From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Re: We Need A Hindu-Muslim Dialog (Was: Re: Muslim situation in India)
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:47:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr13.164737.12659
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science


In article <1992Apr13.131517.15095@midway.uchicago.edu>, trivedi@curie.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Apr13.012610.4590@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
> 
> >This, of course, includes Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Niger, and a host
> >of other countries and peoples, and not just Iran and Saudi Arabia.
> 
> I thought you were against bringing up irrelevant distractions.

The preceding paragraph to the one you quote above mentioned that
since you appeared to have no desire to say anything relevant, I would
move on to that which you apparently *did* want to "discuss."

> But since you brought it up: many of those countries were *VICTIMS*
> of Islamic invasions just as we were. 

Really?  Which ones?  Everyone was victim of some invasion at some
point or other.  What I don't understand is your obsession with
singling out the ones in which Muslims may have been involved.

> Give me a break. Muslim community in India is not discriminating against
> Muslim community in India. We are the accused ones. Directly or undirectly,
> the complaints ARE directed at us.

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

> >Dangling another carrot in front of me...  Saudi Arabia is not a
> >democracy.  We all know that.  It's a monarchy, a concept which is not
> >permitted by Islam.  
> 
> Remembering all Muslim thugs and plunderers ("monarchs") who invaded
> my motherland and YOURS (if your slave-mind can manage to relate to that)
> and ruled over it, often brutally, I am touched by this vision of Islam.
> Too bad it wasn't practised that way by ANYBODY we dealt with.
> Sell your bridge to somebody else.

Excuse me, but your "motherland" as you call it, was invaded by
Indo-Aryans over various periods.  Unless you are a pure Dravidian,
you've already bought the bridge.  Your "motherland" happens to be
home to some 100 million Muslims.  You may regard them as products of
outside invaders, in which case the hundreds of millions of
Indo-Aryans all over India fall into the same category.

> >Do Nepal and Bhutan sound familiar?  
> 
> They do. 
> They are NOT propagating Hindu/Buddhist fundamentalism abroad.
> If they were I would NOT defend them.

But what is "fundamentalism?"  I was referring to undemocratic
monarchies, since your example was that Saudi Arabia does not allow
democracy.  I was merely pointing out that such characteristics are
not limited to Saudi Arabia, but clearly present in Bhutan and Nepal
where Buddhism and Hinduism are practiced.

> [concerning minorities in Saudi Arabia]
> > In what ways can they not practice their religions?
> 
> For example, cannot build their places of worship...

Can you cite examples like the way the BJP is tearing apart the places
of worship of the Muslims?  You don't need to look further than your
own backyard for examples of things that you accuse others of.

I note with interest that you conveniently avoided answering the first
question, which asked you to identify the various minority groups in
Saudi Arabia that you are talking about and what their religions are.

> >It seems to me that the majority of Indians are of Indo-Aryan descent 
> >which would mean they are originated from invading peoples.  
> 
> This too is not a major factor in the Hindu-Muslim conflict.
> IF it becomes so, say in North-South tensions, of course, we WILL
> have to talk about and deal with it, as much as our limited knowledge
> of ancient events permits. If Dravidian people want a dialog on that,
> they should get it; I have nothing against that.

My whole point is that the problems stems from attitudes like yours
which, for some ridiculous reason, insist on looking upon the Muslims
as a product of outside interference.  If you were consistent in
applying this kind of logic, you would find only a handful of people
who are genuine *Indians*.  Clearly, this is an unfair attitude which
definitely requires adjustment.  The 100 million Muslims are as Indian
as you, regardless what religion they follow.  It is attitudes like
yours which insist on generically labelling all Muslims as evil
"fundamentalists" (whatever that means) and "slaves" (as you have
repeatedly called me in charming diplomacy) which cause tensions to
build and unnecessary conflicts to escalate.  If people had a
realistic perception of history instead of relying on distorted views
like yours, many of the problems would not exist.


> 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 in
> >Bangladesh.  
> 
> 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.

Well, one thing I really don't need is a lecture on our own history.
Pakistan imposed a major news blackout throughout the war.  Until today,
most Pakistanis are blissfully unaware of what happened in 1971.
Check the Pakistani media reports of the time and the Pakistani
history books of today if you do not believe me.

