'When temple can go, so can dargah'
Surfers insist the law of the land should be same for all, irrespective of religion.india Updated: May 05, 2006 14:40 IST
Gujarat's date with controversy continues.
This time it comes cloaked as a dargah demolition. Needless to say, everything acquires a communal angle in an emotionally charged atmosphere.
The issue of contention: a 300-odd year old dargah stands on government land and was therefore brought down.
An overwhelming number of our surfers feel that the demolition was justified. Their justification: if a temple or a church can be demolished ifillegal, then why not a mosque?
Ghanshyam from Ranchi said, "The demolition is justified. Everybody has to abide by the law. Why don't these people cry on similar incidents in other Muslim countries like Turkey and the UAE?"
Anil from New Delhi is surprised that nobody had brought up the topic when temples were pulled down.
"If the 20 temples can be demolished then why not a dargah? It may have been 300 years old. But how does that matter? Surprisingly, nobody talks about temples and if someone does, he is tagged a communal."
An anonymous writer from Dubai said, "We have to become mature and respect the government's decision."
Shantling C Patil from Bangalore couldn't agree more."Yes, as they were doing it for the betterment of the city," she said.
"Any illegal structure built on government land should be demolished. Those who object should think of how they will feel if someone constructed an illegal structure on their property and then refused to vacate."
Nishu from Bangalore said, "Yes, it was entirely justified. Many temples have been brought down in the past. This is not an isolated incident."
An anonymous surfer from Surat said, "Dargahs, churches and temples are demolished all around the globe if they hinder development, but it creates such a furore only in India."
However, not everybody was so easily convinced about the demolition. Many saw it as a replay of 2002-like situation. They felt the state administration was deliberately rubbing the minorities the wrong way.
"No, religious places, whether Islamic or Hindu, must be respected. The authorities must know that destroying such a site would cause anger and it did. Muslims don't liked being pushed around," said Md Saif Khan of Auckland.
Surash from Gujarat felt the same way. "It was done intentionally to spark communal violence and to hurt Muslims feelings. The government must pay for it."
Shashi Sharma from Bhopal, too, felt that the action was completely unjust.
Varun Singh from New Delhi drew a parallel between demolition of the dargah with the desecration of the Bamiyan Buddhas.
"No, I don't think it is justified because of the historical significance of the dargah. It existed before the city was mapped and poor planning doesn't justify destroying historically significant buildings. This action by the government looks eerily similar to Taliban's destruction of Buddha statues at Bamiyan."
All views and opinions presented in this article are solely those of the surfers and do not necessarily represent those of HindustanTimes.com.