From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Subject: Re: India vs. Bangladesh (Re: We Need A Hindu-Muslim Dialog)
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:23:07 GMT


In article <skob9INN4qd@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, misra@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Boo!) writes:

> >Clearly, "highly" is a very relative term.  In India, we witness major
> >riots every year in which thousands of Muslims perish.  In Kashmir,
> 
> 	That is sooo one sided, I cannot believe you are saying this.
> 
> >for example, this happens almost on a daily basis and has become an
> >accepted state of affairs, as if it is the most natural thing in the
> 
> 	How come you dont talk of the many many many attacks carried
> out by JKLF and how they have made a organized effort to drive 
> all the hindus out of kashmir? Humm.. like i said.. you are 
> one sided in this.
> >world.  Riots with fatalities are commonplace in India -- one needs
> >only open a newspaper to note that.  In comparison, Bangladesh has
> 
> 	Fatalities are a common place everywhere. It is not 
> restricted to just india.

It may be one-sided, but it is a fact.  I was merely commenting on the
numbers.  Sandip Kundu asked me on what I was basing the statement
that there was less tension between religious groups in Bangladesh
than in India.  I've pointed out how there are almost daily fatalities
in India because of tensions.  Similar scenarios in Bangladesh do not
exist.  Nobody claimed that fatalities are limited to India -- this
was just a relative comparison between India and Bangladesh.

> >witnessed very few riots in its history.  You correctly point to the
> >Babri Masjid example in noting that there were some riots relating to
> >that in Bangladesh.  But you will note that that is the only example
> >you could come up with for the simple reason that it *is* the only
> >example in recent years.  The riots were quickly supressed and there
> >haven't been any problems since then.
> 
> 	Yes..yes.. you lived under a dictorship for soo many years. 
> How could you even know what is going on. The russians were also led
> to believe that mother russia was doing fine, look what they 
> found out.

Sigh...  There have so many articles which have listed the chronology
of riots in Bangladesh.  Please see the excellent articles by Wasif
Sattar (<1992Apr16.193527.3203@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> and
<1992Apr16.173723.29895@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>) on this issue.  The riots
are documented and you are welcome to look them up.  I still maintain
that the Babri Masjid example is the one and only example of riots in
Bangladesh in many years.  A riot is not the kind of thing which
happens and goes unreported.  In the case of the dictatorship you
refer to, I think some readers commented that it tried encouraging
such riots and was the main culprit behind the Babri Masjid riot in
Bangladesh.  It was very much in their interest to publicize any riot.
If you know of any other riot at all, please do tell us when and where
it occured.

> >Unlike in India, where there are large Muslim communities, Hindus in
> >Bangladesh generally do not live in ghettos or their own communities.
> 				  ^^^^^^^^^^
> 	You mean to say only muslims live in ghettos in india. 

Is that what I said?  My sentence is quoted above.  Your attempted
paraphrasing totally misses the point.  In India, Muslims tend to live
in large communities of their own, often in ghettos.  This does not
mean other groups don't or any other such ridiculous analogies.  In
plain English what that means is that they are not very well
assimilated into society, whereas Hindus in Bangladesh are.

> >This is a figure claimed by the Indian government.  The Bangladesh
> >government claims different figures.  Whom are we to believe?  Since
> >India is offering free training to the terrorist organization Shanti
> >Bahini, it makes sense that they operate from Indian territory, which
> >is why they are present in India in large numbers.
> 
> 	so what, BD is traning terrorist in its territories. many 
> ultras have confessed that they were tranined in Bd. Your statement
> doent make sense and only shows that you was to ignore what is going
> on.

This is circular reasoning.  I never claimed that "terrorists" were
not training in Bangladesh.  All I said was that Shanti Bahini is
equipped and trained in India which is why large numbers of them are
in India.

> >to other things, or were they burned down in riots such as the ones we
> >witness in India?
> 
> 	Details please.. dont just generalize. I just love it when i am 
> like you :-) 

Well, I wish you all the best, but it'll take more than baseless snide
remarks to be like me.  Riots in India are always accompanied by much
violence.  This is documented in easily accessible media.

