From: trivedi@curie.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Re: We Need A Hindu-Muslim Dialog (Was: Re: Muslim situation in India)
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:05:53 GMT
Organization: Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago.

In article <1992Apr12.200915.2073@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:

SA:
> Lest you have forgotten
> what we are talking about, the topic is the status of Muslims in India.

I find it bizzare that you insist on define "the topic" for me to stick
to. As my subject header repeated again and again, I was talking about
"THE NEED FOR A HINDU-MUSLIM DIALOG". 

AT
>> This is not a math seminar going on in India: It is a CONFLICT,
>> sometimes a bloody one.
>> Conflicts are often fuelled by history as well as perception,
>> mistrust, and suspicion.
>> 
>> Here is how a Hindu is likely to see it: An Indian Muslim, financed by
>> the Saudis, writing from Saudi Arabia, is lecturing to Indian Hindus
>> about the virtues not practised by those financing him.

SA:
>The author is an Indian citizen who happens to be a professor of
>Economics at a Saudi Arabian university.  You conclude from this that
>he is "financed by the Saudis" to lecture to Indian Hindus?  
                                ^^
Nope. Read that again. I said he is financed by Saudis *and* he is
lecturing to us. THAT IS TRUE.

>By the same logic, ... are we to
>conclude that you are being financed by the US to lecture us on the
>state of affairs in Saudi Arabia 

I leave that as a test of your logical faculties: conclude what you wish!

But a more apt analogy would be that of a Saudi citizen, hired by Israelis, 
lecturing to the Saudis back home.  

You want to know how emotional people can get about such things?
Saudis actually kidnapped a person who was lobbying abroad for democracy 
back home (he wasn't even in Israel), brought him home, and put him in jail. 
Don't know if he is alive or not.

I know. I know. *We* are not supposed to talk about anything except
what *muslims say about India*. Please forgive me.

>Once more, all you do is discuss why Saudi Arabia has a dismal record
>of treating minorities.  Of course, the fact that there is basically
>no religious minority in Saudi Arabia

So bloody what? The few that are there cannot practise their religion
freely. 

> We are discussing
> DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MUSLIMS IN INDIA.  
> [much stuff on how I am digressing]

Wrong again. I don't know who is your "WE".
I am NOT just discussing the Muslims's complaints.
I am talking about the Hindu-Muslim problem from our angle as well.


>the history of how various regions in
>India have been invaded by different groups 

No euphemisms please: not "groups", but MUSLIM ARMIES.

>as if all that somehow justifies or explains the discrimination ...

Does not justify, but EXPLAINS a lot.
Only a complete fool can fail to appreciate the connection.

>  And *still*
>you have not proved *anything* other than the fact that you appear not
>to be able to dispute what the author said.  

I am not "disputing" the author. He is telling his side, I mine. 
I was saying that there is another side: THERE IS.

>An attempt at character defamation on the basis of where the character lives

This is not a birthday party where we all have to be sweet and nice
and only agreeable. We are talking about important social issues.
I said I do not find the fellow credible: I DO NOT. 
You are free to take a different stand. Those who discuss important
issues should be able to tolerate disagreement.


>Decorating your articles with lots of meaningless smilies don't make them 
>any more relevant to the point.

You don't have to smile. I'm sure you didn't.  :-)

>stating that Islamic societies have the worst record of treating
>minorities.  

I said Islamic societies *WEST* of India.  I DO STAND BY THAT.
IF YOU COULD JUST GET OFF YOUR DEFENSIVENESS OR SLAVE MENTALITY
FOR ONE MOMENT, YOU MIGHT RECALL THAT ONE OF THEM BUTCHERED 3 MILLION
OF YOUR OWN PEOPLE, WHILE THE REST OF THEM SUPPORTED IT.

Please don't rush to point out just how irrelevant such little details
are. Because I'll tell you to buzz off any way.


>Perhaps a perusal of history books on how Christianity
>spread in much of the world will do wonders to your sense of history.

Speaking of things irrelevant to the "Hindu-Muslim" problem that *we*
were discussing!
But since you brought it up, I agree: they were pretty nasty too.

>But we are not talking about the past.  And we are not talking about
>Saudi Arabia, Iran, Bangladesh, Malaysia, or any other country for
>that matter.  We are talking about whether Muslims are discriminated
>against in India and what the problems are.  

You seem to have this disease of deciding what "WE" are talking about.
Don't I get to have any say in that?

>Whether Muslims in India
>identify with other Muslims in the east, west, north or south is
>completely irrelevant to the issue 

Perhaps for your "issues". IT IS RELEVANT TO US. 
Not necessarily a big deal in every context, but it is a part of
the picture. TO US, IT IS.

>they are discriminated against, and if they are, why that is so.

The discrimination is fuelled by suspicion, and hostility.
Each has its roots in history and each has its dynamics.
You are too defensive to discuss details at present.

>If you are merely going to go off on another world tour of criticizing 
>random societies

You do have a problem reading. Try again: 

(i)	Not just criticizing, but citing HISTORY RELEVANT TO US.
   	I.e., I am not criticizing their costumes, music, or cuisines,
        but THEIR PAST AGRESSION  and  PRESENT SUPPORT FOR FUNDAMENTALISM. 

    	Somehow I suspect that you won't see the relevance;
    	NEVERTHELESS, IT IS RELEVANT TO US.
 
(ii)	Not random societies, JUST ISLAMIC SOCIETIES WEST OF INDIA.


> please spare us from another overdose of smilies

Sorry. :-)

-----