Lahore's last and only Hindu temple razed by Muslim authorities . . . . . . .

[aneeshm]

The centuries-old pattern of destruction continues in the so-called "land of the pure" . . . . . . .

From IBNLive

Lahore's only Hindu temple razed
Press Trust Of India

Posted Tuesday , June 13, 2006 at 18:31
Updated Tuesday , June 13, 2006 at 18:57

Islamabad: The only Hindu temple in Lahore has been demolished to facilitate the construction of a four-storied commercial building.

Officials of the Evacuee Property Trust Board (EPTB), which maintains the properties of minorities, concealed from their chairman that the Krishna temple was a place of worship, the daily Dawn alleged in a report on Tuesday.

A prominent jeweller of the area was allowed to demolish the temple in Wachhoowali, Rang Mahal, and raise a commercial building in its place, the Dawn reported quoting official documents.

The demolition was a violation of the EPTB's rules on management and disposal of urban evacuee trust properties. An EPTB official told the newspaper that the EPTB chairman would not have allowed the temple to be transferred to the jeweler if he had been given correct information.

Opposition leaders of the Pakistan Peoples Party and the Pakistan Muslim League (N) had moved a motion in the National Assembly against the demolition, saying such an act could affect Pakistan's relations with neighbouring countries.

This is the second Hindu temple which EPTB administrator Chaudhry Javed Bashir has allowed to be demolished. Last year, he permitted the demolition of a temple in Vehari, Punjab, for the construction of a commercial building.

The only thing that I can say is that barbarism from Pakistan no longer surprises me . What else is there left to say ?

 

[silver 2039]

The only thing that I can say is that barbarism from Pakistan no longer surprises me

]

Babu Masjad.

 

[aneeshm]

]

Babu Masjad.

As for you - inane , off-topic , and generally intellectually deficient comments from you do not surprise me now , either .[/joke]

And what , pray , is the Babu Masjid ? If you mean the Babri Masjid , that is a good example , though not in the way you think . Babar built that Masjid on top of a Hindu temple he razed , a temple which was built at the brithplace of the Hindu avatar Rama . So yes , this is a continuation of that pattern of destruction .

 

[Rambuchan]

a) This, the murkiness around the procedures of the demolition, is not a good thing for religious tolerance, the rule of law and intercommunal harmony. Obviously.

b) I notice it's for a commercial building and not simply to spite Hindus.

c) Lucky there are still loads of other Hindu temples all over Pakistan.

Aneeshm: I would say that with your comments around the story you are simply demonstrating the same sentiments as you are condemning. Just ease up a bit on the inflammatory language and you might find we don't discount your anti-Muslim posts so easily. For example, in what way is this "barbarism" exactly?

 

[HannibalBarka]

From the article, It seems to have much more to do with corruption than with religious intolerance as the opposition (including the Pakistan Muslim League) had moved a motion in the National Assembly against the demolition. But we all know where Aneeshm stands, I am sure he thinks Taj Mahal itself, built by a muslum ruler, is part of The centuries-old pattern of destruction

 

[Rambuchan]

From the article, It seems to have much more to do with corruption than with religious intolerance

True say. However, aneeshm can't possibly bring up the corruption issue, because that would caste a bad light on many Hindu entrepreneurs and politicians, who are guilty of the same. So, of course, it must be sold as religious intolerance and "barbarism".

 

[Sahkuhnder]

...What else is there left to say ?

Churches get knocked down worldwide to make way for new buildings. Why was this one special? Did it have an active congregation that now no longer has a place to worship? Was the building somehow special, very old, unique or elaborate architecture, etc.? Was the demolition somehow religious-persecution based? If so how?

I'm not saying that this particular case wasn't wrong, but the article you posted was a bit short on facts.

 

[aneeshm]

a) This, the murkiness around the procedures of the demolition, is not a good thing for religious tolerance, the rule of law and intercommunal harmony. Obviously.