> >I do not have any statistics to prove you wrong or right.  But it
> >seems questionable to me that you point to temple destruction in
> >Bangladesh (the 100 figure seems inflated to me) when the very cause
> 	
> 	Yes..yes.. it has to seem inflated to you. Ofcourse is 
> someone said 100 mosques were destroyed in india you would 
> believe them. Oh yes.. i forgot, last time i read something on this 
> group I was told India in seen as an evil in Bd. sorry.. I understand
> now.

What do you understand -- I don't follow.  You construct a
hypothetical situation, and then you reach my conclusions for me!
Surely, this line of reasoning is not particularly impressive?

> >Does this necessarily mean that there is an organized effort to drive
> >minorities out?
> 
> 	you have any other explainations?

An absence of explanations does not imply anything about other
attempted explanations -- not by any book of logic.  If I gave you some
explanation about certain phenomena on Mars and you had no alternate
explanation, does that make mine right?  Even so, there are other
possible explanations in the case above.  As I said before, certain ethnic
groups may see better opportunities in other areas than military.
There could be multitudes of social reasons for this.  All I am saying
is that we cannot reach conclusions of discrimination from numbers alone.

> >Consider the various minorities in India and the causes they are
> >fighting for, Khalistan, Nagaland, liberation of Assam, Kashmir, the
> 
> 	Humm.. let us start from the top: Khalistan is no longer a dream
> for anyone. Even the groups who are suppose to be fighting for it.
> The groups have split into soo many factions that it doesnt make 
> sense anymore. And the terrorists have come to terms withthe fatc 
> that fighting isnt going to get them anywhere. Many have started
> to surrender. Nagaland is also a lost cause. They dont even know
> what they want. In assam, due to the great amry action, many have 
> given up and the cause itself is looseing ground. Kashmir
> is a recent problem, which has been started for political reasons.

You are digressing.  All I said was that these various groups do not
have a collective voice.  I stand by that.  I may disagree or agree
with what you say above, but it is completely irrelevant to the point
I was making.

> >list is endless.  You would like us to belive that they all have a
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 	Do add somemore to the list. Dont stop...

Sure -- how about certain Tamil groups, groups among the lower castes
fighting for improvement of their situation, Muslims in Hydrabad,
north-south rivalry -- there really is something in every state.  You
just have to look in the media.  The only point I am making in this
whole regard is that these various groups do *not* have a collective
voice, unlike what Sandip Kundu claimed.

> >collective voice?  Obviously not.  Then why is it that we hear so much
> >more about them?  The reason why we hear more about repression of
> >minorities in India than in Bangladesh is because, on a relative
> >scale, the occurences are considerably more frequent in India.  This
> >does not mean that repression does not occur in Bangladesh, but my
> 
> 	It doesnt occur .. or you dont hear about it. you dont hear
> anything about repression in china.. does that mean it doesnt
> happen?

But we do hear of repression in China.  We have heard much about what
happened and happens in Tibet.  We heard about Tiangmen Square.  We
hear about enforced family size laws.  In fact, stories on repression
in China are all over the US media which isn't exactly known for its
world coverage.

> >original claim never was that.  My original claim was that tension
> >with minorities is less pronounced in Bangladesh and Malaysia than in
> >India.
> 	
> 	But if you are talking about relative scale, then you mean to say
> that if Bd was as big as India and had the same make up, it would also 
> have the same problems? Humm.. interesting. So.. basically
> relatively things are natural as they as happening. Good..

No, that's a hypothetical situation that I cannot speculate on.  What
I am saying is that if you look at number of riots and general tension
with minorities, India seems to be suffering from greater problems
than Bangladesh.  The reasons that have been offered as explanations
for this phenomenon are equally applicable to Bangladesh, and hence
not adequate.

> >Statistics, as I'm sure we all know, can be used in all sorts of ways
> >to show all kinds of things, often in misleading ways.  Do the above
> 
> 	HA!.. i wont even comment. I have seen it all. 
> 
> >statistics imply discrimination?  Not necessarily.  If there is
> 
> 	I am sure if you say the same for India you would cry 
> foul.. you cannot deny that.

Can you refute my argument logically rather than through comments like
the above?

-- Shakil