[Reader-list] Crime and No Punishment: Malegaon Blast Accused Get a Respite

[Murali V]

Dear Rakesh Ji,

As you say and I quote "if Akbar is accused of having violated this, so can
the RSS and the rest of the Sangh Parivar. Therefore, the question is not
whether Akbar is right or wrong, but whether such actions (as those
committed by the RSS in our times, which we have seen and have reason to
believe) are justifiable or not (whether they may be committed by anyone in
future or may have been committed by anyone in the past). "

You have not responded to the nefarious activities of the seventh day
Adventists. The pseudo-secular govt. are silent about these happennings and
you expect people to sit and watch.

Regards,
V Murali


On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Murali ji
>
> A fatwa in a democracy must and should be debated before people think of
> actually obeying the fatwa. We are a democracy, not a banana republic. If
> the mullahs and the maulvis feel it's a problem, they are free to feel that
> way, but that does not mean we stop that action. Anyways, there is no
> policing done to ensure that a fatwa is followed or not, be it for one
> banning cow slaughter or one for Sania Mirza not being allowed to wear
> skirts.
>
> As far as Akbar is concerned, the arguments I put up are those which he
> made in 1591-92, whereas the war you refer to was fought way before that in
> 1570's. However, that can't be the crux of what I wish to add. The fact is
> that while some historians would like to portray that Akbar and the Mughal
> rule in general was against the Hindu way of life (or even Rajput way, which
> meant destruction of temples), there are others who refute this fact and
> state that Akbar was not against the Hindu way of life, but was more
> concerned by the idea of ruling upon territories and expanding his empire
> (which is wrong and against the spirit of democracy, but this was not then
> prevalent as an idea at a larger level, more so because the ruler was only
> concerned with collection of taxes from those having land, and the poor were
> generally unaffected in such cases).
>
> It is also stated sometimes that like Ashoka, Akbar also turned from the
> path of violence to non-violence, but this may also have been because of the
> establishment of a stable state in political terms.
>
> To add here, Abul Fazl's accounts, which I haven't read, have been actually
> interpreted in two completely different ways by people on either side of the
> divide: those who believe Akbar was communal and anti-Hindu, and those who
> believe Akbar actually was secular. However, one must not forget the
> addition of values of one's own with the interpretation of histories by
> those who believe in either dictum. What I have put up is an enactment
> declared by Akbar in the year when the 1000th year of introduction of the
> Hijra calendar was being celebrated.
>
> And most importantly, at least Akbar had a tradition of allowing
> discussions to take place, which is an important facet of democracy. Not
> like Kautilya, for whom only upper castes deserved freedom while women and
> lower castes were to be kept away from it, as advocated strongly in his
> 'Arth-shastra'.
>
> And far more important than all this, is just one expression: people should
> be able to lead the lives they value. And if Akbar is accused of having
> violated this, so can the RSS and the rest of the Sangh Parivar. Therefore,
> the question is not whether Akbar is right or wrong, but whether such
> actions (as those committed by the RSS in our times, which we have seen and
> have reason to believe) are justifiable or not (whether they may be
> committed by anyone in future or may have been committed by anyone in the
> past).
>
> Regards
>
> Rakesh
>