After Babri Masjid, Vishwa Hindu Parishad Shifts its Focus on Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi

[AfrazulMandal]

wrong doings of Muslim rulers...

It was NO wrong doing at all.

If Hindus really held these places sacred, then these areas would have looked beautiful and would have been protected.

I fail to understand. There is already a Kashi Vishwanath Mandir in Varanasai. It is already denoted as one of the 12 holy sites dedicated to Shiva. This temple was built by the Maharani of Holkar. Subsequently various Maharajas have contributed to its expansion and upkeep.

What is wrong with this existing temple?

They want the original one.

Too bad, they are a few centuries late to the party.

Jab Sultan Alamgir ruled, Sanghis probably shit in their pants and ran away.

 

[Goenitz]

should we merge this with the ASI news thread

 

[Baibars_1260]

The Hindutva side had anyway asked for three sites to be given to them.

They want 30,000 or 60,000 ( Link );

Let's see how the Supreme Court reacts.

Sorry Jamahir, I can't resist putting this emoticon to your above statement.
"Let's see how the Supreme Court reacts "

My apologies again.

 

[jamahir]

They want 30,000 or 60,000 ( Link );

Some nuanced statements from above article :

Located in a kingdom’s capital and containing an image of a ruling dynasty’s cosmic overlord, royal temples were highly charged political sites. For it was there that kingship was established, celebrated, renewed, and contested. For that reason, they were also attacked by outside enemies. Well before Muslim ruling houses arrived on the scene, kings would attack an enemy king’s royal temple as a necessary part of undermining that king’s sovereign rule. This much is clear both from normative Sanskrit texts and from the inscriptional record. Later on, Muslim kings intending to establish their own rule in India simply followed this tradition.

But was he “an unjust, cruel ruler”? He was certainly Machiavellian in his tactics and mode of governance, but hardly more so than other Mughal emperors, including Akbar, with whom he is conventionally contrasted. Aurangzeb’s reign was longer than that of other Mughals, and it witnessed more rebellions. Since temples in Mughal domains were understood as state property, those that were patronised by rebels who had formerly been loyal officials were subject to destruction, just as their patrons were subject to severe punishment. This probably explains why more temples were desecrated in his reign than in others.

Sorry Jamahir, I can't resist putting this emoticon to your above statement.
"Let's see how the Supreme Court reacts "

My apologies again.