From: kumarv@blaze.rutgers.edu (kumar vadaparty)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: On Hatred towards Muslims
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:59:50 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


This is aimed at particularly, people who either responded to Ansari's
postings or, sent me special mails on this topic of mutual hatred
between muslims and Hindus. I particularly appreciate if AKG tries to
respond to this. I also covered his latest "please wait until I post
all of Ansari's stuff" to delay the discussion. As I show below one
does not have to wait until the end of a speech which has blatant
nonsense in the beginning. For an excellent example of how Ansari's
stuff is blatently nonsense, read Raj's posting. 

I make a number of claims in this posting, and quote references. Now,
if you agree or disagree with my points, not only do you make your
claim clear, but indicate clearly your references. Also, say what the
reference says rather than saying "read So and So's book". It is
impossible to read everybody's books and our discussion should be
"issue based" not who read how many books. What is the issue, how
your favourite author analyses it, how it differs from what I say.
Dont give one-worded answers that can lead to multiple interpretations.

I claim that the following are the reasons for suspision or doubts
towards muslims and their patriotism in India. Even this, is not fair
to hold, and I strongly denounce such suspision. However, it is in the
court of the muslims ALSO to work towards eliminating the suspision.
The reasons given below are NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH A SUSPISION.
There is never justification for suspision. We should work towards a
cohesive India. But, saying that there is no reason for suspision and
there was never any muslim-messup in the country is far from truth.


If you have some references that quote opposite to any of the claims
below, PUT THE EXCERPTS FROM THEM, say how and why they differ from
the account below. Dont say "Read <my favourite> book". This seems to
me more like a escape hatch rather than a intelligent discussion.


(i). 
[Historical]

Muslims ruled, with almost no respect to other religions except
in exceptions like Akbar's later era, for at least 500+ years (basic
history). 

A number of temples were destroyed. Either under the name of "money"
or hatred for religion or both.  In as much as current govt
attrocities on people are being misrepresented by Ansari as hatred
towards muslims either because of his paranoia or whatever, the Hindus
can easily interpret such distrcutions to a deeprooted muslim hatred
to Hinduism than mercinery reasons (how many mosques did Ghori destroy
in India or Persia?).

(ii). 
[Pre partition]
When there was a freedom struggle for democracy, few muslims
joined initially, many supported the british rule, and some even
formed Muslim league whose primary goal was to support the British
(Azad, a muslim says so).

(iii). 
[Currently]
In the current India, the likes of Ansari, state that the
distruction of temples is "a myth", and Arun never says a single
sentence about this claim (not RJB, but general distruction of
temples, my friend).

Posting these articles by ansari are justified on Freedom of speech.
However, saying that (as AKG says) finally ansari concludes that "all
the problems are actually the ruled versus the rulers, not so much
religious" makes no sense. He clearly, clearly indicated that there
was a muslim-hatred and then how can he say that religious hatred is
not a problem. Is he stating these essays over a period of ten years,
or something, so that he can be expected to change or evolve or
whatever?

Trying to pretend as if there is no messup caused the muslims is a
basic nonsense. So is the case from Hindus. Let us accept with open
heart the messups and then try to forge collectively towards a solution.

Dont kid us, Mr Ansari. Thank you.

kumar.
--