[Reader-list] Apology of a Recidivist Intellectual

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Dear all,

Apologies for this mail, which should have come earlier, for a  
variety of personal reasons, and for the terrible misdemeanour of  
calling anyone a 'moron'. Let me add that I have been touched by the  
acute sensitivity that the patriotic pro-hindutva and nationalist  
subscribers on this list have for each other. It is genuinely moving  
to see such concern for what can be seen as assaults on their dignity  
and person by someone as crass and insensitive like myself. My heart  
goes out to them.

However, let me, while offering my sincere apologies for any offence  
caused, take this opportunity to clarify certain things.

This list has frequently seen the term 'intellectual' hurled out at  
people as an accusation. And it is our 'patriotic', 'pro-Hindutva'  
and 'Indian nationalist' fellow list members who often use the word  
'intellectual' as if it were as pointed jibe. As if it were a crime  
or a perversion to think and to base one's life's work on thought and  
consideration. I have often been told that I am an 'intellectual',  
especially when I patiently try to argue a point which is never  
rebutted with a counter-argument, but with a series of ad hominem  
attacks, that bear no relation either to the facts under dispute, or  
to the substance, logical consistency or ethical implications of the  
arguments brandished as weapons. I do not dispute this tag, I merely  
try to understand what is wrong with being an intellectual.

I had once even asked, long ago on this list (after a particularly  
intense round of patriotic 'intellectual bashing'), whether living  
and earning ones living by the labours of one's mind, reason or  
imagination, with ideas, concepts (which in my limited understanding,  
is what being an intellectual means) was in anyway criminal or  
unhealthy. Unfortunately, I did not receive an adequate answer, (in  
fact I received no answer to my sincerely expressed question). I now  
realize that I did not receive an answer plainly because it was obvious.

Being an 'intellectual' is something that several people on this list  
(particularly those who stand on the 'right' side of things) would  
consider as being shameful, otherwise they would not use the term  
'intellectual' in a meaningfully pejorative sense, which they do.  
Laying claim to 'intellectual' activities makes one especially  
vulnerable to doubts and hesitations about things that many people  
like to feel certain about. An intellectual, in particular, sometimes  
has difficulty in committing himself or herself to the certainty and  
truth claim of a nationalist project, or other assertions of identity  
because he or she is plagued by corrosive doubts about the categories  
deployed by nationalism and its derivatives. It is this doubt that  
stands like a wall betweeen the aggressive assertion of notions of  
self, ideas of community, nation and identity.

Just as the congenitally deaf or mute cannot appreciate the bliss of  
legible vocalized speech, so too, an intellectual like myself has  
hitherto not been able to realize the immense worth of being blessed  
with an absence of 'intellectual' faculties. My doubts overwhelm any  
possibility of certainty.

And so, just as, in Lawrence Liang's excellent recent postings, in  
which we see the prosecutor advance the remarkably lucid plea that  
'homosexuals' are anti-social because 'homosexuality' is not  
'heterosexuality', we must accept, by the same logical principle,  
(which also covers the same ground as 'muslims are bad people because  
they are not hindus') the argument that 'intellectuals' are  
criminally inclined, well, because they are not 'morons'. I am  
afraid, that like many people who see nothing wrong with homosexuals,  
muslims and intellectuals, I too must confess my crimes. I hope that  
list members will indulge and forgive a brief 'self critical'  
digression, which is an intrinsic part of my sincere apology to Sri  
Sri Chanchal Malviya and all those offended by my previous posting.

  (Hindutva-vadi's have a great deal to learn, incidentally, from  
Stalinists and Maoists, who were and remain just as suspicious and  
hostile to 'intellectuals' and often subject them, to lengthy ordeals  
of 'self-criticism' for the sin or the shame of being, 'intellectual')

Now, for instance, if (by way of response to Aditya Raj Kaul's recent  
forward of M.V. Kamath's islamophobic text) I were to point out that  
a believing Muslim's objection to singing 'Vande Mataram' or 'Hail to  
the Mother' (which is an unequivocal salutation to a particular  
incarnation of a Hindu mother goddess, and this is evident if you  
read the words of its text, as written by its author, Bankim Chandra  
Chattopadhyay) is an echo of a believing Hindu's objection to either  
having to say, or to hear, 'Aazadi ka Matlab Kya, La Illaha,  
Illallah' (what does freedom mean, there is no god but god), a slogan  
that disturbs Shri Shri Chanchal Malviya so much, then no doubt I  
would be told, that I am behaving with the deviousness particular to  
intellectuals.

I am indeed, needlessly and perversely, showing how two phenomena,  
can be considered as identical based on a structural analyses of the  
reasons why a parallel set of objections are brought to bear on them  
by two mutually exclusive constituencies.

  My sin would be all the worse because as far as I am concerned,  
since I am neither a believing Hindu nor a believing Muslim, I  
couldn't care less about how believing Hindus and Muslims continued  
to confuse either a) territory with a goddess unknown to me or, b)  
freedom with declarations of fidelity towards a deity towards whom I  
am indifferent.

All I care for is that people, especially me, should not have to do  
things they do not want to do. This includes singing 'Vande Mataram'  
which I do not sing, because my mother is a human being whom I love  
and cherish, nor a state that i pay taxes to or a goddess who  
controls my destiny. This also includes identifying freedom with the  
acknowledgement of the absence of Allah as much as with his presence  
in anyone's consciousness.

