An Indian in Pakistan

HP #234 I think we need to forget ideologies and think of values instead. And a key value is the truth. A history textbook that seeks to promote an ideology instead of simply trying to present history as factually as possible does not do any good either to the student or to the nation. Similarly, the concept of a pakistan ideology, or an islamic ideology, is nonsense, imho. We could probably benefit from a compulsory ethics class in primary/secondary schools in pakistan where some key values (truth, mercy, keeping one`s word, honesty in one`s dealings, respect for all faiths and all communities and all cultures) could be discussed.

As for the all this nonsense from the indian posters - i have been on chowk much longer than you have been, and no longer take it seriously. These people come to chowk thinking that engaging in ``too-too-maiN-maiN`` (i.e. insults and arguments) is a form of National Defense. And the things you mentioned is their standard ammunition. The concept of a civilized discussion is alien to these individuals. Enough said. ;-)

HP #234
You need to read more carefully. I listed some of the topics on which discussion elicits the accusations of hatemongering.

``The alleged Pakistanis, who are involved in terrorist acts, if I go with Indian POV, are over 20 years in age so obviously, they went to schools, if at all they did, in a period when text books had no reference to Jihad, Kafir or Hindu.``

I have not said anywhere that Pakistanis involved in terrorist acts did so because they sudied jihad in schools. It is highly likely however that the general environment to which textbooks also contribute, promotes armed action by civilians.

In any case, if the material on jihad and Hindus was introduced into textbooks in the 70s(as seems to be AH Nayyar`s view), those who attended schools in the last 25 years would have studied them.

Since India and Paksitan have been almost at perpetual war in the last few years, those topics are indeed of interest to Indians seeking to understand it.


``Why a nuke threat should be an issue in the environment of wars, almost wars, and threats from both sides? ``

This is an odd question which I cannot understand.

``If Pakistan had nukes in closet before 1998, India did too. It is not that India sprung up nukes in 1998. In fact, India had nukes way before Pakistan ever did. ``

Again, I donot recall any Indian saying that the nuke threat on the subcontinent is one-sided, ie, only from Pakistan. The threat is certainly not one sided. IMO most Indians even understand the threat felt in Pakistan due to mismatched size of the two countries and due to the 1971 war.

However, here the point is that any discussion on Pakistan`s explicit nuclear threats to India before 1998 is called hatemongering. It is a matter of fact whether Pakistan made such threats or it didnot, accusing some chowkie of `hate` cannot change those facts.


``They are two different sets of policies of the Pakistan Govt. I am not going to debate the validity of the both but IMO; Indian just do not have enough moxie to deter Pakistan from interference in Kashmir w/o some bargaining and now Indian govt is alive to that.``

Yes, cerainly, but discussing this is called hatemongering. Let me see, Kashmir is disputed, so Pakistan can wage jihad and be justified but any Indians who speak about it are unjustified hatemongers? Would you prefer that chowkies pick up guns instead?

``what Indians have to do with that?``
You need to pay more attention. I stated in my post ``Except for 6 and 7, which are of tangential relevance to Indians, all other items are very relevant to Indians``.

AlephNull #231
``So it is quite possible that an older generation of expatriate Pakistanis have no direct experience of the heavily ideological K for kafir type text and simply don’t want to confront the current state of affairs, least of all after the taunts of Indians. Not creditable, but very, very human. ``

True.

AlephNull #233
Agreed.

`` This compartmentalization of course serves the interests of the ruling elite and its past ‘success’ may have lead to the expectation that it could be persisted with indefinitely. What has happened in the last five years is that scrutiny by international observers as well as the ready electronic dissemination of information has reached such a level that the manufactured lies no longer work.However the elite hasn’t yet come to terms with the new and unsettling state of affairs and still believes that it can media-manufacture a made-to-order reality on demand a la Mr. Pirzada and his ilk.``

Blaming `hatemongering` Indians for precipitating this state of affairs is the puzzling part of it. 9/11 is directly responsible for the scrutiny by international observers, and 9/11 wasnot engineered by Indians.

