|
|
The concept of 'two wrongs' is applicable
only when the wrongs are not related. For example, in reaction to the
destruction of a Hindu religious place, if a Muslim religious place at
another site was destroyed, the concept of 'two wrongs' is applicable.
Similarly, if a wrong was corrected in an uncivilised manner, then the
concept is applicable. The peaceful attempts of Hindus to recover the
three holy sites of Ram Janmabhoomi, Krishna Janmabhoomi and Kashi Vishwanath
clearly establishes that either of these criteria does not apply in the
case in question.
In 1528 AD an existing temple in honour
of Shri Rama was destroyed. What is, therefore, sought to be done is to
undo a historical wrong, one which has caused deep hurt to the Hindu sentiments.
In the true spirit of Hindu dharma, efforts were first made to find a
negotiated solution. It was also clearly stated that the Hindus are asking
for the return of only three holy sites, and not the thousands that have
been vandalised or destroyed. It is only because the efforts were frustrated,
for no fault of the Hindus, that the events of December 6, 1992, took
place.
If this is considered to be wrong, then
we have to consider that it was wrong on part of Shri Krishna to advise
Arjun to fight a just fight, even if it means that he has to kill not
only his cousins, the Kauravas, but also his elders, teachers, and others
who took care of him during his childhood. |