(1) Why should the Muslims oppose the land transfer, when that land does not belong to any Muslim?
(2) Amarnath is not a temple of local importance but a major pilgrim centre of Hindus all over the world.
(3) The antagonists argue that the land transfer is a move to render the Muslims a minority in the Kashmir valley! Bud didn't the Muslims invent a way to retain their own majority - by persecuting, molesting, raping, maiming, and massacring tens of thousands of the Kashmiri pandits and hounding out the hapless survivors? So Hindus don't have a right to live and survive in the Kashmir valley, but the Muslims have an unchallenged right to multiply their own population throughout India!
(4) The antagonists argue that the move threatens the Muslim identity and culture in the valley. Thus the Muslims betray that they can't coexist with any other religion; that in their scheme of things, they can't brook the presence of any other culture, least of all the Hindu.
(5) Some of the antagonists put forth a specious argument that the land transfer, if effected, would have anti-ecological effects. Nobody need preach Hindus about eco-harmony. For Hindus have, right from the beginning, been worshippers of Nature and held every element of Nature in high veneration. It is from the forests that the ancient Rishis transmitted their envisioned wisdom to the Hindu society.
