India: Gunmen killed at Indian holy site(Muslims' attempted score-settling against Hindus)

BBC News ^ | 07/05/05

[TigerLikesRooster]

Last Updated: Tuesday, 5 July, 2005, 09:20 GMT 10:20 UK

Gunmen killed at Indian holy site

 

Police have ended an attack on a disputed religious site in northern India by killing all the assailants.

Indian Home Minister Shivraj Patil said five militants had been killed by the security forces, and another unidentified person was also killed.

In 1992, Hindu nationalists demolished a mosque at the site at Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh state, sparking riots.

Islamic militants had recently threatened to target the complex, but no group has so far claimed the attack.

State of alert

The unidentified men forced their way into the heavily guarded site at about 0915 local time (0415 GMT).

Click here to see a map of the disputed site

They used a jeep loaded with explosives to blow a hole in the wall of the complex, and drove a car through the gap.

The gunmen were surrounded by armed police as they tried to enter the inner area of the complex, and a gun battle lasting nearly two hours followed.

A local official told the BBC that all the Hindu pilgrims and the religious structure were safe.

The destruction of the Babri mosque sparked nationwide riots

The driver of the men's vehicle has been arrested and is being questioned by police, who say they recovered three AK-47 assault rifles and hand grenades at the site.

Hindu leaders reacted angrily to Tuesday's incident.

India's main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has called for country-wide protests, accusing the government of going soft on terrorism.

Party chief Lal Krishna Advani said the attack had brought what he termed the movement to build a Hindu temple at the site back to centre-stage.

Hindu nationalist group the Rashtriya Shyamsevak Sangh (RSS) appealed to the public to keep any protests peaceful.

A prominent Islamic scholar urged calm.

"No movement can succeed with violence," Maulana Wahiuddin said.

The town and state are on high alert and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has called a cabinet meeting in Delhi to discuss the attack.

Religious bloodshed

The Ayodhya complex is one of the most disputed religious sites in the world, and one of the most heavily guarded places in India.

The complex is claimed by right-wing Hindus, who believe it is the birthplace of their Lord Ram.

The 16th century Babri mosque was destroyed 13 years ago by activists who believed it had been built upon an old Hindu temple.

The move prompted one of India's worst bouts of nationwide religious rioting between Hindus and the country's Muslim minority, which left more than 2,000 people dead.

The bloodshed was viewed as the most serious threat to India's secular identity since independence in 1947.

The dispute over the complex is still working its way through India's courts.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Hmm... Muslims are making enemies all over the place.

The Ayodhya complex is one of the most disputed religious sites in the world,

No, it belongs to Hindus. Hindu temple was there long before Muslims came and razed it.

[muawiyah]

Bring us up to date on the "temple". Show us a website that displays the professionally excavated evidence that there was ever a Hindu temple there.

BTW, tearing down a 500 year old building probably wasn't a good idea if ya' know what I mean ~ it's not like there are rich tourists who like to visit India just to see the new stuff.

[tkathy]

Eventually, every single non-muslim in the world will hate every single muslim.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Re #2

Why Muslims insists on building their Mosque on somebody else's holy site? As for air-tight proof of Rama Temple's existence on the location, perhaps more research is in order.

I wonder how Muslims feel if Hindus construct Gnash Temple on Mecca or Karbela, even if not on top of Kabba or Imam Ali Shrine.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Are you familiar with historical evidences related to this dispute?

[theDentist]

Police have ended an attack on a disputed religious site in northern India by killing all the assailants.

Hey Kennedy, Schumer, Dean, Reid, and Pelosi! THIS is how you win a battle. Not by surrendering, you bunch of dung beetled yellowbacks.

[softwarecreator]

THIS is how you win a battle. Not by surrendering

When I read the first few paragraphs, this is the same thought I had!  This whole WOT could be over, or close to it, if we didn't have the PC crowd fighting our military every step of the way.

[razoroccam]

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ajoy/asi_report_babri.htm

Since you asked for archeological evidence.

[Brilliant]

There is only one solution to this war between Muslims and Hindus---Christianity.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Re #8

Thanks for your help. So there was a Hindu temple there.

