From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Subject: Re: We Need A Hindu-Muslim Dialog (Was: Re: Muslim situation in India)
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 04:13:25 GMT


In article <1992Apr14.024922.12777@midway.uchicago.edu>, trivedi@curie.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi) writes:

> >Excuse me, but your "motherland" as you call it, was invaded by
> >Indo-Aryans over various periods.  
> 
> That CAN be discussed in ANY dispute in which it is relevant;
> I am not hiding from history.

Well, it *is* relevant since they invaded the very "motherland" your
refer to.  Since there are various parties who invaded your
"motherland," it does not make sense to point fingers at the Muslims.
Indeed, your very concept of "motherland" is shaky.

> >you conveniently avoided answering the first question, which asked you
> >to identify the various minority groups in Saudi Arabia...
> 
> Ask Saudi embassy for statistics! However, NO non-Muslim, and I mean NO ONE,
> is allowed to build his place of worship.

Ask the Saudi embassy??  *You* made the claim -- if you can't back it,
don't make it.

> SA
> >Well, one thing I really don't need is a lecture on our own history.
> >Pakistan imposed a major news blackout throughout the war.  
> 
> You bloody well do need a very good lecture on your history.
> There was enough news around ALL OVER THE WORLD. 
> Other Muslim countries did not have to depend on Yahya News Service.
> Drop this foolish point: THEY ALL KNEW.

Why don't you look at the Pakistani media coverage?  Do you even know
what was going on?  Until Antony Mascarenas escaped and wrote the
heartbreaking article in the London Times, nobody in the outside world
even had a clue as to what was happening.  Within Pakistan, people
*still* don't know what happened -- it is one of the major problems.
The Pakistanis staged a major news blackout.  This is a documented
fact -- almost no news got out of Bangladesh until most of the damage
had been done.

> You are embracing just about every bloodthirsty plunderer who happened 
> to be a Muslim.

Please provide evidence of that allegation.

> >you are singling out Muslims..
> 
> I AM presenting a Hindu viewpoint about Hindu-Muslim problem.
> Muslims ARE the other party.

No, you are explaining certain attitudes by pointing at alleged Muslim
atrocities in other parts of the world.  What you fail to explain is
why similar activities by other parties, many of whom are represented
quite well in India, do not result in the same emotions.

> >By and large,
> >the largest genocides in history have not been carried out by Muslims
> 
> What a ringing defense of the Muslim record...

But it is a fact, as my earlier article showed, and you have not been
able to refute it.

> >Why do you have this
> >concept in your head as if we are all historically *Hindus*, were it
> >not for this *outside* interference from Muslims.  
> 
> What else was going on there besides Hindism and Buddhism when
> the Muslims, using your soft euphemism, "interferred"? 

But why stop at Islam?  What was going on there before Hinduism
interfered?  Why is Hinduism any more *right* for these people that
Islam?  Do you feel the same way about Christians in Kerala or Goa?
Why not?  Why are you pointing fingers at Islam?  Clearly, the people
choose the religion they think is appropriate for them.

> >In that sense, *everything* is an outside influence.  
> 
> They have you convinced of THAT?

Who are "they?"  I have explained my point above.  I don't see whom
you refer to as "they."

> >Islam spread in India mainly because it appealed to the masses, 
> 
> who happened to notice the nearby swords...

This, you'll have to explain.  How is it possible for someone's faith
to be converted by force?  And if that is true, then why would those
people not convert back after the alleged sword was withdrawn?

> >Hindu grievances about what things are like in Saudi Arabia?  Or Iran?
> >Wouldn't it be better if they looked at their own problems?
> 
> Hindu grievances concerning Muslim past and present in India.
> Saudi Arabia and Iran are involved through their influence on 
> and help to Indian Muslims, some benign and some not. 

You have not explained how the Saudi "influence" contributes towards
Hindu grievances.

> >please do tell us what you understand by "fundamentalism."
> 
> I still find that childishly argumentative.

And you are still avoiding the question.  "Fundamentalism" is one of
the most misused terms in the English language.  If you cannot define
it, then please say so instead of avoiding the question.

