[Reader-list] A YEAR OF SHAME

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Aditya,

There are some kinds of statements that need proof, and others that  
do not. I will try and explain why in this mail. But any simple  
textbook of logic will do the job better than me. Nevertheless, let  
me try.

Statements about beliefs (not beliefs themselves) are one kind of  
statement. Statements about facts (which may or may not be beliefs)  
are another kind of statement. The first do not require proofs, the  
second do.

I do not recall  calling you a terrorist. That I have been called a  
terrorist is another matter. I also have avoided calling individuals  
on the list 'fundamentalist' or 'extremist'. In any case, epithets  
like 'fundamentalist' or 'extremist' are acts of interpretation. They  
are opinions. One can argue whether or not an individual or a  
political tendency shows signs of being 'fundamentalist' or  
'extremist', ie whether or not the opinion has any resonance with  
facts, because this is a judgement about the degree of moderation in  
beliefs and actions that a particular person does or does not  
display. And close obsrevation of the persons behavious is all that  
we need to settle any case of dispute.

  I have not objected to being called a terrorist. Not because I am  
one. I abhor and detest terrorism. But because a statement about  
'belief' can neither be proved, nor disproved. There can be proof for  
whether or not a person has or has not committed an act of terror,  
because that is a fact. But 'terrorism',  as in a belief in the  
efficacy of terror, unless there are verifiable statements that say  
that one is a terrorist, can neither be proven, nor disproven.

For the same reason that  you cannot prove whether or not a person  
believes in god, if they are silent about their beliefs. Their belief  
can be known only to them. Similarly if a person is a silent believer  
in terrorism, this can neither be proved, nor disproved. That is why  
I avoid arguments that rely on labelling people in terms of what they  
may or may not believe in.

I have talked at times of fundamentalist or extremist politics and I  
have always condemned fundamentalists and extremists of every  
variety. If anything I have have called you a nationalist. I am  
against every kind of nationalism. But surely, even you call yourself  
a nationalist. Nationalism, in this case is not an allegation, a  
conjecture that you are indeed a nationalist, rather it is a  
statement in tacit agreement with your own description of yourself.  
It is simply a description of a particular political position.  
Neither I nor you need to prove that if we are both in agreement  
about the fact that you are indeed a nationalist.

By the way, I have never mentioned anything about you blackening  
anyone's face. That hasn't stopped you from making allegations about  
people being paid agents.  The question of being or not being a 'paid  
agent' is not a matter of interpretation, or degree. One cannot have  
a 'tendency' towards being paid, as if bribery were on some sliding  
scale or continuous spectrum of facticity. One is either paid, or not  
paid. There is no ambiguity or interpretative leeway in this matter.  
That is why this is the kind of statement that needs proof. I am  
still waiting for that proof.

Shuddha


On 11-Nov-08, at 12:28 AM, Aditya Raj Kaul wrote:

> Shuddha,
>
> I need not comment on any of your questions.
>
> There have been serious remarks to malign me and others on this  
> forum. Prove them first and then come to me for answers.
>
> 'Terrorist', 'Fundamentalist, 'Extremist' ...the list just goes own...
>
> There have been various other allegations and name calling against  
> me and a few others on this forum.
>
> More importantly, I've been blamed of 'blackning' some terrorist's  
> face... Prove it.... Mr. SenGupta..
>
> As elders you have a responsibility to make me understand, as to  
> why...were such remrks so casually passed on me.... Just because  
> you were short of arguments....If yes, then its Unfortunate..!
>
>
>
> On 11/11/08, Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net> wrote:
> Aditya,
>
> The argument for banning you and Pawan from this list has nothing  
> to do with your opinions. There are others who share your opinions  
> on this list whom no one has asked for a ban on. I am sure that if  
> they present their point of view in a civilized fashion, without  
> making baseless allegations, many people on the list will continue  
> to engage with them - as you say 'debate, discuss and write on  
> it' . People will agree or disagree with them. Some may be  
> ambivalent, others indifferent. That is as it should be in any  
> discussion where people engage freely, fairly, openly and with  
> respect for differences.
>
> The demand for a ban arises because you and Pawan made specific  
> charges of money changing hands on this list. If you can prove  
> those charges, no one will ask for you to be banned. Everyone on  
> the list is aware by now of the fact that the issue of whether or  
> not you need to be banned has nothing whatsoever to do with your  
> opinions on Kashmir.
>
> Shuddha
>
> On 11-Nov-08, at 12:03 AM, Aditya Raj Kaul wrote:
>
> To ban us for this reason is stupidity. And, if there is a major  
> second
> opinion on 'Kashmir' why not debate, discuss and write on it,  
> rather than
> simply baning what you can't take as your ideology doesn't approve  
> of it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Aditya Raj Kaul
>
> Freelance Correspondent, The Times of India
> Cell - +91-9873297834
>
> Campaign Blog: http://kashmiris-in-exile.blogspot.com/
> Personal Blog: http://activistsdiary.blogspot.com/

Shuddhabrata Sengupta
The Sarai Programme at CSDS
Raqs Media Collective
shuddha at sarai.net
www.sarai.net
www.raqsmediacollective.net