AlephNull #230
You are right appropriate is a better term than legitimate.

I remember reading a chowk article on Indian Dalits and the Durban conference on racism, written by an Pakistani expatriate. I donot recall any Indian asking why it is any Pakistani`s business.

HP#234
There is a difference between a govt. trying to interfere in the affairs of another country and private individuals discussing an issue. You can pick up any Pakistani newspaper on almost any day and they will be full of opinions on what India should or should do not do, the discussants on TV channels do the same. Nothing wrong with that.
In any case, on chowk, we all a bunch of nicks, there may be some Indians masquerading as Pakistanis and vice versa; similarly some muslims with hindu nicks and vice versa.

Sadna #227

{{Except for 6 and 7, which are of tangential relevance to Indians, all other items are very relevant to Indians and it is perfectly legitimate for Indians to discuss these, post references and viewpoints. However, departing from the official Pakistani point of view is immediately termed `hatemongering`.}}

I completely agree on the subjects being relevant to Indians. I do want to take issue with you on the subject of ‘legitimacy’.

In my opinion, the only defensible position is that it is legitimate for anybody at all to discuss, ask questions, make assertions, about any subject that he or she pleases. The only thing that should matter about someone’s questions, arguments, assertions, is: what is the answer, are the arguments sound, are the factual assertions valid. These things do not depend on the person who was the source of the question, assertion or argument.

So it’s quite legitimate for Romair to go on and on and on about ‘Indian HR violations in Kashmir,’ without once mentioning events in Gilgit, or Baluchistan, or Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, or for that matter Sudan. The only thing that should matter for Indians or anybody else is whether the man’s assertions are well-founded. Whether his alleged HR motivations are genuine or pure sham is incidental.

And it’s quite legitimate for dear old Hobbyty to go to town with palpable glee after the Gujarat killings. His questions are not something that we should resent or try to muzzle no matter that he doesn’t mean us well.

The next question is, whether one should always poke one’s nose into and pass comments into what is not originally one’s business – i.e. the question of desirability and appropriateness, not strict legitimacy. I’d hazard the opinion that cleaning up the affairs of a particular group of people should first be left to the people most directly affected, since they understand their ethos and their interests best of all. It is also strongly in their interest that they clean up the mess themselves before the neighbours complain and unsympathetic people arrive on the scene to force the issue. Once someone’s clogged drains or worse become a public nuisance, it is appropriate for everybody in the vicinity to comment and initiate action. For your items 1 through 5 the appropriateness test for Indians was passed long ago – since Indians are directly and severely affected by the actions of the Pakistani state and individual Pakistanis in these matters.

Sadna #227

{{The SDPI report is a case in point. Indian chowkies who raised this issue earlier have been consistently misled/lied to on this subject, as fellow chowk interactors, as Indians seeking to understand Pakistan, as persons who were abused as Hindus.

Not ONE of those who posted long posts obfuscating and spewing vitriol on Indians bothered to think to him/herself, `let me take a look at some textbooks when I get a chance and see what they say about Hindus, and verify whether I am right, or I am mistaken and there are indeed derogatory references to Indians/Hindus`. If they had had ANY honest purpose, they would have checked.}}

I have a comment here. I possess a copy of a slim Pakistani social studies book (in English) from the 1950s. It is ‘ Young Pakistan’ by Khan and Stark (OUP, 1951). The first chapter “A Sacred Trust” begins with a bland account of the process that lead to the formation of Pakistan, from a predictable Muslim League POV, but without overt bitterness, and ends with the disastrous ‘Objectives Resolution’ (hence, no doubt, ‘Sacred Trust’). Most of the rest of the book is remarkable for its matter-of-fact tone, lack of rancour, and general ‘liberal’ outlook. So it is quite possible that an older generation of expatriate Pakistanis have no direct experience of the heavily ideological K for kafir type text and simply don’t want to confront the current state of affairs, least of all after the taunts of Indians. Not creditable, but very, very human.