[razoroccam]

Yes, there was a "Hindu" temple there. Most mosques in India were built on destroyed "Hindu" temples. Served two purposes
1. Destroyed the temple and moral of the infidels ("Hindus")
2. Provided raw material (bricks, etc) for construction of mosques

[TigerLikesRooster]

Re #11

A Sultan(?) of Egypt once tried to destroy Khufu's pyramid, the largest one, which is Giza Plateau. He only managed to strip off white limestone casing from it after two years(?), exposing step-like structure inside. It was simply too big.

Unfortunately, those temples are not big enough to withstand Muslim destruction, I guess.

[muawiyah]

Reading through the article concerning archaeological findings it seems quite clear that it is the site of a Jain Temple.

[muawiyah]

The old main cathedral in Mexico City is built of materials taken from the main Aztec religious pyramid.

Much of the central part of Rome (including the oldest parts of Vatican City) are constructed from the marble that once covered the Coliseum.

The very earliest Christian churches are built on the site of pagan temples, etc., etc., etc.

Frequently the new buildings for the new religions were built by the former adherents of the old religions, and in many cases, by the very congregations of the old!

There's not necessarily anything "evil" in these discoveries.

[tkathy]

What did or did not happen thousands of years ago is irrelevant. Who is butchering whom in today's world is relevant.

[monday]

"BTW, tearing down a 500 year old building probably wasn't a good idea if ya' know what I mean ~ it's not like there are rich tourists who like to visit India just to see the new stuff."

In India, 500 year old buildings are "the new stuff". Of all the worlds most prominent religions. Islam is the newest. It builds it's Mosques almost exclusively on the sites of former Temples and Churches.

[muawiyah]

Well, if you're talking about "real stuff", of course you are correct.

On the other hand the Moslem mosque had been long abandoned although it was of some architectural interest ~ as is the foundation found under its ruins.

Still, there aren't a whole lot of 500+ year old buildings in the world, and we ought to conserve them inasmuch as possible.

The Hindu movement that wants to build a new temple on this site will necessarily be ruining what archaeological value remains at the site and will undoubtedly cover up the ancient foundation stones. The Moslems had no plans for the site (which was not an active mosque), but that's no excuse for the Hindus to act like a bunch of Philistines.

Like the court said, the issue really is about who owns the site, and might I add, not the religious preferences of any of the prior owners. The site was abandoned by everyone so that's going to be very difficult for the court to determine.

Throughout India you can find former Buddhist and Jain temple sites that have been overbuilt with Hindu temples sometime since the Moghul conquest. Although I don't understand all the dynamics here, Hinduism seems to have had a serious resurgence under Moslem rule. Possibly this had something to do with Mongol religious politics ~ they had just been in some serious wars with Buddhism for several centuries. Others with a better command of Indian and Mongolian history could probably address the question.

[muawiyah]

BTW, in my neighborhood the Moslems built one of their mosques on the site of former ITT Computer Technology school ~ that was a coup since the architect had been a Pakistani who modeled it after the latest in Islamabad "mosque modern".

Virtually nothing needed to be changed beyond taking down the old signs and putting up the new signs.

There are a gazillion mosques in this world that WERE NOT built on the site of a temple or church. Some are. Stuff happens. An old church building is just that ~ an old church building ~ nothing particular sacred about them.

[razoroccam]

"Although I don't understand all the dynamics here, Hinduism seems to have had a serious resurgence under Moslem rule. Possibly this had something to do with Mongol religious politics ~ they had just been in some serious wars with Buddhism for several centuries. Others with a better command of Indian and Mongolian history could probably address the question"

India was a Buddhist country till about 600 - 700 AD when it was re-converted to "Hinduism" by Sri Sankracharya. It had about 400 years of renewed glory before the Islamic onslaught. It was in wane from 1100 AD till 1990 when the RSS/BJP came to power.

[CarrotAndStick]

The Mughals, although trace back to the Mongols, aren't really that similar. The Mongols preferred the 'plunder and flee' tactics, while the Mughals were largely "Indianised/ Persianised" empire builders who preferred to settle rather than plunder.