[Reader-list] What after MNIC? The MIND, the final frontier.

[Taha Mehmood]

Dear Kshmendra

Neither your ability to express in English is atrociously inadequate nor 
my understanding of the language is extremely poor. There is no need for 
you to see reason in my posts, because there seems to be nothing 
reasonable in what you want to interpret.

However, I thank you for the pain that you seem have taken to write a 
seemingly logical mail but I am sorry to say that your post appears just 
that, 'seemingly logical'.
In my earlier exchanges with you I used to get quite worked up by your 
generous use of adjectives but now it seems to me, that it is not for no 
reason that you rely on adjectives so much. Since you have, on many 
occasions made absolutely clear to the members of this list, about your 
disapproval for theory, your loathe for detailed discussions, and your 
impatience for views which dwell on core conceptual formulations, I 
think one can safely conclude that for you, slandering a person or 
relying heavily on fallacies like ad hominem are the only rhetorical 
crutches you have. It is painful, Khsmendra, to see you  first utter a 
stupid thing and then defend it in this manner.

But  having said that, since you have, I respect your effort, so please 
allow me to answer the points you have raised.

1.a. There are quite a number of posting on this List, by you, on the 
MNIC issue.

-That's true.

1.b. These posting of yours regarding MNIC have predominantly 
been reproductions of News Items that directly or indirectly refer to 
the MNIC. Occasionally they have been accompanied by your own comments. 
There have been other postings by you regarding MNIC which have 
contained only your comments.

-That's correct. This is in addition to four full length papers, which i 
have posted on the list before i began posting news articles and other 
materials.

1.c When I was drawing your attention to " ..... your own postings on 
this List regarding MNIC." I was referring to the complete contents of 
your postings including the reproduced News Items plus your own comments 
and NOT your own comments alone. Isn't that the fairer understanding of 
the term "your postings"?

- I would not like to think so. Because in all those instances when I 
was forwarding News Items or papers I was in a way doing the job of a 
researcher. Which is to re-search and collect data. I did not filter out 
those messages where I had a fundamental disagreement with either the 
content or the formulation or theoretical assumptions of those messages. 
So they were not my posts but my forwards and I did not agree to the 
content or the context of the structure of the argument of the some of 
the mails yet I forwarded them.

1.d Similarly, when I said that "One of the premises on which the 
support for MNIC is based is that it will help weed out terrorists." and 
made reference to " ..... your own postings on this List regarding 
MNIC.", I was again referring to the complete contents of your postings 
including the reproduced News Items plus your own comments and NOT your 
own comments alone. Isn't that the fairer understanding of the term 
"your postings"?

- No that is not a fairer understanding of the term 'your posting'.

1e, 1f, 2a, 2b,2c

- Does not apply because of fundamental error of assumption in 1.c and 1d

2.d. In the link of your posting that I had provided, you have commented 
along the following lines:
 
- issue of infiltration and security on the Indian Border.

That's true. I have.
 
- political class of our country hell bent ....create a particular 
perception of fear and security and dole National Identity Card as the 
sole solution

That's correct.
 
- don't want to go in for a blame-the-politician- argument for our 
social ills, because certainly terrorist attacks happen

That's correct.
 
- insofar as the issue of Multiple Purpose National Identity is 
concerned, the consensus building exercise for the issuance of the card 
seems to tread multiple lines of argument

That is also right.
 
- .... Kargil War occurs-for which intrusion is blamed-fencing of border 
areas is peddled as a solution ......distribution of identity cards is 
forwarded as a second option ..... Premise seems to be that MINC will 
alleviate intrusion of all illegal foreigners.

That is right too.
 
- 'Terror' Strikes- Islamic 'terrorists' blamed-since one cannot 
differentiate between a Pakistani Muslim from a Bangladeshi Muslim from 
an Indian Muslim from an Indian Hindu, identification of all people is 
peddled as a solution- (Separating wheat from the chaff argument) 
Premise seems to be that 'Good' Muslims would be separated from 'Bad' 
Muslims.

That is also right but isn't it clear that there is one core concept 
here is citizenship. MNIC is peddled as a token to weed out citizens 
from non citizens. And in the context of 'Islamic Terror' I was 
referring to the  proposed use of MNIC to weed out an Indian Muslim, who 
is also a law abiding, tax paying citizen in other words a 'good muslim' 
versus a 'bad muslim' who wants to harm the idea of India by cloaking 
himself in Indian identity or citizenship to evade detection. The issue 
here was same to weed out citizens from non citizens. More ever, 'good 
muslim' 'bad muslim' was deliberately used as a reference point to the 
work of Mahmud Mamdani by the same name. Wherein he dwells at length 
about the ways in which social constructs like 'good muslim' or 'bad 
muslim' came into being and how these constructs are intricately woven 
into the discourse of modern nation states and how they prefigure in 
policies and governmental attitudes, especially when it comes to 
according religious minorities like muslims the status of citizens. The 
word 'terrorists' which you have so underlined was used a background to 
suggest that this is one the ways by which the idea of a national 
identity card is being proposed. The MNIC is not being proposed to 'weed 
out terrorists' but it is assumed that 'Pakistani Muslims or Bangladeshi 
Muslims' are sometimes involved in 'terrorist attacks' hence MNIC could 
act as a filter to weed out Pakistani or Bangladeshi nationals or citizens.

