From: kumarv@blaze.rutgers.edu (kumar vadaparty)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: REQUEST TO ARUN GUPTA (long)
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:47:31 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.



> ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta) writes...

> I'm also very aware of just how many Hindus I'm annoying
> by posting these articles. And frankly, I don't give a
> damn !

Arun Gupta: 

Subject: (i) A request to not be so rude as above.
	 (ii) A disagreement with your choice of "Hindus" above.
	 (iii) A disagreement with your unnecessary elivation of Jinnah.

(i) You take pains to post so many good articles. But dont you think
that mistakes such as above could be avoided? Lest you may mistake me
for an armchair philosopher, let me quickly add that I do make a
number of mistakes myself, and somehow thought that inspite of that, I
could correct someone who I think is otherwise doing a really good
job.  This is intended as a friendly advice/suggestion/whatever.

Frankly speaking, I did not follow this entire thread of arguments and
counter arguments on the muslim issue. So, I can not tell you if your
getting so tired as to say the above stuff is justified or not. Still,
I feel you could have avoided the above. 

(ii) In the past as well as in the present (see below) I disagreed
with you on some issues. But I hardly am a Hindu (except probably by
birth, according to which I am a priest, in as much as you are, I
guess, a businessman). So, lumping the people who disagree with you as
"Hindus" thus tainting them with religious color and hence giving
their arguments no credence other than religious ardor or fervor, is
NOT FAIR.  It is not a proper way to argue. Period. Again, I am not
sure if the previous poster called for such a remark, but in which
case, you should have qualified it so. I am sorry, but your choice of
words does not fit with your otherwise strong attempts in pursuit
after truth.  Either you misused the words, or I am overreacting, or
both. I strongly urge you not to use such tactics (if it were a
planned approach) in the future.

(iii) Next, I do disagree, rather strongly, with your another
statement: "The dialogue between Nehru and Jinnah is a more
dignified/glorified version of the dialogue on the net". From the
impressions I got of Nehru and Jinnah from "India Wins Freedom",
Jinnah was more of a villain than Nehru, although *both* were
responsible for partition.  The latter contradicts the view projected
in my high school texts, which say Nehru was a pious cow and Jinnah
the villain. You are elivating Jinnah to the level of Nehru by using
the information from the books you read I guess. You may want to read
"India Wins Freedom" before you further try to paint a more benign
picture of Jinnah or the then Muslim league.

I get the impression, that you are almost trying to say "Hindus
persicute muslims in the current society, or, Hindus and Muslims are
equally foolish in their religious fervor, etc." If you did not intend
this, then ignore the rest. Otherwise, please read the following.  It
is intended to express my feeling that "Both peoples (as religious
communities), are foolish, but Muslims exhibit more intolerance both
in the past and in the present". I may be wrong. WIsh to be corrected.

We did go through this once before: The fact is that Muslims
persicuted Hindus in the long history of Muslim rule. Do you agree?  I
dont know of any single Hindu king who was as rutheless as many of the
Muslim rulers. To me, the past Islam comes out as more INTOLERANT and
BELLICOSE religion than its contemporary Hinduism. Do we know of any
temple distructions in Srivijay empire establishment?  Let us not get
carried away by our intentions of what the society ought to be, into
forgetting the history. Please correct me if I am wrong in the above
assertions. Any way, that was past.

Next, even in current situation, I find MIM does subvert more the
democratic principles routinely than any single Shankara charya.  BTW
remember that I am an atheist, and am trying to look at the whole
issue (hopefully) with religion-blind eye. My reason for the above
conclusion: The "chief priest" of the Delhi Mosque once called upon
his fellow muslims to vote en masse for the JD. Such religious
"fatwas" are anti-democratic in roughly the same measure as the
intentions of destroying temples/mosques. I hope you understand what I
mean. Using the faith of the people that he is the mediator betwen God
and people to force them to vote one way or the other. Let Mosque and
Politics be separated in as much as Church/Temple and politics are.  I
denounce both temple/mosque destructions which are overt, and this
ABUSE OF RELIGIOUS FAITH which is covert. Dont you? If so, if some one
makes a "enseble" statement that "Islam-followers" have more religious
fervor, do you disagree? Carrying such "law of averages" into
individuals is wrong. It is a form of racism. But, let us not forget
that the laws of averages exist. For example, Blacks as a community
are more crime-prone in this country. However, using that to
discriminate an individual is racism. 
--