From: jodar@girtab.usc.edu (Nicholas Jodar)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Posting in Soc.Culture.Jewish -- MONITOR
Summary: Confusion of Issues....
Keywords: MONITOR
Date: 13 Apr 92 00:56:36 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Originator: hanan@mcs213k.cs.umr.edu

=========================================================================

The following is an article which appeared in soc.culture.jewish
after being in soc.culture.indian.  It speaks about the problems
in India and makes several statements about muslims in India, and
muslims in general, which I feel deserve correcting.  It seems to
me that the poster of this 'tit for tat' lacks a lot of valid
information....

-Nick

=========================================================================
Article 39092 of soc.culture.jewish:
From: trivedi@curie.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: WE NEED HINDU-MUSLIM DIALOG, NOT THIS 
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:14:41 GMT
Organization: Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago.

Hi, I posted this to soc.culture.indian but some people may be
interested here as well (others should forgive me); many themes
here are broader than their narrow origins. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[India was and is suffering from the cancer of religious cold war that
sometimes get lukewarm if not warm.
What we need is an honest national dialog.
What we have been getting is opportunism by polititians, point-scoring
by "liberals" who are irrelevant (never trusted by the other side any way,
they also lose the confidence of their own), whining and complaining by all, 
and idiotic abstract lectures on pseudo-secularism.
We have squandered forty five years doing that. 
Any one who feigns surprise as to why the problem is getting worse, 
does not really have my sympathy.
...
My "tit for tat" comments here, as they are in response to someone else's
speech, do not constitute a balanced exposition of my views.
--Anil Trivedi]



In article <sdt5Uri00iQCATCUZ7@andrew.cmu.edu> "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>[The following is taken from "The Muslim Situation in India",
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am anticipating a criticism of Hindus: those people have some nerve to
hang on to their own religion, culture and land! 

>edited by Iqbal Ansari,..
>Institute of Objective Studies ...
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Such names make me suspicious. Can't help it.

>The keynote speech of the seminar:
>by Mohammad Nejatullah Siddiqui
>(Prof. of Economics, King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah,
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
Isn't that in Saudi Arabia, that guiding light of secularism and
religious tolerance? :-)

> former prof. of Islamic Studies, Aligarh)
                                   ^^^^^^^
Oh, that too. I am already convinced of your "objective" credentials.

I bet you didn't rise through Aligarh to Saudi Arabia on the strength
of your secular views. :-)

>I had decided to focus on some long-term problems facing the Indian Muslims 

While you are at it, maybe you can bring yourself to think about other human
beings who live in India as well?

>So, we must begin, forty years after Independence, 

THE PROBLEMS YOU ARE BOUND TO TALK ABOUT BEGAN NOT FORTY BUT ONE THOUSAND
YEARS AGO. I am not saying that any one group is responsible. We are all
product of that "problem" and hence part of it. But we must stop selective
posturing and start a dialog about real problems, real causes, real hurts,
and real grievances,...

>There is no denying the fact that there are some Hindu organizations in
>the country that do not accept the dispensation enshrined in the
>Constitution of India ...

And some Muslim groups who have no use for such principles either.

>They are not prepared to accommodate Muslim presence in India with 
>a distinct identity. 

Funny, I thought some Muslim groups did not want any Hindus left 
in India. :-)

(There aren't that many left in Pakistan or Afghanistan anyway.
Remember what "Hindu-Kush" means: massacre of the Hindus?)

As to how Muslim majority countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, or 
Pakistan, deal with their minorities, please do ask those minorities.

>The killings, humiliations and destruction are a part of a
>deliberate strategy to terrorise them into submission.

Oh yeah, the non-violence credo.

I would like to begin with those peaceful invasions of my country
and discuss what has been done to right some of those wrongs.

Perhaps you can organize a Muslim movement to erect a monument to
the victims at Hindu-Kush?
How about demanding that Iran return the Peacock Throne?
Personally, did *you* contribute *five bucks* to rebuilding 
of Somnath Temple, the first to be destroyed?
As is said in the trade, these would be "confidence-building" measures.

>Their vision of
>a Hindu India is entirely different from that of the founding fathers
>of Indian democracy.

So what? Our founding fathers were not dictators. It may surprise you
living in Saudi Arabia, but people do have their own minds. 
Has it ever occured to you that *that* is *democracy*?
We should talk about the substance---ALL of it---not this kind of
cheap posturing.

>It is an unjust and untenable proposition. If it is allowed to have its
>way it will tear apart ...Hindu society ...

I am touched by your concern for the Hindu society. Carry on.

>Its consequences for the
>country's international relations can be easily imagined, 

As I said, I am willing to discuss the "international relations"
we have been enjoying for a thousand years...  :-)

>because such a dispensation will never be acceptable to the hundred
>million Indian Muslims who are also part of the international Islamic
>community.

I acknowledge the implicit threat. If it becomes real, we'll deal with it.

As for the Indian Muslims being part of the international Islamic 
community:  Of sourse they are, but THIS is a part of the problem. 
Don't let any likable liberal fellow convince you otherwise.
Extra-territorial loyalties and alliances always are, ANYWHERE.
We must discuss all this in our national dialog.

>There is no reason why the legitimate cultural aspirations of the Hindu
>majority cannot be satisfied within the framework of the Constitution...

Perhaps it is the "ulema" that get to decide which Hindu aspirations
are "legitimate"? 

Here is the question you must confront someday: Are Hindus entitled to
the same cultural/religious aspirations where they are in majority as 
Muslims are when they are in majority?  Would you recommend that we model
our aspirations after Saudis' or Iranians'? WILL THAT BE LEGITIMATE?

>It is time these [Hindu] organizations reviewed their stance in the
>light of the real interests of those for whom they care, ...

Suppose you let them think for themselves; you think for yourself;
and then have an honest dialog about PAST, PRESENT, and FUTURE.

>... as well as in
>the light of internationally accepted norms and standards of fairness
>and justice to minorities.

For example, as they are practised in Saudi Arabia...   :-)

BTW, have you communicated your concern for minority religions to Saudi
authorities? How about an open letter to the King asking him to permit
if not help the building of churches, synagogues, and temples?

>But as long as the Hindu communal organizations continue on their
>present path..

Some Muslim countries should teach us by EXAMPLE. Once. PLEASE?

>It is the anti-Muslim...Hindu who succeeds in enlisting the support
>of the Hindu masses. 

EVER WONDER WHY?

>The saner [Hindu] sections...

You can do what you want, but it will be a historic blunder to deal
with the Hindus you *like*, rather than with those who actually
represent the Hindu masses. 
Remember, before independence, Congress leaders made the same error
in their dealings with Muslims.

>Fortunately [Muslims] still have some confidence in the Central Govt.

I am glad somebody does. :-)
However, Central Goverment is no substitute for repairing relations
with the majority community.

>Part of the blame for insufficient mobilization of this crucial section
>of the Indian society must lie with the Muslims, 

What a refreshing thought...
Wish you had begun that way; then I might have been nicer too.  :-)

>The way Muslim
>leadership, especially the religious leadership, functions hardly
>provides for the continuous interaction and dialogue 

You got that one right. 

>between them and
>the well-intentioned, imaginative and far-sighted Hindu intellectuals,
>religious personalities and statesmen...

I repeat: it will be a historic blunder to substitute the Hindus you *like*
for those who actually represent the Hindu masses. Before independence,
the Congress leadership made the same error in their dealings with Muslims.

>Muslims are baffled...

We all are. Actually, that is a good beginning, if bafflement is
accompanied by open-mindedness. 
Bafflement suggests that you think that things should be different.
Open-mindedness that they could be different on BOTH SIDES.
What we need now is an honest national dialog---no matter how painful 
it gets; IT WILL GET VERY PAINFUL.
What we don't need is the same crappy self-serving lectures on pseudo-
secularism: by those who are least qualifed to utter such words, to a
nation that wrote the book on religious tolerance before it was raped
and plundered.

>...A hint at the involvement of some foreign hand...
...
>...the devastating impact these insinuations have on the Hindu masses

Ever wonder why such "insinuations" seem convincing to the masses? If you
think they are just plain gullible, try "insinuating" sometime that Eskimos
or Tibetans are coming to destroy their lives; see if that has any
"devastating" effect on the masses.

STOP THIS NONSENSE. For better or worse, mostly worse, we do have
considerable experience with many of these "elements".