Dileep: You have of course been following whatever has been going on in India: the incident in Ayodhya, the communal riots and so forth.
NC Chaudhary: There must be a complete recognition of the historical responsi- bility on both sides. They must not try to avoid it. All Hindu historians are liars. From 1907 onwards we became aware of the Hindu-Muslim problem as regards the nationalist movement. From that date until 1946 every fellow Bengali I have asked and every other Indian too had only one standard argument: The Hindu- Muslim problem does not exist. It has been created by the British.
My point is that it is the very nature of things. That what happened in Ayodhya should not have happened is another matter. But I say that the Muslims do not have the slightest right to complain about the desecration of one mosque. From 1000 A.D. every Hindu temple from Kathiawar to Bihar, from the Himalayas to the Vindhyas has been sacked and ruined. Not one temple was left standing all over northern India. At the beginning of the 18th century the Jesuit priest and mathematician Tippenthaler noticed in the evenings as he travelled from Malwa the flickering flames of tiny earthen lamps placed by the villagers at some risk to themselves. Temples escaped destruction only where Muslim power did not gain access to them for reasons such as dense forests. Otherwise it was a continuous spell of vendalism. No nation with any self- respect
RE:Muslims need to acknowledge Historical Facts - Part 1
by Kannan on Jul 28, 2008 02:30 PM Permalink
Muslims need to acknowledge Historical Facts - PART 2 No nation with any self-respect will forgive this. They took over our women. And they imposed the Zazia, the tax. Why should we forget and forgive all that? What happened in Ayodhya would not have happened had the Muslims acknowledged this historical argument even once. Then we could have said: Alright. Let the past remain in the past and let us see how best we can solve this problem.
From the 18th century onwards the Hindus took the offensive. They would not allow the Muslims to lead their way of life. In the 30's I wrote several articles on the subject. The last one was in 1939. I have not changed my views from the ones I expressed then. The gist of the argument is that the Hindu view of life and the Muslim view of life are completely oriented towards a clash. The muslims were the first to invent the thoery of permanent revolution. The communists took over from them. No Muslims can live under the political domination of non-Muslims. Secondly, Muslims divide the world into two: regions of peace and regions of conflict. It is the duty of of every Muslim to bring the latter within the fold of Islam. The Arab equivalent of the caliph is "Commander of the Faithful". And his obligation is jihad (holy war). Where do you think the word mujahedin comes from? Mu in Arabic means 'to be with'. Mujahid is to be with the jihad and Mujahedin is its plural. Why, I ask the English people, do you call them fundamentalists in Kabul and n
