[Reader-list] To Taha Mehmood

[Kshmendra Kaul]

Dear Taha
 
No problem. I will rephrase what I tried to convey.
 
Before doing that, I must admit to my guilt. My ability to express myself in English does not match your understanding of the language. 
 
But, perhaps Taha you could be a bit considerate and patiently make an effort to understand what is being said. The same consideration and patience that at least I, if not others too, show towards the profusion of postings from you on the very important topic of MNICs.
 
No, I will not state or argue that the issue of MNIC is 'trivial'. So I am ignoring your subsequent lecture taking off from ' MNIC in a material sense is nothing but a summation of triviality'. That is your philosophical take on it. You are welcome to it. 
 
Nor do I find 'trivial' your arguments about MNIC.  
 
What I tried to convey in my last post was that you 'trivialised' the discussion by making a comment that is not befitting of a 'person of research' that you are. Since you seem to be confused, I will restate it; you did not 'trivialise' the topic of MNIC but you 'trivialised' the discussion on it. I will explain
 
Your comment that I am referring to  "I find it amusing as I do not understand why there seems to be so much of faith in a smart id card to deliver us from all the ill that India is facing right now ........."
 
Who's position is it that "...a smart id card (will) ..deliver us from all the ill that India is facing right now"? ALL THE ILL???? Who has said that the MNIC will deliver us from 'all the ill that India is facing right now?
 
By attributing such a position to those who might be in favour of the MNIC, you misrepresent (and misinterpret) arguments. Thereby you trivialise the discussion and also inject falsity into your research.
 
I called ridiculous your analogy of "doctor / patient / untested-drug" because of the same unsubstantiated above comment of yours. The premise on which the the analogy was put forward did not exist. So the analogy was inapt.
 
There are those who speak in favour of having a MNIC and how it will be beneficial in various spheres. Then there are those who question the efficacy of the MNIC. Only an idiot will argue or state that the MNIC will "deliver India from all ill" and only an idiot will argue or state that the MNIC will be of no benefit at all.
 
I can understand and appreciate your fears about the MNIC in terms of  ' abuse of privacy'; 'possibilities of abuse by the State'; ' expenditure outlay that could be better directed' as well as 'questions about establising identity or erasing identity'. Unfortunately, I am not competent or knowledgeable enough to engage with you on these issues. Others on this List are and will. Some already have brainstormed with you over the philosophy of 'identity'. 
 
Kshmendra


--- On Tue, 2/3/09, Taha Mehmood <2tahamehmood at googlemail.com> wrote:

From: Taha Mehmood <2tahamehmood at googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] To Taha Mehmood
To: kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com
Cc: "reader-list at sarai.net" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2009, 12:44 AM



Dear Kshmendra
 
I am sorry I could not understand your argument at all. Could you please elaborate as to what it is that you want to convey? I am floored by your acute eye for detail  and in applying your analytical faculties in coming to a conclusion that you find my interpretation of arguments concerning MNIC, trivial. 
 
Please do not get perturbed because I think as far as the plethora of issues in India is concerned, perhaps it could be argued that MNIC is trivial. 
 
There is nothing in wrong in an issue to be interpreted as trivial as long as one can create new imaginations, newer meanings in that triviality. Come to think of it, MNIC in a material sense is nothing but a summation of triviality. The chip which is going to be in the card is a trivial piece of plastic and silicon. The information which this chip contains will be in trivial bytes and bites. The gigantic archive which a national population register will become eventually will be formed of trivial doses of information. Not only that, MNIC will be used for rather trivial purposes like buying a bus ticket or a train ticket or opening a bank account or going to school. I shall not show surprise if a future government issues an order for a MNIC reader to be installed in all auto rickshaws and all our trivial rides in a city is recorded through a reader. Hence perhaps I am not be that off the mark in engaging in a trivial interpretation of MNIC. At the same
 time I do not think that just because a thing can be imagined as trivial, we must not bother to accord it any seriousness. I think that even in its triviality MNIC presents us with a serious set of questions. I have on my part tried to raise some of the questions that I forsee in the idea of a national identity card. I do not want to argue either in favour or against the introduction of national identity card because I feel that it is a policy matter and as I have said time and again I am not capable to influence any policy. I am interested in the idea of a national identity card. And I would very much like to hear what you think about this idea. 
 
