From: kumarv@blaze.rutgers.edu (kumar vadaparty)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: On Hatred towards Muslims
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:03:56 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Apr17.125951@IASTATE.EDU>, jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed A Khan) writes:
> In article <Apr.17.11.59.46.1992.22809@blaze.rutgers.edu>,
> kumarv@blaze.rutgers.edu (kumar vadaparty) writes:
> > (i). 
> > [Historical]

> Unjustfied identification of their rule as muslim rule has been instrumental
> in marking the muslims as somehow responsible for the deeds of these rulers.

You have a valid point, asking to distinguish between rulers and the
ruled.  I agree with you. But, this is a cause for suspision, not a
justification, nor a real good reason or even reasonable. I thought
that I made this clear. Note, that for example, the british RULERS did
not destroy temples (portugese did a bit in Goa, I was told), and so,
the immediate fear of religious freedom does not arise when you see an
indian christian.  Whereas the muslim rulers did distroy. Hence, when
you see a muslim rise or prospect of muslim rule, you may get
apprehensive. Just MAY.  I dont think it is reasonable to suspect
them, though.

 
> Is it being implied that the non-ruling muslim citizenry took an active part
> in the destruction of these temples?
> Is there any doccumented proof which shows that the entire muslim community
> conspired to do away with these temples?

No! But, there is no evidence (even today) that muslim citizenry even
pay a lip sympathy towards these destructions(see below). All we get
is Ansaris who say these are all myths.

Do you know of any WHITE PAPER THE MUSLIMS OF INDIA EVER ISSUED on
"Yes, we the indians agree that it was wrong/whatever" on the part
of those invaders to destroy religious freedom. However, let us
work now together for a common india. I may be wrong, but do you
know of any muslim contemporary leader who did this? Why should
thy issue suc? see below.

> > (ii). 
> > [Pre partition]
> > When there was a freedom struggle for democracy, few muslims
> > joined initially, many supported the british rule, and some even
> > formed Muslim league whose primary goal was to support the British
> > (Azad, a muslim says so).
> 
> 
> Theres no doubt that there were many of them.
> 
> But there were muslims who believed in India.

That's right. The presence of people who did not believe in India
gives room for suspision. It is not CORRECT, I repeat, to have
suspision on a single individual because some of his coreligious
people in yester generations destroyed temples, or did not participate
in freedom struggle. But, it is indeed the case, and all of us should
try to avoid this. A first step would be for the current muslims to
say "we do not inherit those values", and the current hindus say "we
do not hold you for their mistakes". Do you agree? 

> > (iii). 
> > [Currently]
> > In the current India, the likes of Ansari, state that the
> > distruction of temples is "a myth", and Arun never says a single
>                              ^^^^^^^
> Thats his view. His view cannot be taken to represent the views of the entire 
> muslim community. There have been temples which were destroyed by invaders.
> Thats a matter of shame.

Are there any muslim leaders, who oppose his (ansari's) view, Javed?
Let me know. This is precisely what we want. If there is, we need to
publicize it. This is what I am referring to as "White paper" above.

> In any case he was probably reffering to the Babri masjid-RJB issue.

No. Let us not digress.

> 
> 
> --Javed


kumar.
--