From: narayana@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Kuram T Narayana)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: On Hatred towards Muslims
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:46:45 GMT
Organization: Penn State Computer Science

In article <Apr.17.16.03.53.1992.23687@blaze.rutgers.edu> kumarv@blaze.rutgers.edu (kumar vadaparty) writes:
>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.
>-- 

Frankly, this whole thread of ascribing blame to the present generation
of muslims or requiring them to denounce their ancestoral misdeeds is
flawed (morally wrong). It collectivizes the crimes of their ancestors 
into a guilt complex in the present generation of muslims. There was another
poster (prof. Chandrasekharan) who in the context of a temple incident
exhorted that hindus should feel a collective guilt for the state
of the harijans. 

The reason is no one whether a muslim or a hindu had any choice of
his religion. We got a damn entity called religion attached to us 
by virtue of our birth.

Legally (in terms of jurisprudence) it is wrong. Because in
jurisprudence crimes are assessed on an individual basis;
whether X committed a crime or not, or has X conspired
to commit the crime.

That is why it is in appropriate to talk of social justice
in a constitutional framework without restricting the scope
of the word to fairness for all in the society. That it
is being interpreted differently to imply caste and 
religious connotations is due to the communalist liberals
who have been the torch-bearers in subverting the constitution 
significantly..
...kt
or