Regards 
 
Taha
 
 --- On Mon, 2/2/09, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] To Taha Mehmood
To: "Taha Mehmood" <2tahamehmood at googlemail.com>
Cc: "reader-list at sarai.net" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Monday, February 2, 2009, 5:38 PM

Dear Taha
 
You wrote ".... faith in a smart id card to deliver us from all the ill
that India is facing
right now"
 
It is your interpretation that it will "deliver us from all the ill".
It is sad to see you (a person of research) trivialising arguments that might
have been given in favour of the MNIC and misinterpreting them so that you can
be sarcasticaly dismissive . You go on to give a  ridiculous analogy of doctor
/ patient / untested-drug.
 
Kshmendra
 
--- On Sun, 2/1/09, Taha Mehmood <2tahamehmood at googlemail.com> wrote:

From: Taha Mehmood <2tahamehmood at googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] To Taha Mehmood
To: "Sandeep" <vashsand at hotmail.com>
Cc: "reader-list at sarai.net" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Sunday, February 1, 2009, 6:51 PM

Dear Sandeep

Thank you for your response.

I find your argument compelling not because of its tone of resignation or
because it suggests an epicurean view to engage with the social world but
because in your argument I feel an urge to let go the dominant ideas of the
day and move on.

There is of course nothing wrong in following a line of thinking where one
consciously rejects any exercise to interpret dominant ideas in order to
generate new forms of meaning instead take these ideas as given and carrying
on with one's life. However, in my view and my sensibility as a researcher,
which is very limited and limiting field in many ways, I would rather invest
as much time and energy as I could in investigating these ideas, while
suspending judgment and making new meaning. The reason being, it think, it
is a worthwhile time-pass to inquire into the relationship between a man and
his environment. This is not to compare it with or negate an epicurean view
that you so lucidly suggests but to assert that an inquiry into ideas is not
unworthy at all.

In this regard if we view our life as a journey in a sea of ideas, the
current of identity attracts me the most. This current, must I add, is a
strong current, a deep current and a current which seems to be moving a lot
of other ideas of this day. From what ever little I have inquired into the
origins of this current, I have come up with no clear answer. We as a human
race have existed for over five thousand years. Many people have come and
gone in this time. Some of them when they were alive took time off from
drinking beer to think and reflect on this current of identity. But still we
do not have a clear picture as to how this current originated, evolved and
turned into this great force which seems to sweeping us all.

If there is fundamental conceptual confusion on hand, on the other there
seems to be a superficial confidence on part of the national governments and
the corporates regarding identity. And it seems that in pursuit of
harnessing profit and power they have found two legitimizing arguments- one
is poverty and the other is (in)security. We all know how callous any form
of power is when it comes to servicing the needs of the most vulnerable
sections of a society, hence instead of diverting our money which it takes
taxes, to make sure that poorest of the poor get two square meals of food a
day, power of the day is indulging in new excuses, like now it wants
everyone to be fingerprinted to be identified as its own. What does this
tells us-firstly, does power thinks that all of us are criminals? because
finger printing till yesterday was only done on criminals and secondly, even
after repeatedly carrying out identification exercises for over last one
hundred and thirty years, power is not able to either comprehensively
conjecture or comprehensively speculate about the nature of identity.

I find it amusing as I do not understand why there seems to be so much of
faith in a smart id card to deliver us from all the ill that India is facing
right now because we do not know what the 'I' in MNIC stands for or
what
'id' in a smart id card means.

Imagine this- Picture our nation as a body. Now this body is afflicted with
twin diseases-poverty and (in)security. Imagine the market (the corporates,
the MNC's, the producers and manufacturers) as an expert. Like a doctor.
Now
this doctor tells the patient to take a drug, in this case, it is a smart id
card. The person whose body it is takes this drug trusting the doctor. The
doctor takes his fee and scoots off. Now you tell me what will happen to the
body, if the drug is made of some known and some unknown chemicals? Will the
body react favourably to such a treatment? or Will the body look forward to
more such doses?

Just think about it.

We can always have more conversations on this.

Warm regards

Taha