Part 1
Shri Hari,
i am not suggesting that enquiring into the 'truth' about taj mahal is per se bad but it is my firm view that it gets bad press for hindutva.
Why should it be branded a hindutva tag? Is it not reason enough to dispel the false notion surrounding the construct?
i am sure you will agree with me that secularist of every hue in india are waiting for opportunities to lampoon hindus/hinduism/hindutva in no particular order. so, we dont do ourselves any good by constantly look into the past.
But is it not cowardly to retreat just so there are opposing voices? Barking dogs will always go on… actions cannot be decided based on that.
you are a fine young man. given the choice of creating history and rewriting history, what would you choose ? i would be disappointed if you would choose the latter.
In the light of new information everything undergoes change so that the true picture is shown. The taj mahal is history, but did it have a history before? That is the question. Maybe, once the truth is shown, the people’s verdict would be final as to whether it ought to be restored to its previous self (if any).
sir, my point is very simple. carbon dating or no carbon dating ; temple or no temple ; tejo mahalaya or no tejo mahalaya ; i dont think it is serving anyone's interest to tamper with history. that too selectively.
How can it be called it tampering of history? It is used in the negative sense here; think of it as a research. Scientists are researching into various aspects of civilization and history as an ongoing process. Doing an enquiry would not halt any other developmental process!!!
i know that you would argue that a 'start has to be made somewhere' ; my response to that being why start something which is futile ?
Why is it futile? As explained previously, to verify the truth itself is a good enough reason for the research (at least, in this issue).
i wish you would respond to my point about whether the survival of hinduism hinges on such rewriting attempts ?
I did not say that this issue is linked to the survival of Hinduism per se. But, if the taj indeed were to be proved the tejo mahalaya, would it not have an impact on the mentality of the Indian muslim? Obviously, their stance would be much more harmonized, coz even after destruction of such great temples by the muslims, india is harbouring them as its own…
it is my firm belief, gone on record on this one, that hindus of india are decisively more secular than other communities. we have lived harmoniously with other communities.
I beg to differ, albeit a little – we have been tolerant coz we had no other choice. India was a spiritually enriched land (not technologically advanced). And as such, the brutal techniques numbed them sufficiently to be overrun by invading forces. It was more the barbarious actions in the case of the moghuls, and technology in the case of the british that we had to be coloured as secular. WE HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO LIVE WITH THE OTHER COMMUNITIES. Is it harmonious? Well, that is another interesting question.
But, our religion does not defame any – in that we are secular. But sir, it is this attitude which has taken us for a ride. Am not saying that we should not be, but that we should be prudent enough to protect our interests.
hinduism for it's part has weathered every storm ; there may be symbols which reflect the agony of mughal invasion but as much as they proclaim the historical fact of the invasion, they are also testimonies to the fact that they could not succeed in over powering india.
In fact, Aurangazeb’s empire extended the whole of India (almost); there are many reasons as to why Hinduism was not completely quelled – jiziya, inter-rivalries amongst the Moslems themselves, continued aggression by various hindu kings like Rana Pratap, Shivaji, Hakka/Bukka, and the fact that such a vast empire was very difficult to administer and control.
by actually remaining a hindu majority nation, hinduism has proved decisively that the mughals did not succeed. by outlasting the mughals, hinduism has won the existential battle.
It remained a hindu nation not through peaceful efforts, but by bold and heroic kings – we would be wrong in saying that it ‘remained’ in spite of the Moslem onslaught. So you see, aggression was its protector.
the beauty of hinduism lies in it's essence. despite a brutal majority, we have not declared ourselves as a hindu theocracy. we can live with anyone in harmony and it is upto others to reciprocate.
Yes, the ideology is fine, but the practice is pathetic. Again, one cannot sit and wait indefinitely for the other to reciprocate…
the greatest disservice to the cause of hinduism, i firmly believe, was in pulling the babri down. we lost a great opportunity to show to the world that hindus do not want to achieve anything thru violent means. we have exchanged notes on this earlier and if the truth is what you think it is, i am sure it would have seen us thru. afterall this is the land of satyameva jeyathe.
When one cannot establish the truth through fair means, what is the option left out? You might say ‘more waiting in the hope that things will eventually turnaround’, but sir, things do not happen by themselves. In all cases, there is individual or collective effort – either through peace or force. There is a saturation point for everything.
if we want to erase the memories of everything that is not palatable to us, then should we not pull down everything that the british left ? we should pull down the rashtrapathi bhavan, the rippon building and the victoria memorial too ? afterall india's capitulation to the british is as shameful as the mughal invasion ? why do we feel comfortable with these 'living symbols' of british occupancy ?
Do you think that the edifices you mention above were built on demolished temples? Or is there any evidence to show the same? If it is so, then that too has to be researched. The central question here is about constructs that were built on demolished hindu structures.
I, or rather, majority of the hindus have no issues with the churches or mosques or darghas which are not made out of existing hindu constructs… Hope, I have made this clear.
if we have an iota of self-respect then probably we should not be using the railways systems and postal systems that were created by british, shouldnt we ?
I think the argument is misplaced. The core point of the discussion is not about all practices, for then we should forgo even the english literal.
my intention is not to throw the gauntlet at you ; i hope to convey to you that it is too impractical to indulge in such selective enquiries into the past ignoring the more pressing and urgent tasks that lie before us ?
I assure you that I take it in the right sense. But you see, I fail to understand as to how this would hamper other activities? There are various ministries/task forces/committees/archaeological bodies which could take up this matter without disturbing whatsoever developmental activities that are being carried on.
Apart from development, parallel activities/research do take place – whether it be agriculture, technology or history.
Your reference here indicates that all the resources would be utilized with a single point aim of trying to research into the matter of the taj... it is not so.
800 million indians are living in abject penury ; voices screaming in hunger should not allow us to sleep in peace if we have conscience ; but we do sleep.
I, or rather every individual of conscience, would agree with this statement. But then, as I pointed out earlier, this is nowhere related to this issue. There are millions of money siphoned out of illegal activities, persons occupying places of profit and acting with vested interests, benami activities, nepotism, corruption, reverse-discrimination etc which are the reasons for the the miserable conditions of the poor and down-trodden, and not a simple research!!!
i am only requesting that we do not stretch our conscience further by ignoring the millions those who need our attention and action ; now !
I hope that I have conveyed my point clearly to show how one does not relate to the other.