From: trivedi@rabi.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi)
Subject: The Hindu-Muslim Problems in India 
Organization: Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:00:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.041325.21024@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:

[on his comment that others, such as Aryans or Europeans, besides Muslims
have invaded India, and my reply that such things can and should be discussed
in disputes where they are relevant] 

>Well, it *is* relevant since they invaded the very "motherland" your
>refer to.  Since there are various parties who invaded your
>"motherland," it does not make sense to point fingers at the Muslims.

Don't be so defensive.
Fingers are pointed in context; things are not just relevant or irrelevant
in vacuum.
Aryan or European invasiosn are not relevant to the *Hindu-Muslim* problems,
but they *could* become relevant in other disputes.
Similarly, Islamic invasions would not be relevant to some Indo-British
dispute for example. 

We should not try to hide behind other misdeeds.
An answer from Europeans, "Muslims invaded your country in the past.
Don't point fingers at *our* invasions now!" is utterly unacceptable.

Someone cannot come to Bangladesh, kill a few millions, and then say
in indignation: "Pakistanis did this. Don't point finger at us!" 
What rubbish! I will not accept that; will you?


>Indeed, your very concept of "motherland" is shaky.

How lucky *your* motherland is to have you! What a slave-mind.


[on my pointing out that non-Muslim's in Saudi Arabia cannot
build their places of worship]

SA:
>> >you conveniently avoided answering the first question, which asked you
>> >to identify the various minority groups in Saudi Arabia...
AT:
>> Ask Saudi embassy for statistics! However, NO non-Muslim, and I mean NO ONE,
>> is allowed to build his place of worship.
SA:
>Ask the Saudi embassy??  *You* made the claim -- if you can't back it,
>don't make it.

I made NO claim concerning Saudi demographics. Soon you will want
to see pie-charts as well!
I said there are non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia: THERE ARE.
I said they can't build their places of worship: THEY CAN'T.
I said even President Bush said his prayers aboard a ship in
international waters: HE DID.



[on my statement that Muslim countires knew about Pakistan's '71 genocide
in Bangladesh and either supported it or looked the other way.]
SA:
>> >Well, one thing I really don't need is a lecture on our own history.
>> >Pakistan imposed a major news blackout throughout the war.  
AT:
>> You bloody well do need a very good lecture on your history.
>> There was enough news around ALL OVER THE WORLD. 
>> Other Muslim countries did not have to depend on Yahya News Service.
>> Drop this foolish point: THEY ALL KNEW.
SA:
>Why don't you look at the Pakistani media coverage?  

Why hung up on Pakistan? They were the crooks. I have no interest in their 
coverage. I expect it to be unfair. It was. Fine. I am less than shocked.
But why were the other Islamic countries silent? Don't eavde that.
THEY KNEW. THEY KEPT QUIET. MANY SUPPORTED PAKISTAN.

>The Pakistanis staged a major news blackout.  

True. They tried.

>almost no news got out of Bangladesh until most of the damage had been done.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!


SA:
>> >you are singling out Muslims..
AT:
>> I AM presenting a Hindu viewpoint about Hindu-Muslim problem.
>> Muslims ARE the other party.
SA:
>why similar activities by other parties, many of whom are represented
>quite well in India, do not result in the same emotions.

Conflicts are not an "equal opportunity" things. Each instance has
its own history and dynamics. In India, Muslims do have a special
history not shared by many communities; they behave differently from
other communities; etc. 


SA:
>> >the largest genocides in history have not been carried out by Muslims
AT:
>> What a ringing defense of the Muslim record...
SA:
>But it is a fact, as my earlier article showed, and you have not been
>able to refute it.

You sound pathetic. If I cause grave harm to you, you should be able to
complain without having to prove that graver harm was not done by anyone
to anyone in history.


SA:
>> >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.  
AT:
>> What else was going on there besides Hindism and Buddhism when
>> the Muslims, using your soft euphemism, "interferred"? 
SA:
>But why stop at Islam?  

BECAUSE it is *Hindu-MUSLIM* dispute that's going on! YOU can keep going
back all the way to the primordial soup if you wish, but this conflict
involves Hindus and Muslims.

>Do you feel the same way about Christians in Kerala or Goa?
>Why not?  Why are you pointing fingers at Islam?  

I am talking about REAL problems here: THERE IS NO HINDU-CHRISTIAN
VIOLENCE TEARING INDIA APART.
If there was, we will talk about all relevant aspects.


>Clearly, the people choose the religion they think is appropriate for them.

I know that Muslims like to think that the conversions were voluntary.
I'll pass on that.


SA:
>> >Islam spread in India mainly because it appealed to the masses, 
AT:
>> who happened to notice the nearby swords...
SA:
>How is it possible for someone's faith to be converted by force?  

Don't play so innocent...

>why would [they] not convert back after the alleged sword was withdrawn?

Again, please don't play so innocent...
After lifetimes and generations, new realities set in.


>But what about Bangladesh or Malaysia?  They have vary large
>minorities, comparable to India, and yet we do not witness tensions
>that are even close to those in India.

Look, we didn't kill *our* Bengalis or *our* Biharis, but this happened 
elsewhere; EACH PLACE HAS ITS OWN HISTORY AND DYNAMICS.
But if you ARE more fortunate than us, I am happy for you;
I have no quarrel with that. 
We still have to hash out and solve our problems, however.


[BJP's temple crusade]
>why is this position "populist?"  

It is POPULIST because BJP used a popular sentiment for its
political advantage.
It is POPULAR because of: History, History, History.
If BJP told people that Jains had destroyed a Hindu temple that
we should recover, they will only be laughed at.


AT:
>> If a nationally credible Muslim group were to come along and, say,
>> make even a symbolic donation for even a symbolic reconstruction
>> of some of the temples, it would act like a magical balm. 
SA:
>Instead we have a very large national politcal party called the BJP
>which is applying the magical balm ...

Oh no, BJP IS being irresponsible in its political opportunism.
However, what I said about Muslims is true: while somethings are
irreversible, we all should first admit and then attempt to right
those wrongs that we can.


On subcontinental Muslims using Arabic/Persian rather than native
names:
Have it your way. I won't argue any more, but sounds like mental
slavery to me.

 
>But you would expect a Hindu to give his/her child a Hindu name,
>right?  Regardless whether they are Bengali-speaking, or
>Gujrati-speaking, or Malayalam-speaking, or Telugu-speaking?  

No. I expect them to choose a name from their native language.

>So what is wrong with Muslims giving their children Islamic names?  

It is equating "Islamic" with "Arab/Persian" that appears slavish.

-----
Xref: sparky soc.culture.bangladesh:2528 soc.culture.indian:14809 soc.culture.pakistan:6721