From the NYT article in #229
``In Slough, Sheik Omar spent much of his time Thursday night regaling his young followers with the erotic delights of paradise — sweet kisses and the pleasures of bathing with scores of women — while he also preached the virtues of death in Islamic struggle as a ticket to paradise.``

Sadna #227

{{The puzzling thing is that one can shut people up on chowk, but what of the world outside? It is evident MANY people in academia and media including in Pakistan, are ruminating and collecting information/understanding on all the topics listed, how will this chowk talk of hatemongering stop all those?}}

I suppose you’ve been following the surreal discussion on Mr. Pirzada’s board. I think it might aid insight to distinguish between an ideological state’s internal discourse (i.e. what is approved for and targeted at the mass of ones citizenry), the external discourse (targeted at the rest of the world, perhaps segmented for the West, for the Islamic countries, etc), and finally the ‘true state of affairs’ (I am assuming that there is such a thing).

I have reason to believe that there has been a split for a long time between Pakistan’s internal and external discourses. For instance, in external discourse directed towards the West, the Kashmir business is projected as an ‘indigenous freedom struggle’, an issue of ‘human rights’ and ‘self-determination’ to which Pakistan gives only ‘moral and diplomatic support’. The internal discourse meant for the awam and found in the Urdu press would be far more explicit about Kashmir as jihad against the kafir Indian, and the terms in which this is projected as a just and righteous struggle would be explicitly Islamic in tone. Of course both discourses would be manipulated by the ideological state’s managers to serve elite interests, and both would also misrepresent the ‘true state of affairs’.

This compartmentalization of course serves the interests of the ruling elite and its past ‘success’ may have lead to the expectation that it could be persisted with indefinitely. What has happened in the last five years is that scrutiny by international observers as well as the ready electronic dissemination of information has reached such a level that the manufactured lies no longer work. However the elite hasn’t yet come to terms with the new and unsettling state of affairs and still believes that it can media-manufacture a made-to-order reality on demand a la Mr. Pirzada and his ilk.

I went to school in Pakistan in an era when either the text books were secular or I just failed to read or understand them clearly. A debate is raging amongst Pakistanis on this board and in Pakistan about additions, or changes in the text books. There seems to be no let up in the criticism of the fundamental elements in Pakistan politics and their ideological grip on the country itself.

The gripe emerges when the issue is taken up from Indian POV.

Let’s look at the big picture first.
Countries go thru the ideological changes in cycles. We had socialism in Russia and now we don’t have it. The US itself has gone thru many ideological debates and currently it is in the grip of another huge ideological debate. This debate may define US role in international politics in the coming years.
India, itself has gone thru at least two substantial ideological changes. From a secular, socialist, and non-aligned country to now a Hinduvta, capitalist and not-so-non-aligned country.

Pakistan has gone thru some ideological changes too. From a pretty much secular country to Islamic socialism to Islamic fundamentalism and now it is slowly making a turn around towards a somewhat less fundamentalist country. People and intellectuals of different schools of thoughts in every country debate and vie for political ascendancy. Lack of democratic institutions had made this struggle in Pakistan bitter and emotional but this is still part of the process of political maturity that Pakistan has to go thru. Changes in Text books are not acts in isolation but a part of the overall struggle in Pakistan. This is an issue that Pakistanis are debating and that should be appreciated by all.

Now the Gripe part.

