As an Indian, I believe in unity but I do not agree with the views of Markandey Katju (“Rid our body politic of communal poison,” Oct. 11). He says only earlier Muslim invaders like Babur destroyed temples whereas their descendents promoted all religions.
If the later Muslim rulers were indeed liberal, why did they not reconstruct the Ram temple in Ayodhya? What about Aurangzeb, considered the most tyrannical of Mughal rulers?
Bipin Singh,
Vapi
The article is right in saying that communal hatred was the result of the divide and rule policy. It is shocking to learn that religious leaders were bribed to speak against other communities under the British rule. That emperors like Akbar and Ashoka were secular should be emphasised repeatedly.
A. Sravani Reddy,
New DelhiThe article tells us how secularism was sabotaged in our country by the imperialistic forces after the first war of Indian Independence. During the 1857 war, Hindus also declared Bahadur Shah Zafar their emperor. Religion was hardly a consideration. Unfortunately, some historians are reluctant to highlight such points.
True, Mahmud of Ghazni destroyed the Somnath temple. But he did it to loot the huge wealth deposited there.
Moosa Chelakulam,
Kochi
The Mughal emperor, Akbar, and the Kanchi Sankaracharya, Chandrasekharendra Saraswati, had one thing in common — universal tolerance. In the 16th century, Akbar started a religion, ‘Din-i-Ilahi,’ borrowed from all major religions. With him, the religion died.
In the 20th century, when a couple of Hindus complained to Kanchi ‘Periyava’ that Muslims were reciting evening prayers aloud in a mosque near the Kanchi mutt, he told them that Muslims were reminding them to do their sandhyavandanam (evening ritual). Such universal tolerance is rare today.
K. Pradeep,
Chennai
via The Hindu Newspaper http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/letters/communal-poison/article3997294.ece
No comments:
Post a Comment