> >how come none of the other invasions, most of which
> >were far worse, cause the same kind of tensions?  
> 
> An interesting historical question.
> 
> Sometimes, the invaders managed to wipe out the native religions;
> this happened in Iran, Afghanistan, etc..
> 
> Sometimes, the invaders were eventually thrown out completely; 
> this happened, e.g., in Spain.
> 
> In both situation, one of the competing religions did not
> survive in sufficient strength to sustain hostility.
> 
> India has been left hanging in the middle. Neither side has
> managed a complete victory and effectively eliminated the other.
> Hence the never ending tension. In that sense, a clear cut victory
> for one side or the other, a la Afghanistan or Spain, might have
> been better for the present generation.

Oh?  But what about Bangladesh or Malaysia?  They have vary large
minorities, comparable to India, and yet we do not witness tensions
that are even close to those in India.  Why?

> >Obviously, it must
> >have something to do with misconceptions?  
> 
> I wish it were that simple.
> No, there is real history, real causes, *and* misconception.

My argument is that the latter is the strongest element.

> >Now tell me, when you refer
> >to destruction of temples and the like, since we are talking about
> >problems in present-day India, I take it that you are referring to BJP
> >policies of destroying mosques?
> 
> Nobody can "destroy mosques" in India: not the way mosques were
> destroyed WHOLESALE in Spain, or temples by TENS OF THOUSANDS
> in India.
> BJP has taken a populist position concerning 3 mosques: even they 
> do not have the courage to propose anything beyond relocation.

So why is this position "populist?"  Is this another example of Muslim
intolerance?  A factfinding committee of Hindu historians declared all
BJP claims on the Babri Masjid null and void, and yet they are still
pursuing the matter.  Why?  So the Muslims are at fault for this
kind of attitude?  What temples are Muslims destroying or relocating
now?  So where does that leave your argument?

> If a natioanlly credible Muslim group were to come along and, say,
> make even a symbolic donation for even a symbolic reconstruction
> of some of the temples, it would act like a magical balm. 

Instead we have a very large national politcal party called the BJP
which is applying the magical balm of destroying mosques.  Highly
effective.

> AT:
> >> Your own name does not come from Bengali, the native language of your 
> >> land. Is it from Arabic or Persian (I don't know)?
> SA:
> >So what?  Both my grandfathers came from Persian families, and my
> >maternal grandmother came from Mongolian roots.  
> 
> Congratulations on your fine heritage!
> But don't evade the real question. Is it not true that most Bangladeshi
> muslims are of Bengali origin and do not use Bengali words to name their
> children?

I don't understand the point.  Most Bengali Hindus don't name their
children with Bengali names either, picking old names from the Hindu
epics instead.  Does this mean they are "mental slaves?"

> >The whole region was a major melting pot, 
> 
> Bengal appears to have been left out in this melting of names!
> 
> 
> >Many of the names of towns in India are names the British left behind,
> > [Is that] mental slavery?
> >How about names like "Mukherkjee" ..they are just English versions of names
> >like "Mukhopadhay" which the British could not pronounce.  So why do people 
> >continue to use them? "Mental slavery?"  
> 
> When people name their own children that way, it is a strong signal
> of "mental slavery".

Then I guess all the Bengali Hindus must be "mental slaves" too.  And
the many Americans of Indian origin who now have names like "Bob
Chakravarti" and the like, must all be "mental slaves" too.

> For cities and historical personalities, I would decide on a case by
> case basis, since one is often stuck with usage.
> 
> I.e., if an Indian Hindu names his child Mahmood or Clive, I would
> feel strange;
> if his neighborhood is called Mirza-Sarai or Connaught Place, that's fine.

But you would expect a Hindu to give his/her child a Hindu name,
right?  Regardless whether they are Bengali-speaking, or
Gujrati-speaking, or Malayalam-speaking, or Telugu-speaking?  And no,
these languages do not all share common roots in Sanskrit, so that
point is invalid too.  So what is wrong with Muslims giving their
children Islamic names?  You appear to be full of double standards...

-- Shakil