In a debate in the Times Now channel the anchor said something like “some Muslims destroyed Ram temple and some Hindus destroyed the Babri musjid, so both sides are equally guilty”. And the anchor (I believe his name is Anand Narasimhan), dares to say that it is logical.
OK Anand, I hope you agree that logic should be consistent. Let me prove that your logic is inconsistent and just DUMB!!!.
Here we go…
Pakistan has taken a chunk of land by force from India, we call it the Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK). Now one day India decides (Ehmm…) to take its OWN land back by force. With your newly found logic, both sides are equally guilty and a settlement has to be arrived at by “talks”. From what I have seen from you, I assume that you are not going to say that. You are going to celebrate India’s victory. Inconsistent?
Now you may argue that the contexts are completely different and may even accuse me of saying Indian Muslims are the same as Pakistanis.
I just didn’t say that. If your logic works in one context and doesn’t in another, it is just inconsistent. The contexts need not be exactly the same. Now what you did was strip all context off and say that one party destroyed another’s structure and the other party did the same. So both parties are equal. But you don’t agree with the same logic when applied to India and Pakistan.
I can create plenty of examples like this to prove your inconsistency. But lets leave it at that.
Now do I think that Indian Muslims are the same as Pakistanis. No I don’t. BUT if some of the Muslims identifies with Babar or glorifies his deeds, then I think they have the potential to become Pak agents or terrorists. Why? Because if they believe this it just proves that they are easily susceptible to Pak propaganda.
Let me try to analyse you and find the origins of your inconsistent logic. Where does it come from? The answer is simple. You just want to portray yourself as an “impartial independent secular” observer by saying that Hindus and Muslims are equally guilty on this issue, which is clearly not the case. Not for sure with the logic that you presented.
So was the destruction of Babri musjid worng? Yes legally it was wrong. One can argue with the circumstances that lead the the destruction, including killing of karsevaks. But legally it was wrong. But was the destruction of ram temple also legally wrong. Yes it was. So we can only talk about whether it was morally right or wrong. Because if India on independence, created a law which said mosques built by destroying temples should be taken down and a temple should be built, the case would have been different. Slavery was legal at some time in history, but it doesn’t make it morally right.
So, you have two options Anand –
- Agree that you logic is wrong
- Agree that you are a hypocrite