That is whay I have been trying to show , along with my other point , about this being part of a pattern .

b) I notice it's for a commercial building and not simply to spite Hindus.

I ask you this - do you think the building would have been knocked down had it been a mosque where people actively worship ?

c) Lucky there are still loads of other Hindu temples all over Pakistan.

And therefore the demolotion of the last temple of Lahore is justified ? There is such a hue and cry about a bunch of fanatics demolishing a mosque ( the Babri Masjid ) which

a) Was not actively in use for more than fifty years
b) Had fallen into total disrepair , had become a derelict skeleton , and
c) Was built as a symbol of humiliation to the Hindus by Babar , by builting it on top of a demolished temple .

Now when there is a fuss raised when even a useless ( because it had fallen into total disrepair ) , unused ( for more than fifty years ) , and offensive ( because it was built on top of a Hindu sacred place ) mosque is demolished , then why is there no corresponding fuss when an active , well-maintained , and non-offensive Hindu temple is demolished ?

Aneeshm: I would say that with your comments around the story you are simply demonstrating the same sentiments as you are condemning. Just ease up a bit on the inflammatory language and you might find we don't discount your anti-Muslim posts so easily.

How many times do I have to say this - I am not against Muslims ! I am condemning the model of the state envisaged by Islam , which

a) Has no concept of human rights
b) Imposes humiliation upon humiliation upon non-Muslims
c) Which decrees that no new non-Muslim place of worship may be erected , nor may old places that have fallen into disrepair be renovated , nor may infidels exclude Muslims from their gatherings if they want , nor may the infidels even mourn their dead loudly , nor may the infidels even waer the same dress as the Muslims , nor may . . . . . . . . . . you get the point ( and these are historical examples ) ?

For example, in what way is this "barbarism" exactly?

In what way is it not barbarous to destroy somebody's place of worship , over which you have no right in the first place ? The Pakistani state just chose to appropriate all Hindu places of worship in Pakistan and declare them to be under the control of this body which is supposedly created to hold them in trust , and than this body , which has no moral right to even exist , makes a mistake and a temple is demolished , and this is not state-sanctioned barbarism ?

 

[aneeshm]

From the article, It seems to have much more to do with corruption than with religious intolerance as the opposition (including the Pakistan Muslim League) had moved a motion in the National Assembly against the demolition.

The reason they gave for opposing the demolition was not because they had any fellow-feeling for Hindus , but because they thought it would lead to the deterioration of the relations of Pakistan with other states .

This is exactly like me saying that I will not murder you with knife , not because I have any concern for you , but because I do not want to clean up the blood afterwards .

But we all know where Aneeshm stands, I am sure he thinks Taj Mahal itself, built by a muslum ruler, is part of The centuries-old pattern of destruction

I give credit where credit is due . The Taj Mahal is a magnificent accomplishment . But there is a dark side to it . It is related that Shah Jahan , after the completion of the Taj Mahal , cut off the hands of the 20,000 artisans who built it , because he wanted to make sure that nobody would build something like it again .

 

[aneeshm]

True say. However, aneeshm can't possibly bring up the corruption issue, because that would caste a bad light on many Hindu entrepreneurs and politicians, who are guilty of the same. So, of course, it must be sold as religious intolerance and "barbarism".

You speak of corruption as if it were exclusive to Hindus , instead of acknowledging that it is endemic to the entire third world . Plenty of Hindus are corrupt - and why would I deny it - I want the situation to improve , and it cannot be improved if it is not acknowledged - but I can say with confidence that Pakistan is even more corrupt .

But tell me this again - would this demolition have happened if the building had been a mosque instead of a temple ? The minute you answer this , you will know whether or not it relates more to corruption or to intolerance ?

 

[Rambuchan]

That is whay I have been trying to show , along with my other point , about this being part of a pattern .

"Pattern of destruction" is an overblown misrepresentation. Such a phrase brings to mind Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, which is nowhere near what is going on in Pakistan. You're making a mountain out of a molehill and you're phrasing leaves something to be desired.

