From: trivedi@curie.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi)
Subject: Re: We Need A Hindu-Muslim Dialog (Was: Re: Muslim situation in India)
Organization: Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 13:15:17 GMT


In article <1992Apr13.012610.4590@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:

>This, of course, includes Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Niger, and a host
>of other countries and peoples, and not just Iran and Saudi Arabia.

I thought you were against bringing up irrelevant distractions.
But since you brought it up: many of those countries were *VICTIMS*
of Islamic invasions just as we were. 

SA:
>> >The author is an Indian citizen who happens to be a professor of
>> >Economics at a Saudi Arabian university.  You conclude from this that
>> >he is "financed by the Saudis" to lecture to Indian Hindus?  
AT:                                ^^
>> Nope. Read that again. I said he is financed by Saudis *and* he is
>> lecturing to us. THAT IS TRUE.
SA:
>No it's not.  As V. Nagarajan pointed out, Siddiqui's audience was quite
>obviously the Muslim community in India.  

Give me a break. Muslim community in India is not discriminating against
Muslim community in India. We are the accused ones. Directly or undirectly,
the complaints ARE directed at us.

>Dangling another carrot in front of me...  Saudi Arabia is not a
>democracy.  We all know that.  It's a monarchy, a concept which is not
>permitted by Islam.  

Remembering all Muslim thugs and plunderers ("monarchs") who invaded
my motherland and YOURS (if your slave-mind can manage to relate to that)
and ruled over it, often brutally, I am touched by this vision of Islam.
Too bad it wasn't practised that way by ANYBODY we dealt with.
Sell your bridge to somebody else.

>Do Nepal and Bhutan sound familiar?  

They do. 
They are NOT propagating Hindu/Buddhist fundamentalism abroad.
If they were I would NOT defend them.

[concerning minorities in Saudi Arabia]
> In what ways can they not practice their religions?

For example, cannot build their places of worship...

>Are you implying that the large number of foreign workers are
>forced to convert to Islam?

Most are Muslims by hiring preference. Non-Muslims cannot practice
their religion openly. Even President Bush said his prayers on a
ship in international waters. 

>So you are restricting it to the Muslim armies who "invaded" parts of
>India, ignoring of course, the British, the Portuguese, whatever.

European invasions do not play a role in the Hindu-Muslim problem.
Islamic invasions DO.  BTW, I am not saying they should: I wish the
whole problem wasn't there. I am just telling you what I see out there.

>It seems to me that the majority of Indians are of Indo-Aryan descent 
>which would mean they are originated from invading peoples.  

This too is not a major factor in the Hindu-Muslim conflict.
IF it becomes so, say in North-South tensions, of course, we WILL
have to talk about and deal with it, as much as our limited knowledge
of ancient events permits. If Dravidian people want a dialog on that,
they should get it; I have nothing against that.


AT:
>> This is not a birthday party where we all have to be sweet and nice
>> and only agreeable. We are talking about important social issues.
>> I said I do not find the fellow credible: I DO NOT. 
SA:
>You don't find
>Siddiqui credible, and yet the only reason you gave for that is that
>he happens to live in a particular country.  You did not point *at
>what he said* to show why he is not credible.

Mismatch between one's words and actions also diminishes credibility.
I will tell you once again why I do not find him credible: he is
hobnobbing with those who violate the values he is preaching. 


AT:
>> IF YOU COULD JUST GET OFF YOUR DEFENSIVENESS OR SLAVE MENTALITY
>> FOR ONE MOMENT, YOU MIGHT RECALL THAT ONE OF THEM BUTCHERED 3 MILLION
>> OF YOUR OWN PEOPLE, WHILE THE REST OF THEM SUPPORTED IT.
SA:
>The "rest" had little knowledge of what was really happening in
>Bangladesh.  

Are you completely out of your mind? Ask someone who was an adult then.
THEY DID HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE. THEY DID NOT CARE.
That is CONSISTENT with what I know of THEIR history.
You may or may not like what I think about the problems in my country
but for God's sake DON'T LIE TO YOURSELF ABOUT YOU OWN HISTORY.

>But yes, 3 million Bangladeshis were annihilated ... But your claim was
>that Islamic societies have the *worst* record...  It is news to me that
[all sorts of bad guys mentioned, starting with Hitler..]

Islamic societies are not alone in the worst category but they are
well-represented there. Don't be so defensive: while we all have to
deal with our history, that is not YOUR history. The land of Bangladesh
has no such record. Don't rush to embrace each and evry crook just
because he was Muslim and I am not.


AT:
>> The discrimination is fuelled by suspicion, and hostility.
>> Each has its roots in history and each has its dynamics.
>> You are too defensive to discuss details at present.
SA:
>Please, I did not even say whether I thought there was or was not
>discrimination, so there is no question of being too defensive.  

You are defensive about the deeds of other Muslims. That is mental
and spiritual slavery. Every defeat creates its own "Black Englishmen" 
but try to rise above it. Be true to your land and to your forefathers,
not to those who brutally raped both.

>If you could bring yourself to address the discrimination question
>as it relates to India, this discussion might even lead somewhere.

With you, at present, it won't.
That would require addressing the grievances and concerns of both
Muslims and Hindus: grievances and concerns as they ARE, not what
you think they should be.
While such mature individuals exist on both sides, at present you
are not one of them.
You want to hear about *discrimination against Muslims in India*;
it is a part of the larger problem and you will only get uptight
when other parts come up and COME THEY WILL.
Getting into the heart of deep problems and resolving them is not
a comfortable lifestyle;
if you want to pick and choose what feels comfortable,
this stuff is not for you.


>Please define "fundamentalism."

See what I mean. Why don't you go watch a TV sitcom or something.

>tell us all about the various Islamic societies west of India and how
>they are so evil that it results in problems in India.

I am not sure if you really are a fool or just pretending to be one.

Do you really not see that Islamic invasions from the west, rape and
plunder of the land, brutal massacres, religious oppression, destruction
of temples, not once but over several centuries, wholescale rejection
of the native culture in favor of slavish mimicing of the invaders's,
demand for the religion-based partition of the country, extra-territorial
loyalties, etc. could JUST POSSIBLY have SOMETHING to do with the present
poisonous tensions?

I'll also give you a small example of the mental slavery I mentioned:
Your own name does not come from Bengali, the native language of your 
land. Is it from Arabic or Persian (I don't know)?

Regards.

-----
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh