[Reader-list] What after MNIC? The MIND, the final frontier.
Kshmendra Kaul
kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com
Sun Apr 12 20:18:26 IST 2009
Dear Taha
Not only are you a filthy liar, but a shameless one at that too.
I say that on the basis of the following words used by you:
""""" Kshmendra Kaul's defense that 'MNIC could be used to weed out terrorists' """"""
I welcome anyone who has read this thread to confirm this statement of yours with evidence from what I have written. I welcome you to do it. I have just called you a shameless filthy liar. Can you prove me wrong?
For those who might be interested and have not followed this thread, I am reproducing it below.
You also did not have the courage of your convictions to accept my offer that you name some people who can objectively read the full thread and judge whether 'reason' has been used by you or me.
Kshmendra
--- On Sun, 4/12/09, 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
Cc: "reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 7:03 PM
Dear Kshmedra (Dear ALL)
Your response is nothing but a red-herring argument therefore I do find my self
compelled to reply.
I would rather bring back the discussion back to, from where it started, in
this regard please allow me to invite all those who are reading this post right
now :-)
Resolved O:-)
Kshmendra Kaul's defense that 'MNIC could be used to weed out
terrorists' was a STUPID thing.
I would urge everyone to please respond to this mail with a simple yes or no.
With warm regards
Taha--- On Sun, 4/12/09, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] What after MNIC? The MIND, the final frontier.
To: "reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>, "Taha Mehmood" <2tahamehmood at googlemail.com>
Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 5:41 PM
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
>
--- On Thu, 4/9/09, 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: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 10:05 PM
Dear Khsmendra
Thank you for your post.
Please allow me to reply with utmost sincerity the most well thought out and
valid points raised in your post.
1. In the mail below, you state-Did I say that Taha supports the MNIC or that
Taha holds the premise that MNIC will weed out terrorists.
In the mail, below the mail below, you state- I would have presumed that you
have read your own postings on this List regarding MNIC. One of the premises on
which the support for MNIC is based is that it will help weed out terrorists.
- So it seems that YES you did mean, inadvertently perhaps, that I support an
outrageous premise the MNIC would be used to help weed out terrorist, since
there seems to be no other person, in the recent past, who have consistently
posted on and about MNIC as I have.
And for the sake of clarity please allow me to state -I have never, I REPEAT, I
HAVE NEVER ever, uttered that MNIC could be used to weed out terrorists. That
would deplorable on my part.
2. You state- 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 confirmation :
http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/2009-January/017420.html
I most humbly thank you for providing the link and I would be very grateful if
you could kindly go through the post and then share it with members of the
reader list, which reasonably proves, that I have indeed written a
fantastically
imagined premise that 'MNIC is indeed needed to weed out terrorists'.
On earlier occasions, I have made everyone known that in so far as my position
on MNIC is concerned being an Indian citizen, if my government choose to
provide
for a MNIC card, then I will also have one. But please rest assured in all
these four years, had I ever read, sensed or concluded by a cursory or a
detailed reading of papers related to MNIC, that MNIC is also going to be used
to weed out terrorists, then, I would have used every conceivable way to
reasonably argue against such a card. The reason being thus- A statement which
contends that, 'MNIC will be used to weed out terrorists' assumes, that
it is known to the members of the state, who all will reasonably come under the
category of 'Terrorist'. Thus any person who satisfies all the criteria
of being a 'Terrorist' may be reasonably granted the status of a
'Terrorist' but as we all know that 'Terrorist' is a highly
unclear category. There does not exist a clear definition of the term. There is
a lot of scope for categorical slippage. Therefore no government agency
anywhere in this world has thus far made an audaciously foolish proposal
to capture 'Terrorists' while using a biometric National identity
card. Although it may not be ruled that as far as the realm of fantasy is
concerned there might be exist many deranged officials out there who might be
thinking of subjecting the national identity card regime to such a use.
It gives me utmost satisfaction to know that there exists at least one person
on this list who is a regular reader of my posts, I, with, bowed hands am
grateful to you, however, I think, it would bring me all the more joy, if you
could, not only read but deduce reasonably, my rather inarticulate sketches on
the proposed Multiple purpose National Identity Card.
Warm regards
Taha
Kshmendra Kaul wrote:
> Dear Taha
> If past experiences with you were not enough and I needed confirmation on
the bizzare nature of your personality, you have just provided it.
> You obviously did not read properly what I wrote and it appears that you
do not read what you yourself post.
> My words were "One of the premises on which the support for MNIC is
based is that it
> will help weed out terrorists. A physical identity mapping."
> Did I say that Taha supports the MNIC or that Taha holds the premise that
MNIC will weed out terrorists. Read properly what I have written and then
decide
whether you are justified in the content and tone of your response to me.
> 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
confirmation :
http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/2009-January/017420.html
> Your responses to my postings seem to be triggered by some preconcieved
notions about me and prejudices aghainst me that prevent you from thinking or
speaking rationally. Your problem, not mine.
> I must be one of the very few people on this List who read every single
one of your MNIC postings. Read not scan through. MNIC fascinates me even as it
disturbs me.
> I would have further commented on the co-relationships that do exist in
the premises regarding 'weeding out terrorists' in both the MNIC and
the
"human cognitive' technology, but you Sir are a Closed Mind. Why waste
your time and mine.
> Kshmendra.
>
>
> --- On *Thu, 4/9/09, 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
> Cc: "reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>, "Taha
Mehmood"
> <2tahamehmood at googlemail.com>
> Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 6:47 PM
>
> Dear Kshmendra
>
> Your reply surprises me even more, for in my postings not only have I
never
> mentioned anywhere that MNIC would help weed our terrorists but also
that, had I
> mentioned any such preposterous a thing, then I would have certainly
reflected
> the said issue in detail.
>
> I am especially observant of the ways in which the social category of
a
> 'terrorist' is formed.
>
> The reason why it surprises me is because of all the persons who might
have
> interpreted my posting I would not have ever imagined you to read them
in such a
> manner.
>
> Further more in all my postings, I have tried to raise questions which
might
> help us think through the most fundamental question- what do we mean
by MNIC. In
> this regard I have time and again tried to illustrate by the way of
specific
> examples and by broad theoretical conceptualizations that it appears
as if, the notion central to MNIC card , like that of identity is
fundamentally
> unresolved.
>
> I find the idea of MNIC with its unresolved core quite a curious case
and to
> equate it to this seemingly bizzare technology is indeed uncalled for.
Therefore
> could I hope that in all future forwards to this list, you would
exercise some
> restraint before drawing any unwarranted co-relationships?
>
> Regards
>
> Taha
>
>
> Kshmendra Kaul wrote:
> > Dear Taha
> > Your question surprises me. I would have presumed that you have
read your
> own postings on this List regarding MNIC.
> > One of the premises on which the support for MNIC is based is
that it
> will help weed out terrorists. A physical identity mapping.
> > This reported attempt to develop "human cognitive"
technology
> also presumes that it will help weed out terrorists. A Mind mapping.
> > Kshmendra > > --- On *Thu, 4/9/09, 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: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 12:18 AM
> > > Dear Kshmendra (and All)
> > > This is with respect to your post. Could you please
explain what has
> the
> > development of this new technology got to do with National
Identity
> Cards
> > because on the face to it, they seem like two un-related
events. I
> would be more
> > than happy to benefit from your insights.
> > > Regards
> > > Taha
> > > > >
More information about the reader-list
mailing list