I ask you this - do you think the building would have been knocked down had it been a mosque where people actively worship ?

Why not? If they need a shopping mall and there's a building in the way, why not? Your question is a hypothetical one, so is my answer.

And therefore the demolotion of the last temple of Lahore is justified ? There is such a hue and cry about a bunch of fanatics demolishing a mosque ( the Babri Masjid ) which

a) Was not actively in use for more than fifty years
b) Had fallen into total disrepair , had become a derelict skeleton , and
c) Was built as a symbol of humiliation to the Hindus by Babar , by builting it on top of a demolished temple .

I just said there are loads of Hindu mosques all over Pakistan to counter the false presentation of a "pattern of destruction" that you put forward. I never said this was justified. I still think it is wrong but I think your way of going about protesting is counter-productive. It leaves us thinking you're the nut, not them (because you use overblown statements).

Now when there is a fuss raised when even a useless ( because it had fallen into total disrepair ) , unused ( for more than fifty years ) , and offensive ( because it was built on top of a Hindu sacred place ) mosque is demolished , then why is there no corresponding fuss when an active , well-maintained , and non-offensive Hindu temple is demolished ?

There is fuss on both sides, don't pretend there is not. For the record, I think the Muslims who use overblown statements and actions when protesting their concerns are to be criticised heavily, just as I am criticising you now.

How many times do I have to say this - I am not against Muslims !

For someone who is "not against Muslims" you open a shocking amount of treads that use words like "barbarism" to describe them. Don't try and kid or lie to us.

 

[Rambuchan]

That post was getting a bit long, so I split it up....

I am condemning the model of the state envisaged by Islam , which

a) Has no concept of human rights
b) Imposes humiliation upon humiliation upon non-Muslims
c) Which decrees that no new non-Muslim place of worship may be erected , nor may old places that have fallen into disrepair be renovated , nor may infidels exclude Muslims from their gatherings if they want , nor may the infidels even mourn their dead loudly , nor may the infidels even waer the same dress as the Muslims , nor may . . . . . . . . . . you get the point ( and these are historical examples ) ?

a) In what way does the Hindu faith value human rights more? (Yes, that debate could rage on for ages, I'm just saying that you're a pot calling the kettle black.)

b) That's plain spin and misrepresentation of the wider picture - again.

c) That's flat lies. How come I have an uncle who is a bishop in Lahore who conducts weekly services? How come he renovated his church recently? How come I saw a Christian funeral in a Christian cemetary when I was in Lahore last? How come I was walking around in local, Muslim dress when I am not a Muslim?

So, no, I don't get your point at all. But I do get your lies and misrepresentations.

In what way is it not barbarous to destroy somebody's place of worship , over which you have no right in the first place ?

Errr, who is that issues licenses to construct on land in Lahore? Is it some Hindu organisation or is it the Local Lahori Authorities?

The Pakistani state just chose to appropriate all Hindu places of worship in Pakistan and declare them to be under the control of this body which is supposedly created to hold them in trust , and than this body , which has no moral right to even exist , makes a mistake and a temple is demolished , and this is not state-sanctioned barbarism ?

Not sure which body it is you're on about. Anyway. it's corruption in my mind. But I still think your phrasing if overly dramatic:

Barbarian definition:

1. A member of a people considered by those of another nation or group to have a primitive civilization. <<<< Is Islam really uncivilised and primitive?

2. A fierce, brutal, or cruel person. <<<< I can see how YOU think this may be the case. But I don't quite see how this temple incident can be used to declare widespread barbarism.

3. An insensitive, uncultured person; a boor. <<<< Would you say that Babur was uncultured?

In your favour though, there's an older definition of "barbarian" that says it is someone who doesn't speak Greek. I'm willing to agree that this well describes most Pakistanis.

 

[bhsup]

Was the temple actually being used for worship or was it just sitting vacant and deteriorating?