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

[Kshmendra Kaul]

Dear Taha
 
This is a very interesting response from you. Interesting 'posting' by you.
 
1. You wrote "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."
 
- What I have wanted to interpret is your responses. Certainly you do not mean to say that there is 'nothing reasonable' in what your responses have been. That is too harsh even if it were to come from me who has seen very little rationality being demonstrated by you.
 
- Perhaps you meant to say that my interpretations of your responses are not reasonable. I will disagree with that. 
 
- Even if this were true, which it is not, it would still not justify your dictate there is no need for me to see reason in your posts. That is a stupid advisory.
 
2. You have called my mail 'seemingly logical'. You have not cared to explain that tag. If later in your 'posting' you think you have provided evidence for that, you are terribly mistaken and in fact have badly faltered as I will point out. 
 
3. You have concluded (on the basis of unconnected and quoted out of context attitudes attributed to me) that for me " slandering a person or relying heavily on fallacies like ad hominem are the only rhetorical crutches you have." A generalisation about me but more importantly you have not given any explanation for that on the basis of this particular thread. Noted your comments though and I disagree with your conclusion.
 
4. You wrote " It is painful, Khsmendra, to see you  first utter a stupid thing and then defend it in this manner."
 
- I sympathise with your pain. I will request you to specifically quote the 'stupid thing' I have uttered. 
 
LET ME NOW COME TO what has been at the crux of this exchange between you and me.
 
5. You wrote "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."
 
- You used the word 'posted' for your sending to this List 'four full length papers'. Interestingly you used the word 'posting' also for sending to this List ' news articles and other material'. 
 
- With this construct of your sentence you contradict yourself and decimate  the  differentiation you immediately after in your 'posting' try to bring about between "forwards" and "posts" when you write (later) 
 
" ... 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"
 
6. You wrote "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."
 
- Of course you did not and when you first highlighted that in our exchanges I confirmed that understanding of "your posting". 
 
7. One of the problems with you in our exchanges has been my usage of term "your postings". This in spite of my clarifying that by 'your posting' I did not mean that you agreed with or subscribed with all that was contained in "your posting".
 
- Now in this "posting" you contradict yourself by giving two different interpretations of "posting"
 
- Any such interpretation by you would be totally incorrect that "posting" should be taken as meaning that the one 'posting' is necessarily the author of the contents of the "posting" (words, pics, audios, videos) or subscribes to or agrees with the contents of the "posting". A "posting"  could be of a "forward" too. 
 
- In the Web World a "posting" could be simply described as "  an e-mail message that is publicly available"
 
- Here another reference for the word "posting" :   
A message sent to a newsgroup or mailing list (may also be called "a post") or the act of sending it. Distinguished from a "letter" or ordinary electronic mail message by the fact that it is broadcast rather than point-to-point. It is not clear whether messages sent to a small mailing list are postings or e-mail; perhaps the best dividing line is that if you don't know the names of all the potential recipients, it is a posting.
 
8. So Taha, now having hopefully convinced you about what is meant by "posting" (a view you yourself also have held as shown in Pt 5,) your comment of   "fundamental error of assumption in 1.c and 1d" becomes invalid.
 
9. I had earlier written :
" 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."

For this I had brought to your attention your "posting" http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/2009-January/017420.html
 
- In your response while explaining some of the contents of that particular "posting" of yours, you also wrote:
 
"""""  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. """""
-  How do these words of yours contradict my contention that a)  "premise exist in the country that the "MNIC will help weed out terrorists"?"" AND b)  "you yourself.. (have).. spoken about this premise." ??
 
- You have only confirmed what I had written and yet for some strange reason still choose to be argumentative about it.
 
You have signed off your 'posting' with the expectation that there will be "some amount reasonableness in discourse".
 
I do not agree with you that I have not used 'reason', but I do accuse you of irrational responses and attempts to misinterpret my words and presumptions about what I have written (or think) for which you have no evidence. 
 
It might be a good idea to ask a third person to objectively study the exchanges between us and decide on who has resorted to reason and who has not. Is that acceptable to you? If it is, please do suggest some names and I might find one of them acceptable or suggest some others for you to choose from.
 
Kshmendra 


--- On Sat, 4/11/09, Taha Mehmood <2tahamehmood at googlemail.com> wrote:

From: Taha Mehmood <2tahamehmood at googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] What after MNIC? The MIND, the final frontier.
To: kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com, "reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Saturday, April 11, 2009, 10:04 PM

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  
>