> >But yes, 3 million Bangladeshis were annihilated ... But your claim was
> >that Islamic societies have the *worst* record...  It is news to me that
> [all sorts of bad guys mentioned, starting with Hitler..]
> 
> Islamic societies are not alone in the worst category but they are
> well-represented there. Don't be so defensive: while we all have to
> deal with our history, that is not YOUR history. The land of Bangladesh
> has no such record. Don't rush to embrace each and evry crook just
> because he was Muslim and I am not.

I am not embracing anyone.  I am just pointing out that you are
singling out Muslims in trying to prove something, but have only
proved that you have a distorted perception of history.  By and large,
the largest genocides in history have not been carried out by Muslims
at all, and any attempt to make it seem that way is plain ridiculous.
That is not to say that there have not been atrocities carried out by
Muslims, but what I object to is your attempt to label violence as
characteristic of Islamic societies when there is clearly no evidence
thereof.  They are certainly no more violent and have no worse records
than any other peoples.  Thus, your justifying general Hindu attitudes
towards Muslims in terms of how Saudi Arabia behaves is, quite
frankly, little more than a feeble attempt at passing the buck.

> >Please, I did not even say whether I thought there was or was not
> >discrimination, so there is no question of being too defensive.  
> 
> 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.

Here we go again... Who are my 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.  Get this idea out
of your head, it is wrong.  If you go back far enough, you will see
clearly that Hinduism didn't suddenly spring up in the minds of
millions of people in the Indian subcontinent, but also spread in
various ways.  The Dravidians of back then had different practices.
In that sense, *everything* is an outside influence.  Islam spread in
India mainly because it appealed to the masses, no matter how much you
try and convince yourself otherwise.  Your insistence on labelling
Muslims as "slaves" is only too indicative of your attitude problem in
general.

> >If you could bring yourself to address the discrimination question
> >as it relates to India, this discussion might even lead somewhere.
> 
> With you, at present, it won't.
> 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.

Hindu grievances about what things are like in Saudi Arabia?  Or Iran?
Wouldn't it be better if they looked at their own problems?

> While such mature individuals exist on both sides, at present you
> are not one of them.

Further unnecessary personal insults...

> >Please define "fundamentalism."
> 
> See what I mean. Why don't you go watch a TV sitcom or something.

Oh, I do.  I also think "fundamentalism" is one of the most misused
terms in the English language, so instead of avoiding the question,
please do tell us what you understand by "fundamentalism."

> >tell us all about the various Islamic societies west of India and how
> >they are so evil that it results in problems in India.
> 
> I am not sure if you really are a fool or just pretending to be one.

Could we possibly stick the the questions and relevant issues instead
of attempts at further personal insults?

> Do you really not see that Islamic invasions from the west, rape and
> plunder of the land, brutal massacres, religious oppression, destruction
> of temples, not once but over several centuries, wholescale rejection
> of the native culture in favor of slavish mimicing of the invaders's,
> demand for the religion-based partition of the country, extra-territorial
> loyalties, etc. could JUST POSSIBLY have SOMETHING to do with the present
> poisonous tensions?

If they do, then how come none of the other invasions, most of which
were far worse, cause the same kind of tensions?  Obviously, it must
have something to do with misconceptions?  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?

> I'll also give you a small example of the mental slavery I mentioned:
> Your own name does not come from Bengali, the native language of your 
> land. Is it from Arabic or Persian (I don't know)?

So what?  Both my grandfathers came from Persian families, and my
maternal grandmother came from Mongolian roots.  The whole region was
a major melting pot, and various peoples have influenced things.
Every language imports phrases from other languages -- where do you
think words like "pajama" or "bungalow" in the English language came
from?  The Spanish expression "Ole!" comes from "Allah" from when the
Moors were in Spain.  Does this make everyone "mental slaves?"  Many
of the names of towns in India are names the British left behind,
English names.  Further "mental slavery?"  How about names like
"Mukherkjee" or "Chatterjee?"  You may be interested to know that 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?"  It is interesting to note that your perception of
linguistic history seems to be on approximately the same level as your
history in general.

-- Shakil