rubble.
If I wanted to live in a Muslim country I'd go to Saudi. Who the heck gave these chaps the right to convert this non Muslim country into an example of islamic domination?