the fallacy of using mughal vandalism as a defence to what happened in 1992 with regard to the demolition of babri - a thread

the most common defence right wing wokeboys seem to use for the setting up of ram mandir is that the mughals looted it in the first place and that somehow justifes the death of 2000 muslims that the forced demolition brought upon

this also stems from the isolated belief that the mughals were the only ones who called upon the destruction of temples and are solely responsible for the targetted erasure of hinduism, here are instances that will say otherwise dug up from the pre indo islamic era

long before the mughals set foot in the indus civilisation, hindu kings have demolished temples of their political rivals because of the intermediate link between the deities they worshipped and their own political subjugation

The Rashtrakuta king Indra III destroyed the temple of Kalapriya, which their arch enemy, the Pratiharas, patronised and considered immaculate to their faith.

when the Kashmiri ruler Lalitaditya killed the king of gauda desh, his attendants sought revenge. They secretly entered Lalitaditya’s capital and made their way to the temple of Vishnu Parihasakesava, the principal deity of the Kashmiri kingdom.

however they mistook the silver image to be the prinical deity and grounded it to the dust, although they were unsuccessful this shows a pattern of intent to demolish and vandalise for political supremacy.

to quote Richard H Davis's paper on this, he says - "There is no question that medieval Hindu kings frequently destroyed religious images as part of more general rampages"

now this is in no way justifies the muslim iconoplasm - two wrongs don't make a right, but what it does suggest is that the iconoclasm/vandalism by Muslims was already an established behavior long before they came along, and it wasn't a new trauma as contested by many sanghis

the point i want to make is that when the sangh parivaar selectively project the destruction of hinduism on muslims and thus use it as a defence to oppress the present day followers, they're nit picking and are obviously wrong

this faulted discourse has led them to construct a narrative that shadows history & instead potrays rage, lays claim to mosques in the defence to undo the damage apparently muslims started when they didn't, it acts as a narrative to justify the physical assaults on muslims today

the truth is there existed a time where the rules were subjective and a democratic state didn't exist, rulers of every religion sought barbaric demolitions to assert their political sovereignty, mughal rulers subjugated the shia mosques to curb rebellion, the end point being -

everybody fucked up, they did and as much as this doesn't justify the tyranny of the likes of aurangzeb, what it does say is that you can't take precedent to what happened in a lawless state to justify tearing down a mosque and costing 2000 lives of minorities in the 21st century

you can't justify the oppresion you continue to impose on the minorities by selectively cherrypicking history bc the last time i checked, the vandalism and the plundering came from a place where a democracy didn't exist, a constitution wasn't drafted and laws weren't made

so remember, when you celebrate ayodhya verdict today, when you celebrate ram mandir on the grounds of feeble biased discourses, you're supporting the massacre that was carried out and the two can not be separated, whatsoever.

in conclusion, ram mandir was never about Hinduism & religious sites, if anything twas about hijacking narratives to turn it into vote bank politics and capitalise on widespread Islamophobia in the name of ancient mughals, i hope we learn to look beyond propaganda, starting now.