Recently through a FaceBook post I came across this interesting piece by Aftab Ahmed.
To give you a small summary, he has correctly interpreted the concept of 'halal' and 'haram' income and its usage and then he has put up his view on the Babri-Masjid why it doesn't matter, and yet it matters.
Although he is partially correct that, "Any big or small event where even it seemed remotely that they are being man-handled they (Muslims) erupt." But the truth is its slightly more complicated.
There is a vision of India. It is of a democratic and multi-cultural country with no single religion being the state's religion -- Nehru's version of India. And that religion should be practiced in the house in a religious place etc. In short religion and state are different. These are people who call themselves 'secular' and they believe in being diverse.
Now there is another vision for India. This calls for a single country with homogeneity, as thought by RSS. It has some contradictions but we will not get into it as of now. In this thought process, religion has a very important role, which to an extent is the seed of the conflict. Watch this video for more clarity on the type of ideology they propagate.
And if anyone is actually interested then they must read the speeches, books, etc. written by M. S. Golwalkar, the second "Sarsanghchalak" (Supreme chief) of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. (wiki link).
If that seems like a lot of work then you can read: "TERRIFYING VISION — M.S. Golwalkar, the RSS and India" by Jyotirmaya Sharma. The work is quite scholarly, sometimes dry but worthy of reading for anyone who wants to understand why the Babri-Masjid is more of a Nehru's vs Gowalkar's vision of India. All normal people irrespective of being a Hindu, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Tribal, religions will only be pawns in this ideological game.
p.s. I think Gandhiji and Swami Viekanand too would have sided with Nehru. But then I have not read much of their work and would love to see some light being shown on them.
