I believe it is the systematic religion based post-conquest persecution of Hindu's and their continued suffering which was absent in the case of other invaders who readily assimilated and went on to enrich the native culture. Contrast that to the new invaders who won't let Hindu's enter one of their greatest works of architecture apparently built in tribute to love. Thats a simple analogy but seeing that they refuse to be inclusive of all faith,the society itself and instead seek partition I believe there is a strong case for a distinction to be made.
I disagree - the distinction you make is a semantic one. The Mongols for example did not commit what amounts to genocide and the complete destruction of civilizations because they were "tolerant and respectful" of the faith and culture of those peoples. There was quite obviously a distinction of "us vs them" - within the context of the Muslim rulers of the subcontinent, it is essentially the same argument of "us vs them" - with the "us factor" for the Muslim rulers (Islam) only being different in name to the "us factor" of the Mongols.
I'm digressing here but I don't see any point of applying Islamic moral standards to the rulers for the reason that I see a parallel between the pulling down of the holiest shrines of Hindu Gods and the acts of Mohammed when he violated the temples of idol worshiping pagans in the Mecca building. I fail to see the moral standing of the religion itself.
While I believe their is a distinction to be made between the events of Makkah and what say Ghaznavi did, your point is taken, since the narrative could easily, though incorrectly, be interpreted as religious justification for his actions. I am researching the background to the "destruction of the Makkah Idols" story (my own curiosity peaked about its origin, authenticity and details), however, the historical accuracy of the narrative does not have much bearing on this particular discussion, since my own experience suggests that most Muslims accept it without any qualms. More learned members - in Islam - may correct me on this
Besides, I refuse to buy this argument because to this day Muslims are most willing to sit idle and watch the spectacle of non-Muslim symbols destroyed and non-Muslims persecuted, *legally* nonetheless in some of the reasonably educated and developed countries. I have no option but to conclude morals are only talked about when it is not possible to continue the persecution. Only Lip service is found abound.
I do not believe that is a correct assertion. There was tremendous condemnation within the press and intelligentsia of Pakistan when the Taliban chose to destroy the Bamiyan Buddha's - it was considered an atrocious act. As far as lip service is concerned, my dear fellow, perhaps in a utopia such arguments would fly, but come back to the real world - in this one, millions of people subject to abject poverty and humiliation cannot stand up to gain basic axiomatic rights for themselves, let alone stand up to modern day equivalents of the "hordes". While this forum may be but an infinitesimal snapshot of the Pakistani community, my experience has shown the overwhelming majority of Pakistani members as being in agreement with me in condemning the actions of the Taliban in Afghanistan and FATA related to the destruction of non-Muslim religious artifacts. The sense I get from the media is overwhelmingly the same as well, and bar assembling a posse to go and "get" the Taliban, there is not much more the community can be realistically expected to do.
So long as the Pashtun and Tajik communities continue to uphold and glorify the ugly and uncivilised acts of Taliban and Masood why would any self-respecting Hazara and a Herati respect the Pashtun and Tajik?
However, if on the other hand the Pashtuns and Tajiks were to happily acknowledge the horrors of Taliban and Masood, and the part their communities played in the slaughters, in totality minus any platitude and excuse making, all should be well.
So long as the state of Pakistan, the government, a representative of its people and their will, continues to choose a terminology that would imply their identification with those Muslim invaders who willingly persecuted natives and their faiths, I fail to see the reason as to why the link cannot be made. Besides, I'm bewildered that you don't want such a link to be made when its your government that continues with the cheap terminology complete with their dummies decorating traffic islands.
Even If such a terminology and a sentiment is persistent due to the hostility post-independence it conveys that the other side is more than willing to align itself on the side of the aliens against the natives in Hindustan on the slightest excuse whilst the natives are far more willing to accommodate and assimilate aliens by making a Muslim President, the same guy who made all the important missiles.
I'm also wondering about the relevance of Islamic morals or preachings in the naming of missiles. Apparently it appears to my eyes that a whole nation full of moderates, is perfectly willing to be a silent audience, even support the institutions, that act against what the religion, supposedly, preaches.
I'm afraid it would take a lot more than lip service.
Now that wasn't quite an apt analogy on my part (the Herati Hazara one)- since the ancestors of modern day Pakistanis comprised some of the very peoples that were conquered. Our ancestors willingly chose Islam, and willingly chose to raise their future generations in this faith - for that we have no apology, and neither do we have one for what the "invaders" did, since we were not "they" - in ethnicity nor religion when those acts took place (though some may have been during later Muslim periods). I do not consider the Taliban's acts "Islamic" - I do not consider the destruction and ransacking of temples Islamic either - but while I will condemn both, I will not apologize for the actions of another.
On the issue of the relevance of these Muslim rulers to Pakistanis - as I expressed to Vinod, while some of the Muslim rulers did indeed desecrate non-Muslim places of worship (and those actions should be condemned) they also brought Islam into the subcontinent, and allowed for it to spread, and while Hindutva apologists may refuse to acknowledge it, they also had tremendous positive influence on the arts, culture, economics and administration. I realize that you are trying to spin a narrative of abject victimization, but even Ghaznavi left Hindu States in the control of Hindu Vassals and had Hindu generals, as did other Muslim rulers - not a perfect society by any means, but not quite the "Nazi's -Stalin - Mao - New World Europeans rolled into one" picture you present either.
History, like most other things, is "shades of Grey rather than black and white" - Some Pakistani Muslims may only view the actions of the Muslim rulers of the subcontinent as positive, ignoring the harm they did, while some Hindus may only see them as monsters. The truth lies in between, and a conversation between these two communities is only going to be fruitful if middle ground is sought by both.