This includes whispering to myself, on occasion, in the spirit of  
Sarmad, the agnostic and free thinking Jewish-Muslim sufi poet of  
eighteenth century Delhi, (whose memory is dear to me),  'Azadi ka  
Matlab kya, La Illaha' (and so omitting, like Sarmad, to say '  
illallah' which changes everything). Freedom or 'Azaadi' would be  
hollow for me if it did not include the right to drop the 'but God',  
if one so wished, afer saying 'There is no God'. The muslim zealots  
of eighteenth century Delhi decapitated Sarmad for his quiet  
reticence with regard to 'illallah', just as many hindu zealots of  
today would no doubt have no hesitation in endorsing violence upon  
those reluctant to say 'vande matram'.

I say this in anticipation of my patriotic fellow list members rising  
to the occasion, with yet another round of 'intellectual bashing'  
because who but an 'intellectual' would defend the right to remain  
silent while 'Vande Mataram' is belted out. The sneer with which this  
word is written is not at all invisible, or inaudible.

So, I thought, that  since begin an intellectual is clearly a  
sickness at best and a sin at worst, calling a moron a moron would be  
paying an 'anti-intellectual' a compliment. After all, they might  
take great offence to being called 'intellectual'. In fact I did some  
thinking about what it is to be a 'moron'.

I apologize (again in advance) for the devious, seditious, anti- 
national, un-patriotic, deeply insensitive 'thought crime' of having  
looked up some etymological resources while writing this, (and the  
previous offensive post) and this is what I found.
--------
On the word 'MORON'

The word MORON (foolish, stupid, idiot) derives from the Latin  
'morus', which is a transliteration of the Greek μωρός (moros;  
fοοlish, stupid).

In modern Greek derivatives of  μωρός continue to be used for a  
wide variety of words, amongst them

α) μωρός: stupid, foolish [moros]
β) μωρία: folly, stupidity [moria]
γ) μωρό: baby [moro]
δ) μωρολογία: nonsense, idle talk [morologia]
ε) μωραίνω: stupefy, drive mad [moreno]

In 1911, French psychologists Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon created  
the first modern intelligence test, which measured intelligence  
(hence the "intelligence quotient". or IQ) based on whether children  
could accomplish tasks like pointing to their nose (honestly) and  
counting pennies.

The concept of "IQ" followed soon after, and psychologists fell so  
deeply in love with the scientific nature of the tests that they  
created classification systems. Any child with an IQ of above 70 was  
considered "normal," while those with scores above 130 were  
considered "gifted."

To classify scores below 70, psychologists invented a nomenclature of  
retardation. Those with IQs between 51 and 70 were called morons.  
Morons had adequate learning skills to complete menial tasks and  
communicate. Imbeciles, with IQs between 26 and 50, never progressed  
past a mental age of about six. And the lowest of all were the  
idiots, with IQ between 0 and 25, who were characterized by poor  
motor skills, extremely limited communication, and little response to  
stimulus.

Today the classification system is one category broader - moron,  
imbecile, and idiot have been replaced with mild, moderate, severe,  
and profound retardation - and diagnostic factors other than IQ are  
considered in making a diagnosis.

------

Now, I said 'Chancal, you moron' with a very precise intention. It  
was not meant as a term of abuse, rather, as a term that recognized  
Chanchal's formidable abilities. As an intellectual, I confess to the  
terrible crime of being partial to thinking carefully about the words  
I choose. Chanchal is clearly a person who can abundantly communicate  
his antipathy towards people who do not share his 'Hindutva' agenda  
and can people  complete the menial task of hitting 'send' after  
having composed yet another vitriolic mail. So, I though, calling him  
a moron, would be totally appropriate to my assessment of his  
intellectual abilities. Calling him an imbecile or an idiot would be  
clearly imprecise. He is far more intelligent and lucid, (no offence  
meant) in my opinion, in comparison to an imbecile or an idiot.

However, I have now realized, that the real problem and objection on  
this list (on the part of our 'hindutva-vadi' and 'indian  
nationalist' or 'patriotic' list members) is towards being considered  
an 'intellectual' (except, of course, if you can imitate the  
semanticl acrobatics of Praveen Swami). Any unqualified suggestion  
towards intellectual proclivities (even if empirically sustainable)  
is insulting in and of itself.

Hence, I apologize for the offence of inadvertently insulting  
Chanchal Malviya by calling him a 'moron' and imputing to him or her  
thereby a degree of intellect he or she clearly does not have and has  
no desire to possess.  If the word 'moron' which does indicate a  
borderline ability to marshall 'intellectual' resources, is deemed  
offensive, it can easily replaced by any one of the two other words  
('imbecile' and 'idiot' that are part of the (now largely disused)  
Binet-Simon diagnostic scale).

Since I do not wish to commit myself to further inaccuracy, I invite  
Chanchal Malviya to choose whichever of the two words he or she feels  
is more in keeping with his/her distance from the shameful state of  
being an 'intellectual'.

With an abject apology for the condition of being a recidivist  
'intellectual', which, try as hard as I might, I seem not to be able  
to repair, I appeal, if not to the understanding, then at least to  
the mercy of those who are lucky to be morons, (or even better)  
imbeciles and idiots. Truly, this blissful state is their patrimony.  
I can only feel envious of their confidence in themselves.

regards,

Shuddha.