From: prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar)
Subject: Re: Hyderabadi muslims, secularism etc.,
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:34:20 GMT

(Satyanand V. Jayanthi) writes:
> (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>:
>:1. You extrapolate the behavior of a few individuals to the entire
>:   Muslim population of India. Rhetoric 101 tells us that this is
>:   an old trick in the book. So, let us not fall for that.
>
>    I am not extrapolating the behaviour of few to the entire community,
>    all i am saying is there are a *few*. Now how few is the question,
>    depending on ones personal experiences we have different answers to that.
>    Do i take it that we both accept the presence of a "few" anti indian
>    muslims and our differences are only on the question of how "few"?

As there might be as many Hindus who are equally unpatriotic! As someone
else pointed out, how about Hindus who come to US and renounce Indian
citizenship for material benefits! What could be more unpatriotic?

The problem you see is this: A fraction of Muslims behave in a way that 
leads many Hindus believe that they are anti-Indian because they are
pro-Islam. And this leads to the definition of a Muslim Minskian frame, 
i.e., a stereotype. (But Hindus choose to ignore the fact that they can
be unpatriotic too!)

[It appears that all other considerations are peripheral to this issue.]

For example, Even if I say all Indian tennis players are two-bit (they are!)
patsies, you would not call me anti-Indian (or so I hope), mainly because 
I, a Hindu, do not fit the stereotype of an India-hater. But, if a Muslim 
from India says that the Pakistani cricket team is far superior to the 
Indian team, it immediately raises a flag in the mind because of the
frame we generated.

Abstracting one level: Hindus by default are patriotic and the same 
cannot be said of Muslims, because the behavior of a few has cast 
enough doubt.

An analogy: If a man says "Women don't know how to find their
way about" we readily call him a sexist. But if a woman says
that we give her the benefit of doubt and attribute her
comment to disinterested observation. 

Because, how can women be sexist? But men can be sexist because a 
fraction of them have shown such tendencies in the past.

This is grossly unfair because many women can be sexist. You are
giving them the benefit of doubt by wrongly defining the word.

Satya Prabhakar






>  
>:
>:2. You seem to find favoritism based on nationalist pride acceptable.
>:   You find favorotism based on athletic ability, irrespective of
>:   nationality, acceptable. But, somehow you find favorotism based
>:   on religious affinity unacceptable. Why is that? And why should
>:   everyone subscribe to this? Why can't someone choose to root for
>:   someone for reasons of faith? Why is it so inherently deplorable?
>:   If it is, why don't we speak out against Hindu Samajs and Islamic
>:   Congregations? (At the risk of sounding self-centered, I like
>:   John McEnroe, Stefan Edberg and Peter Sampras. Everyone else,
>:   including Vijay Amritraj, Ramanathan and Ramesh Krishnans are poor
>:   excuses for tennis players. Gee, am I a traitor now? ;-)
>
>
>   This argument is funny. Patriotism is defined on the basis of nationality,
> and not on religious affinity. Therefore, favouritism based on nationality
> is still patriotic (however perverted it is..) where as favouritism based on
> religious affinity, if it is at cross purposes to national interests and
> feelings, is unpatriotic. Supporting pakistan in vricket match might not
> harm us much, but what prevents me in thinking that they will do the same
> on other issues as well? And it is not just supporting pakistan, but also
> celebrating india's discomfiture. I have observed even that. I referred to
> the large scale celebrations when india lost to england once..so what about
> it? If the people(from india) living here or britain do that..supporting
> some other third country..the americans or brits will not be all that
> pleased. 
>
>:
>:3. You and others have readily concluded that the behavior of the
>:   homogeneous (?) Muslim community in India is driven by one motivation-
>:   spite for India. I never got that impression and I am sure I can
>:   find one other person who agrees with me. 
>
>  No. I have not said that. All i am saying is that a section of indian
>muslims do. As for personal impressions..how about meeting me in
>hyderabad..i'll take you around some "good" places..all conclusions yours..
>  
>:
>:4. The stuff about countries being enemies is peripheral to the main
>:   issue. India, one may argue, is in an economic war with US.
>
>   The relations between india and any other country would be far different
>   if the conflict were to be military in nature (as opposed to economic war)
>:
>:I am not out to show that I am a great secularist, but I see a 
>:woeful lack of perspective in this thread and people who impute
>:uncharitable motives to Muslims in India, IMHO, are flouting
>:rules of logical discourse left and right.
>
>  No, I am not attributing uncharitable motives to all muslims. Only to
>some. Why do you think there is a rise in communal feelings in middle class
>hindus in the last few years? Why does'nt this get directed against
>christians or sikhs? Ofcourse i've been told that "its muslims now, its the
>others next"!! I dont think those karsevaks were motivated by any love for
>"ramlalla" as some would claim, or that they were concerned with setting
>right some historical wrong. It was pure anti muslim feeling. And the more
>you hear reports of hoisting pakistan flags on mosques etc., the more an
>average hindu is going to turn into an anti-muslim, not because of anything
>else but this perception that muslims give priority to their faith than to
>national interests. The problem here is that VHP exaggerates the whole
>thing while these apostles of secularism completely deny that. Juxtapose
>the reports of pakistani interference in punjab and kashmir with the
>increasing perception among middle class hindus that many muslims are
>pro-pakistani (and hence in many aspects anti-indian), we have a partial 
>answer as to why BJP/VHP have grown so much in the last few years.
>As long far as these  defenders of secularism dont accept the problem i
>will be vary of their protestations for secularism.
>
>:
>:Satya Prabhakar
>:--
>:______________________________________________________________
>:Tell me what you pay attention to and I will tell you who you are!
>:					-Ortega Y' Gasset
>
>Narain.
>


--
______________________________________________________________
Tell me what you pay attention to and I will tell you who you are!
					-Ortega Y' Gasset
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian