RELIGIOUS AND SECTARIAN CONFLICT IN INDIA

Looking Beyond Dividing, Towards Uniting ------------------------- Why do we read of MUSLIMS destroying Hindu and Budhist Temples far more than Hindus destroying Muslim Mosques? - That is a partial question. The other part should be: Who came to power in succession? What was the order of succession? - Because Hindus have not come to power after Muslim arrival, we don’t read such stories. And like all histories, men in power hide the dark pages of their book.. Check this: https://scroll.in/article/877050/religious-violence-in-ancient-india-a-lesson-for-those-who-write-history-textbooks-for-school - Did Hindus have power to destroy other people’s places of worship, and did not do so? If Hindu rulers had succeeded Muslim rule, would they have destroyed Muslim places of worship? - Who did largely wipe out Buddhism from its birthplace? Who do Jains blame for the appropriation of a number of their temples, in ancient India? - Muslims have indulged in religious violence historically. So did Christians. So did Hindus. We have – not unlike many other regions of the world – a bloody history of religious conflict, sectarian warfare, destruction, violence for power and ego. This article traces religious persecution in ancient, medieval and modern India by both Muslims and Hindus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India In fact the destruction of temples by Hindus presaged the Muslim rule, as argued here: https://scroll.in/article/767065/war-trophies-when-hindu-kings-raided-temples-and-abducted-idols So, are Hindus any less violent? - Hindus in the post-British era command de-facto power. - And Babri demolition, Godhra carnage, Delhi Sikh massacre happened, says this article: https://www.hudson.org/research/4575-hinduism-and-terror The following articles throw useful light on the incessant violence and convulsion in our religious history: - http://www.jainsamaj.org/content.php?url=Decline_of_Jainism_-_By - http://bapumraut.blogspot.com/2013/02/how-adi-shankara-destroyed-buddhism-and.html - https://www.quora.com/Did-Hindu-Brahmins-convert-the-Buddhist-stupas-shrines-and-caves-into-Hindu-temples-and-shrines-like-Balaji-Temple-and-Sabarimala-Temple - https://karthiknavayan.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/ow-the-buddhists-and-jains-were-persecuted-in-ancient-india/ Buddhists were generally believed to be tolerant and less violent. Persecution of Tamilian Hindus in Sri Lanka, and of Rohingya Muslims in Vyanmar proved this otherwise. Muslims and Christians have had bloody histories in other parts of the world, too. The bloody Crusades between themselves, for instance. But just because we don’t read of something today, in our part of the world, it doesn’t necessarily follow it did not happen. Infirmity of history is not virtuous. Clearly, for example, we couldn’t have as much documentation of Shaivism and Vaishnavism conflict, as we have of sectarian wars between the Catholics and Protestants, and between the Sunnis and Shias, due to passage of time. Isn’t the exploitation of the Dalits spanning over a millennium, one long shameful chapter in our history? If Muslims did not exist would Hindus be at peace within? Were they, before Muslim arrival? Are Muslims at peace in Pakistan, or Afghanistan? Religion produces ‘the other’. It also then produces castes and denominations. Notice the number of sects, gurus, ashrams Hindus now have, with each one appearing so different from the other. For instance, the Lingayats of Karnataka, Swaminarayan followers of Gujarat, Pandits of Kashmir, and the Hindus of Punjab appear so far apart as to be pursuing different faiths, altogether. Again, within each sect there are sub-groups. Jains, so few in numbers, are also divided inter se. Thus, you see, it is in the very nature of religion to produce isolation, grouping, the-otherism. Let’s not, therefore, retard human emancipation in confusion, and by missing the real issues. Let’s focus global human brotherhood on modern day principles of universal human rights and fair play.