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: 14 Apr 92 02:49:22 GMT
Organization: Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago.

In article <1992Apr13.164737.12659@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:


>The complaints are directed at whomever the lecture/article was
>directed towards.  In this case, the target audience was clearly Muslim.

But the Hindus were the "target".

>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.


[concerning minorities in Saudi Arabia]
SA:
>> > In what ways can they not practice their religions?
AT:
>> For example, cannot build their places of worship...
SA:
>Can you cite examples like the way the BJP is tearing apart the places
>of worship of the Muslims?  

The question of tearing does not arise: they are not allowed to go up
in the first place.

>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.

>[attitudes which ] insist on looking upon the Muslims as a product of 
>outside interference.  

In India, they were.


AT:
>> >> 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.
SA:
>> >The "rest" had little knowledge of what was really happening inBangladesh.
AT:
>> Are you completely out of your mind? Ask someone who was an adult then.
>> THEY DID HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE. THEY DID NOT CARE.
>> That is CONSISTENT with what I know of THEIR history.
>> You may or may not like what I think about the problems in my country
>> but for God's sake DON'T LIE TO YOURSELF ABOUT YOU OWN HISTORY.
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.


>I am not embracing anyone.  

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

>you are singling out Muslims..

I AM presenting a Hindu viewpoint about Hindu-Muslim problem.
Muslims ARE the other party.

>By and large,
>the largest genocides in history have not been carried out by Muslims

What a ringing defense of the Muslim record...

AT:
>> You are defensive about the deeds of other Muslims. That is mental
>> and spiritual slavery. Every defeat creates its own "Black Englishmen" 
>> but try to rise above it. Be true to your land and to your forefathers,
>> not to those who brutally raped both.
SA:
>Here we go again... Who are my forefathers?  

Not your personal forefathers; I mean Bangladesh's forefathers!
You know how people talk about "our forefathers"?

>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"? 


>In that sense, *everything* is an outside influence.  

They have you convinced of THAT?

>Islam spread in India mainly because it appealed to the masses, 

who happened to notice the nearby swords...

SA:
>> >If you could bring yourself to address the discrimination question
>> >as it relates to India, this discussion might even lead somewhere.
AT:
>> That would require addressing the grievances and concerns of both
>> Muslims and Hindus: grievances and concerns as they ARE, not what
>> you think they should be.
SA:
>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. 


>please do tell us what you understand by "fundamentalism."

I still find that childishly argumentative.


>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.


>Obviously, it must
>have something to do with misconceptions?  

I wish it were that simple.
No, there is real history, real causes, *and* misconception.


>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.

BJP can be effective only because Hindu masses are feeling a real
pain and humiliation arising from the past Muslim conduct.
Muslims's tendency to deny, evade, or minimize the issue has not
been helpful. It is a dangerous situation.
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. 
Somnath would have been perfect for its symbolic value.
You would have seen an electricity of reconciliation going though
the land.


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?
 

>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".

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.

-----
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh