[Reader-list] To Taha Mehmood

[Taha Mehmood]

Dear Kshmendera

Thank you for your response.

May I say that I still do not understand your argument. The reason
being, there seems to be a lack of clarity in your position. Let me
explain why I think in this manner. I may be off the mark in thinking
like this and I would look forward to your reply. But first my
rational-

We have been talking about MNIC. In other words one can argue that we
have been discussing about MNIC. This discussion has been looking into
the nature of a national identity card. This discussion has, at the
same time, veered itself away from addressing any anxiety with respect
to any (non-existent) policy implication. This is to suggest that this
discussion or exchange of ideas have tried to inspect, inquire and
investigate the idea of identity from as many different perspectives
as possible.

 The Multiple Purpose National Identity Card is going to be National
Identity Card for India. A National Identity Card, in a contemporary
context, is a smart identity card. I have been trying to convey in all
these mails that there seems to be a fundamental confusion regarding
the most basic, most rudimentary idea of identity. It is like
wondering, if a national identity card is like a wall made of bricks
of identity, then, how can we have a wall that lasts, if we do not
know the nature of a single brick used to make that wall.

Any discussion on MNIC or any other national identity card or a smart
identity card, which clearly lays down a rigorous analysis of the idea
of such an identity document will invariably touch upon the idea of
identity. Because for the most linear reason, which is this- Any
identity card or identity document or a smart identity document, of
which a national identity card in nothing, but a scalar extrapolation,
not only emanates but follows through the works and reflections of
people who for the last two thousand or so years have intermittently
thought on and about, the idea of identity. In the thinking of these
people the idea of identity is articulated through notional category
of collective identity, categorical identity, subjective identity,
objective identity, racial identity, gendered identity etc, not to
forget individual identity.

One way of looking at MNIC or any national identity card is to look at
through the prism of knowledge. I do not think we could have been
exchanging these mails had all those people had not thought or
reflected or written their thoughts for the last two thousand or so
years. Hence one will be not wrong to think that embedded, in the idea
of a smart card or a national identity card, is the thought of these
people on -identity-.

The point being it follows that any comment or a value judgment on any
discussing on MNIC card which is a smart card which is an identity
document which puts to practice while borrowing the thoughts of people
who have pushed the conceptual boundaries of identity forward should
and must include a discussion or an exchange of arguments, on the idea
of identity.

Because any other form of engagement in this discussion would be
irrational. For instance in order to understand the nature of boiled
rice we have to closely look into and exercise reason and make efforts
to know the nature of steam and properties of pressure and volume and
heat and energy. And then we have to determine what causes what, which
must be followed with further testing whether such an experiment could
be replicated anywhere or whether such an experiment is bound by time
and space. I do not think we can have a reasonable discussion on the
nature of boiled rice without understanding how other variables work.

In your last response, like in your responses earlier on many other
threads on or about national identity cards, you have presented us
with a view that because of a lack of grasp over the nature of the
idea of identity you would like to be excused from participating in
any such discussion.

Fair Enough!

Then we get to read this-

> you did not 'trivialise' the topic of MNIC but you 'trivialised' the
> discussion on it.

What I understand is this, that in order to make a value judgment on
any such matter, it is assumed that the person making such value
judgments is in the know of things, knows what is being talked about,
knows the discourse and knows the debate and in the light of all the
knowledge takes a stance that X's utterance on Y topic is akin to
'trivializing' the discussion around it because discussion has evolved
from A to B and f,g,h, i, j, k  have said so and so these positions
were refuted by so and so and agreed upon by so and so.

In other words If for a moment we equate MNIC to boiled rice, which in
many ways it is, like a finished product, then we need a thorough
investigation of all the other variables which were used to prepare
this product. What I do not understand is this, that how is one to
measure the seriousness of someone's argument who while talking about
the nature of  boiled rice, excuses himself about clarifying his views
on rice itself, forget about articulating any stance on temperature,
volume, pressure, heat, water, steam or energy and then goes about
passing value judgments.

How is anyone to believe in the words of a person that such and such
rice is delicious or bad or does not taste right or tastes awful.

Regards

Taha