From: trivedi@curie.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi)
Subject: Re: We Need A Hindu-Muslim Dialog (Was: Re: Muslim situation in India)
Organization: Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 18:41:08 GMT


Shakil, you must be a good scholar since you are trying so hard 
to be rational! Let me give it another try.  :-)

In article <1992Apr12.044222.24146@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>
>In article <s7kimINNem3@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, 
>misra@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Boo!) writes:
>
>> 	I think anil's point was that living in saudi arabia, the author
>> had really no basis for saying what he did since the very country 
>> he lives in practices the very things is says in his article. 
>
>I don't see why.  

You don't have to see why. But please accept that those involved may
feel differently.

Personally, someone may not see why Bangladesh has to be a separate
country, or why all Jews don't become Christians, or why the Chinese
students had to be so impatient about Western-style democracy, etc.
But who cares? WHAT MATTERS IS THAT THOSE INVOLVED FEEL THAT WAY.

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.

Should it matter? Well, in a logic seminar, maybe not.
Does it matter in real politics in the middle of an already heated
situation? YES IT DOES. 

Look around. IN REAL LIFE, NOTHING WILL DESTROY YOUR CREDIBILITY FASTER
THAN HOBNOBBING WITH THOSE WHO BLATANTLY VIOLATE THE VALUES THAT YOU 
INTEND TO PREACH. I am even embarrassed to emphasize such an obvious
point to you. (It is not merely LIVING in Saudi Arabia; this man is
no dissident there.)


> Clearly, we all live in the
>U.S. right now, does that mean that we have no basis for discussing
>anything in South Asia?  

We are free to DISCUSS anything. But we should be prepared that
our CREDIBILITY may depend upon the details and the circumstances.
My guess is that as far as the Hindu-Muslim debate goes, U.S. is
essentially a neutral place.
However, if you were working for the Union Carbide, and lecturing your
fellow citizens back home on environmental responsibility, they may
well react differently.  :-)
 

> By all means, please do tell us how the state of affairs in 
> Saudi Arabia and Iran is the cause of the problems in India today.

There is a religious conflict going on in India.
In any conflict, anything that is relevant to either party 
automatically becomes relevant.
There is a perception that Indian Muslim groups look up to and are helped,
in their anti-Hindu posture, by the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran. 
That guarantees that it matters.
It need not be the "cause" of everything or even anything.
But it is a relevant part of the picture.

>What I object to is that you pick two "Islamic" societies and use
>this as a basis for lumping all Islamic societies together.  

Please don't be paranoid. Nobody puts Indonesia or Brunei or
Bangladesh in the same league as Saudi Arabia or Iran.

> you didn't say anything nasty about Bangladesh.  Why?

Why should I? I have NOTHING against Bangladesh. :-) 


>Malaysia and Bangladesh are both Islamic societies, and yet their
>problems with minorities seem less numerous than those in India.

I have posted on this separately since someone else raised somewhat
similar point.

But let me say that if you really are more fortunate than us,
I am happy for you; I have no quarrel with that.


>Clearly, your pointing fingers at Saudi Arabia and Iran as examples of
>inevitable Islamic society attitudes towards minorities is unfair.

It is not INEVITABLE but it is THE RECORD SO FAR in many Islamic societies
*west* of India: and those are the ones we have dealt with most, sometimes
voluntarily, sometimes not.  

May I suggest something with all respect: Maybe it is YOU who is lumping
ALL Islamic societies together; maybe YOU should stop being defensive
whenever you see the word "Islamic".


>Indeed, if you would care to look into the religion itself, you will
>find precise guidelines on tolerance towards minorities.

I am more interested in the PRACTICE. I am sorry but so far, Islamic
societies have cut some of the worst record. But again, I am not accusing
all of them, and you should not feel defensive about all. Bangladesh is
a good example of a society managing well considering all stresses.


>Surely, if you
>disagree with something the author said, you should be able argue your
>case by telling us how he was wrong by pointing to *what he said* ..

I wish it was a seminar but it is not. Context is very important in 
politics. Also, I don't see why I should not be able to bring up what
*I* perceive to be important.

-----

Let me leave you with this. You can have the last word if you wish:

In a conflict, if either party perceives something as important, 
then it automatically is.

I am sure that there are things important to the Hindus that will 
baffle the Muslims, just as there will be things important to the
Muslims that will appear laughably irrelevant to the Hindus. That
is what conflicts are like: if people saw things the same way,
they wouldn't be quarreling. 

To solve the problem, we have to deal with everything that either
history or circumstances or perceptions have injected into the picture.

Even if we end up talking about a few unnecessary details, isn't that 
a little better than fighting? :-)

-----