From: mghayalo@uceng.uc.edu (Manoj Ghayalod)
Subject: Re: The Start of a New Beginning
Keywords: Ayodhya, Hindu, Muslim, secular, history, politics
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:58:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.190115.20698@csrd.uiuc.edu> ghosh@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sanjoy Ghosh) writes:
>(Girish) writes:
>
>>the historic  December 6 events in Ayodhya will make interesting reading. This
>>article has been taken from "The Illustrated Weekly of India", December 12-18,
>>1992.
>>
>>     The Pakistanis fuelled anti-Islamic sentiment in India  by  their  crass
>>insistence  that  Kashmir  belonged  to  them because a majority of Kashmiris
>>(forgetting those in Jammu and Ladakh) were Muslims. Had Pakistan left  India
>>alone,  distrust of Muslims would have died a natural death. But that was not
>>to be. And Muslims in India have not told their co-religionists  in  Pakistan
>>to  shut  up. At least not loudly and not insistently. A fear has always per-
>>sisted in Hindu minds that Muslims are not reliable. This  has  been  another
>>factor governing Hindu-Muslim relations in India.
>
>Pakistan could hardly afford to do otherwise.  After creating a country
>based on Mulim nationhood, they could hardly let their brothers in India
>suffer under Hindu rule without lifting a finger.  It is downright stupid
>of Mr. Kamath to demand that indian muslims understand the psyche of hindu 
>peasants and concede the masjid to them, while overlooking this crucial 
>component of Pakistani nationhood.

Then it is our right to destroy Pakistan, to save Hindus from living
in an Islamic state, which is obviously discriminatory against them.
I am not saying that the masjid should have been given to the VHP,
because I agree that their demands would have increased and I don't
want the Muslims in India feeling that they are not wanted in their
own country.  Jinnah created a country on the principles of secularism
which had a Muslim majority, Pakistan let down all non Muslims by
declaring Pakistan as an Islamic state, so it would be hypocritical
of them to try to be the spokesman of a minority group in another
country just because that group happens to be Muslim.  All Indian 
Muslims who think that Pakistan is their brother are completly blind
we all know how they treated their Bengali Muslims and how they are
treating thier Sindhis and Mohajirs.  
I know that what happened in Ayodhia was wrong, but the problem has
to be solved by Indians.  
>
>>     Many further believe that the Muslim attitude is one of: "what  we  have
>>is  ours,  what  you  have  is  also ours". The Muslims voted solidly for the
>>Muslim League and for Pakistan. Today's generation says  that  it  cannot  be
>>made  to  pay  for what their fathers did. But surely those fathers are still
>>around who should have known better? The Shahi Imam says that he wants  India
>>to  be  "secular".  Were those mullahs who coughed fire and brimstone in 1946
>>secular?
>
>To hold a person to what he thought more than 40 years ago is really childish.
>Can Mr. Kamath honestly say that his World view has not changed since 1946.  
>Conditions were very different in 1946 than they are now.  With the British 
>abruptly leaving the place, any muslim would quite rightly feel very unsecure.
>It is truly juvenile to blame them for it today.
>

I agree with you here. You are quick to say that Indian Muslims and
Pakistani Muslims are brothers, what about Indian Hindus and Indian
Muslims?

>Sanjoy Ghosh

Manoj