If you want to have more discussions on this then I will be more than 
happy to respond to your mails. At the same time, I expect with all 
sincerity some amount reasonableness in discourse.

With warm regards

Taha



kshmendra Kaul wrote:
> Dear Taha
>  
> Either my ability to express myself in English is atrociously 
> inadequate, or your understanding of the language is extremely poor. I 
> see no other reason for what otherwise appears as a persistent 
> compulsion of yours to give such a spin on what has been stated by me 
> that you completely alter the meaning and import of words.
>  
> Against the points now raised by you, let me attempt conveying my 
> comments with greater clarity.
>  
> 1.a. There are quite a number of posting on this List, by you, on the 
> MNIC issue.
>  
> 1.b. These posting of yours regarding MNIC have predominantly 
> been reproductions of News Items that directly or indirectly refer to 
> the MNIC. Occasionally they have been accompanied by your own 
> comments. There have been other postings by you regarding MNIC which 
> have contained only your comments.
>  
> 1.c When I was drawing your attention to " ..... your own postings on 
> this List regarding MNIC." I was referring to the complete contents of 
> your postings including the reproduced News Items plus your own 
> comments and NOT your own comments alone. Isn't that the fairer 
> understanding of the term "your postings"?
>  
> 1.d Similarly, when I said that "One of the premises on which the 
> support for MNIC is based is that it will help weed out terrorists." 
> and made reference to " ..... your own postings on this List regarding 
> MNIC.", I was again referring to the complete contents of your 
> postings including the reproduced News Items plus your own comments 
> and NOT your own comments alone. Isn't that the fairer understanding 
> of the term "your postings"?
>  
> 1.e There was no question of suggesting that you Taha either 'support 
> the MNIC' or that you personally hold a premise that the MNIC "will 
> help weed out terrorists". Your 'bowed hands .. grateful" (whatever 
> that means) sarcasm not withstanding, I have diligently been perusing 
> your postings regarding MNIC and I would be dishonest and would be 
>  misrepresenting the facts if I ascribed such positions to you.
>  
> 1.f There does seem to be this problem of either (my) lacking in 
> expression or (your) lacking in understanding so you can only take my 
> word for it. Or you can accuse me of dishonesty. Which is also fine 
> with me. 
>  
> 2.a. If perchance you have understood or accepted (in faith) my 
> comments above, it would be needless for me to explain your 
> misunderstanding of my having ascribed to Taha the belief that "MNIC 
> will help weed out terrorists" or holding that premise for "support 
> for MNIC" or being in "support of MNIC"
>  
> 2.b You would hopefully have understood that when I wrote  "One of the 
> premises on which the support for MNIC is based is that it  will help 
> weed out terrorists" it is something brought out in your postings 
> regarding MNIC and does not suggest it as being your position.
>  
> 2.c I did clarify this in the earlier posting too but you chose to 
> ignore it. Such a premise does exist in the country and it has 
> directly or indirectly been brought out in your postings.
>  
> 2.d. In the link of your posting that I had provided, you have 
> commented along the following lines:
>  
> - issue of infiltration and security on the Indian Border.
>  
> - political class of our country hell bent ....create a particular 
> perception of fear and security and dole National Identity Card as the 
> sole solution
>  
> - don't want to go in for a blame-the-politician- argument for our 
> social ills, because certainly terrorist attacks happen
>  
> - insofar as the issue of Multiple Purpose National Identity is 
> concerned, the consensus building exercise for the issuance of the 
> card seems to tread multiple lines of argument
>  
> - .... Kargil War occurs-for which intrusion is blamed-fencing of 
> border areas is peddled as a solution ......distribution of identity 
> cards is forwarded as a second option ..... Premise seems to be that 
> MINC will alleviate intrusion of all illegal foreigners
>  
> - 'Terror' Strikes- Islamic 'terrorists' blamed-since one cannot 
> differentiate between a Pakistani Muslim from a Bangladeshi Muslim 
> from an Indian Muslim from an Indian Hindu, identification of all 
> people is peddled as a solution- (Separating wheat from the chaff 
> argument) Premise seems to be that 'Good' Muslims would be separated 
> from 'Bad'
> Muslims.
>  
> 2.e Hopefully Taha, you will understand from the above 'guide words' 
> from your posting that there was no misrepresenting of you when I said 
> " Doesnt a premise exist in the country that the "MNIC will help weed 
> out terrorists"? Have you yourself not spoken about this premise. That 
> does not mean that you subscribe to it and neither have I attributed 
> it as so."
>  
> While trying to carefully structure this response to you I again 
> wondered whether I was wasting your time and mine.
>  
> Seeing the 'spin' you have given to my words, this one thing I am 
> convinced about though, that "Either my ability to express myself in 
> English is atrociously inadequate, or your understanding of the 
> language is extremely poor."
>  
>  
> Kshmendra 
>  
>
>