From: kumarv@blaze.rutgers.edu (kumar vadaparty)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: ARUN, BHATNAGAR on Muslims (Long)
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:08:00 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.



Context: Arun Gupta is posting a series of articles on Muslims'
situation in India, and the reasons for that situation, as portrayed
by a person from AMU. A number of people asked him a number of
questions (including me). His responses to those questions (at least
to mine) are not quite complete. I dont imply motivations to Arun. I
simply say that his statements are not justified.

I agree in general, that there is a need for fear for minorities
(including HINDUS, in certain places where they are minorities).  But,
MR. Gupta seems to "imply" subtly (see below), that Hindus are
persecuting Muslims is NEITHER TRUE NOR JUSTIFIED.  And, I am not
speaking this out of blind faith for Hinduism.

In this posting, I invite you to carefully examine your words, and
request you to make a better choice nextime, Arun.

From ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta) Tue Apr 14 11:05:02 1992

>In reply to Kumar Vadaparty:

>(ii)by posting the Muslim viewpoint (or at least what part of
>it I could find in print) I risk annoying only Hindus. Just
>as when I post my views on s.c.pakistan I risk annoying Muslims.
>The law of averages as judged by flames received in the past
>goes to prove this.

You are absolutely mistaken, Arun. You dont risk annoying only Hindus.
You risk annoying anyone who thinks straight, *if* what you post was
not reasonable and patently incorrect.  I insist that you remove the
word "HINDUS". If your posting contains patently illogical or even
incorrect (see below) stuff, you risk annoying some people, of any
religious belief or none at all.

Whether they express their annoyance on the author of the material you
posted or, on you is dependent on whether they lose temper and behave
illogically or not! You lost temper, even according to your own
admission.  So, give a chance to others for the same folly, my friend.

Parts of the material of the postings you posted (not authored) are
certainly blatant mistakes (see below). I try to blame the author, not
you. kindly respond. Pl. dont use the hindu argument, for God's sake!?!

>(iii) the correct statement of Muslim-Hindu relations is that in
>certain eras and certain times, Hindus were persecuted by Muslims.

>Secondly, while Hindus may not have persecuted Muslims on
>the same scale, 

Hold it right there! Please, please, this means, in normal English,
that Hindus persecuted Muslims. I beg you to give me examples of this,
in the current India AND historical India. Not an example of Mr. Ram
"persecuting" Mr. Kareem (it is called personal fight). But a
wholesale mass of Hindus went and tortured/killed/pillaged/raped
Muslims and/or their properties or temples during the course of a long
period of time ( say, a couple of decades). I can cite examples for
Muslim persecution in much stronger measures. Now, if you fail to give
examples, Kindly, withdraw the above lines.


>did you know that (i) after the sack of
>Somnath, Mahmud of Ghazni's army faced difficulties and
>had to retreat wholesale ? (read K.M. Munshi). 

Well, is this a sign of persecution, my friend? A people defending
their place of worship against a invader's army? Something is wrong
somewhere. Do you think that the Hindus should have rather kept quite
and let the plunderer continue the plundering? (which is what he did
any way, in the last round). WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?

>(ii) that
>soldiers captured from his army were converted to Hindus ?
>(read K.M.Munshi)

Sure, I dont know. Any way, that is called revenge. If I slap you
first, I dont have a right to complain about your slapping me back.
Jesus (or some such one) said that you should show the other cheek. It
is a good policy, but I dont hold people as PERSECUTORS if they
violate this policy. Thank you for enlightening me on this bit of 
history. 

>And so on.  Read everyone's version of history -- its quite
>interesting.  

Thanks for the note. I extend the same to you and with Azad's book
"India Wins Freedom". 

>Our prejudices today are built on too many myths.

Certainly, yours, Mr. Gupta. I am apalled by your claim that
RESPONDING IN REVENGE TO PLUNDER's PILLAGE IS SAME AS PERSECUTION, ya
of course not in the same scale as the plunderer (as you said: "Hindus
have not persecute the muslims in the same scale). I can not resist
saying "GIVE ME A BREAK".

Thanks.

>arun  gupta


From bhatnagr@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Raj Bhatnagar) Tue Apr 14 14:46:45 1992

>Arun's posting:
>>A new dimension of the state security forces not only conniving at but
>>actually indulging in communal violence including cold-blooded murder
>>of Muslims has been added since Aligarh (1978) and Moradabad (1980).

>The use of excessive force by security forces is a problem in 
>itself and is not particularly directed at Muslims. If the author 
>believs otherwise, he certainly is creating an unfounded myth. 

Can't agree more. An illustration: I PARTICIPATED IN "Jai Andhra"
movement. When all of us were in a peaceful march, the "jawans" came
all around us, and used extremely violent means to discharge us.  I
did not ask them about their religion (instead fled away), nor did
they ask us our religion. They beat us and we ran away.



>>1. Visualization of 700 years of supposed Muslim rule in India by the
			^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
This author (not AK Gupta) must be history-blind. It was a real rule
of about 700 years.  Not supposed. Now, Mr. Gupta, do you support this
nonsensical twist of language? I, for one, hate abuse of language.

>>Hindu elite as a period characterised by forced conversion to Islam,
>>destruction and conversion of temples into mosques and other symbols of
>>humiliation. The myth owes its origin mainly ot
              ^^^^^^^^^^^
>As long as the author believes that the destruction 
>and conversion of temples, and a general onslaught on 
>native Indian culture by the Muslim invaders and their 
>descendent rulers is a mere myth and folklore, he will 
>not be able to establish channels of communication with 
>Hindus. 

Can't agree more with Raj. Are you in support of this nonsense, Mr.
Gupta? You are not. Because, you yourself agreed that Muslims
persecuted Hindus. Now, if someone expresses his anger on this
nonsense, would you say "The hindus were annoyed by the muslim view?"
Give me a break, sir.
  
[Raj gives a solution which also seems very reasonable]

---raj
-- 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian