From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Subject: Re: The Hindu-Muslim Problems in India 
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:51:34 GMT


In article <1992Apr14.140032.3871@midway.uchicago.edu>, trivedi@rabi.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi) writes:
> In article <1992Apr14.041325.21024@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:

> 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?


Here is the problem: Arun Gupta posts an article by an Indian Muslim
on the Muslim situation in *India*.  You conclude that it is rubbish
because the author lives in Saudi Arabia (note the masterful logical
connection).  When I point out that this is flawed logic, you start
pointing fingers at various Muslim societies all over the place,
mention alleged atrocities, and conclude that I am a slave.  You then
start talking about Muslim "invasions" into India, claiming that that
explains Hindu sentiments against Muslims.  I point out that other
groups have invaded India in the past, and yet similar sentiments are
not directed at them and hence the "invasions" cannot be any form of
justification.  Your conclusion now is that this is "irrelevant."  In
a situation like this, a discussion ceases to be a discussion and
borders on being just plain silly, for one cannot argue with
statements that are in a logical vacuum.

> >Indeed, your very concept of "motherland" is shaky.
> 
> How lucky *your* motherland is to have you! What a slave-mind.

A perfect example of the vacuum I mention above.


> 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.

You claimed that Saudi Arabia mistreats its minorities.  I asked who
the minorities are, and you have still not answered the question.  I
wonder why?

> >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,

Sigh...  Again, I can only repeat that most of the atrocities had gone
unnoticed and unreported until a certain Pakistani reporter escaped to
London and wrote an article in the London Times.  My comments above
were directed at whether the Pakistani public knew what was going on
or not.  Regarding other Muslim countries, like most other countries,
they did not know until much of the damage had been done.  I agree
with you that most countries (not just Muslim) supported Pakistan
because they did not want to see a split in a relatively young
country.  Unfortunately, being far away from Bangladesh, most of these
countries had little knowledge on any of the Pakistani discriminatory
policies that led to an inevitable need for Bangladeshi independence.

> 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. 

Well, my point was that the reasons you cite for anti-Muslim
sentiments are not unique to Muslims and hence cannot be the reasons.
That's where misconceptions come in.

> 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.

But your point was that the reason for anti-Muslim sentiments was
because of Muslim track record on treatment of minorities.  Since most
other groups have worse track records, as I have shown, this logic
does not hold.

> 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.

Excuse me, but you seem to imply above that you feel that we are all
historically *Hindus*.  I was merely pointing out that that is a false
and dangerous notion.

> >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.

But that is precisely my point.  Why is there no Hindu-Christian
violence?  All the reasons you cite for Hindu-Muslim tensions could
equally well be applied to Hindu-Christian relationships, and yet
there appear to be few problems.  Consequently, we can conclude that
your cited reasons cannot be correct.

> >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.

They don't just like to think that.  It is largely true.

> 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.

Oh?  So what prevents a person from secretly practicing Hinduism and
believing in Hinduism even if he/she secretly converted to Islam?
Millions of Muslims and Jews in Spain did that for many generations
before fleeing to North Africa and Turkey.  

> >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.

Well, my point is that other places have the same conditions as in
India, but do not face the same problems.  Again, we can only conclude
that your reasons are not correct.

> [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.

But what happens when popular sentiment rests on misconceptions?  That
is my point.  It is the *misconceptions* which need to be cleared up.
Pretending that it is purely the fault of the Muslims and labelling
them as slaves is unrealistic, untruthful, and unlikely to ever lead
to anything constructive.

> 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.

Yes, and most Indian Hindus have Hindu names rather than names in
their languages.  Think about how many Tamil speakers have Hindu names
from Sanskrit.  How does that make any more sense than Muslims using
Arabic/Persian names?  After all, the linguistic relationship between
Tamil and Sanskrit (they are not in the same family) is much more
distant than that between Bengali and Arabic or Pharcy.

> >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.

Well, I have news for you.  Most Indian Hindus give their children
purely Hindu names, regardless whether they are Tamil, Malayalam,
Telugu, Gujrati, Marati, Bengali or Hindi-speaking.

> >So what is wrong with Muslims giving their children Islamic names?  
> 
> It is equating "Islamic" with "Arab/Persian" that appears slavish.

Such as equating "Hinduism" with "Sanskrit" names?  Double standards
have never rested on a solid logical basis...

-- Shakil
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh