Good evening Sir. My name is Alok Shukla and
I am an Engineering Graduate from Delhi University. Sir, few days back I had a discussion on Islamic
invasion on Hindu temples. And desecration of them. So, what he said was, it was nothing
but a continuation of Shavites and Vashnavites fights inbetween them. And they also used
to destroy and desecrate each others temples. And he cited some archaeological… Ok, I
understand this issue very well. Its a very common left wing critic that you cannot blame
Muslims for doing for what you were always doing. Now there are many logical flaws in
this. I mean you dont say this rape is ok because somebody else had also raped somebody.
One bad thing does not justify the other. Whether Shavites & Vashnavites did it or not
is completely irrelevant to the fact that Muslims came and invaded and destroyed temples.
They have to be accountable for their crime even if somebody else has to be accountable
for their crime. Secondly, there is a difference between an internal clash and an outsider
coming. If there is a family clash, its one thing. And an outsider coming and doing expansion
in which we lose, all of us lose where as if its an internal clash, may be person X
beats person Y, they are neighbours, then next generation Y beats X, they are neighbours.
Over a period of time the value of the market share, the total capital remains in the country
about the same. It may get redistributed one way then redistributed back another way. So
may be the power goes to Shavites, the power goes to Vashnavites, but its stays within
the land. It doesnt get siphoned in thousands of camels being taken loot away into the middle
east. It doesnt happen that way. But when a foreign geographical expansion from one
continent to another, it is a completely different thing. Not only in the devastation of the
material side of the wealth. But also ideologically, a whole new framework, a whole new paradigm
that originated somewhere else gets imposed on you. A whole new language gets imposed on you. And culture gets imposed on you. So, the foreign invasion is of very different kind than local
kings fighting each other. Thats the second point. The third point is, that this business
is exaggerated. This business of Shavites & Vashnavites, they did not have multi-generational
huge armies of 20,000 – 50,000 horsemen going in a big army to invade. It was little small
scale, some guy fought another guy. The way people fight anywhere. It was not something
that somebody can say that there was Shavite kingdom invading and expanding a Shavite dynasty
for many generations on an expansion rampage, the way we have suffered from middle east
people coming. So, the scale of this, the duration of this and the intensity of this
within India was nowhere compared to what we saw from foreign invaders. Your Q is, did
a Shavite ever take over a Vashnavite temple. Of course, they were instances when they did
that. But, it was not on the same scale. And it was basically local rivalry. But, it is
different than, if it is sanctioned in your theology, its sanctioned in your book. It
is not sanctioned in the Vashnavite book that you have to go and do this to the others.
So, one guy of his own did it, then may be 20 years later it was forgotten. It didnt
sort of continue and expand over thousands of miles and hundreds of years, the way the foreign invasions did. So, thats the big difference I think.