“Armed jihad in textbooks”
“Negative references to Hindus in textbooks”
“Public collection of funding for jihad against India”

Pakistan had sent armed persons before in Kashmir in 1948 and again in 1964. Indians had to deal with that before like they are dealing with it now. Without going into the merits of Kashmir case at this time, what changes in text book have to do with the Pakistan’s Kashmir policy? It is essentially the same policy. Pakistan has sent tribal in 1948, then freedom fighter in 1964 and now so called Jihadi. The action is essentially the same.
Why from Indian POV, the issue of Pakistan text book was unimportant then and why it is important now? The changes in the Text book took place some 20 odd years ago. The alleged Pakistanis, who are involved in terrorist acts, if I go with Indian POV, are over 20 years in age so obviously, they went to schools, if at all they did, in a period when text books had no reference to Jihad, Kafir or Hindu. At least I don’t recall any references to Jihadi, Kafir or Hindu or Kali when I was going to school and that certainly was more than 20 years ago.
Negative references to Hindus in Pakistani text books are reprehensible but still not an Indian issue. BJP is asking for changes in Indian text books. I have no knowledge of what those changes would be. How about some Indians open that subject on chowk and start a discussion to see how regressive or progressive those changes would be?

“Pakistani nuke threat to India much before 1998.”

Pakistan and India have fought three wars. There were certainly more threats of war from both sides. I recall 1984 when it was clearly expected that India would attack Pakistan any moment. Indian army was positioned on Pakistani borders all along Punjab. Why a nuke threat should be an issue in the environment of wars, almost wars, and threats from both sides? If Pakistan had nukes in closet before 1998, India did too. It is not that India sprung up nukes in 1998. In fact, India had nukes way before Pakistan ever did.

“post 9/11 Musharraf intention to shut down Afghan jihad but maintain the Kashmir jihad”

In Pakistani POV, Kashmir is a disputed entity and the current Indian PM has pretty much affirmed that. There really is no relationship between the Afghan Jihad and Kashmir Jihad except may be some people. They are two different sets of policies of the Pakistan Govt. I am not going to debate the validity of the both but IMO; Indian just do not have enough moxie to deter Pakistan from interference in Kashmir w/o some bargaining and now Indian govt is alive to that.

“Presence of Al Qaeda remnants in Pakistan”

It is bad but what Indians have to do with that? It is an issue between Pakistan and the U.S and they are dealing with that.

“Blasphemy and Hudood ordinances”

Blasphemy or Hudood ordinance are purely Pakistani issues and have nothing to do with India or Indians. Why any Indian should argue about them from Indian POV? The discussion should be from an intellectual POV and if any Indian thinks that Huddood or blasphemy laws would impact India in any way then, Indians should spell it out.

The real problem is that somehow some Indians have taken upon themselves to right Pakistanis and that certainly is not a healthy approach. This condescension would invoke response and if some words are used that are hurtful then may be Indians should also look at what type of words they are using.

Generally, Indians are very keen to discuss Pakistani issues but would not even discuss Indian issues w/o maligning the person who brought them up and we saw that in the other thread.

Wakeup call

Militants in Europe Openly Call for Jihad and the Rule of Islam

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/26/international/europe/26EURO.html?hp

``a small group of young Britons whose parents emigrated from Pakistan after World War II, have turned against their families` new home. ``

HP #226

{{It is also true that two countries from the subcontinent are still submerged in the sea of mediocrity and disrespect of cultures, religious or ethnic backgrounds is fairly common. We commonly hear words like Habshi(black), Chinki(east asian), .... even Maleech for low caste or Muslims in India. You may not be aware of all of these derogatory and racist epitaphs.}}

I was aware of every term in your list except except ‘makkar.’ ‘Dhagga’ I first saw on Chowk – also ‘choora’. I know some other terms from the South and East of India which I won’t repeat. Incidentally in India using some terms in public is an actionable offense. Had no idea that ‘Gujju’ was derogatory anywhere – thought it was simply a neutral shorthand ethnic designation. But in any case, if you don’t like the use of derogatory ethnic names, the way to combat it is not to pretend that it doesn’t go on, but to bring it out into the open and explain why it’s stupid.

{{In the US, both Pakistani and Indians show similar disdain and ridicule for blacks in their private conversations.}}

I can’t speak for Pakistanis – haven’t known any that well. In my experience Indians go both ways. Indian immigrants of the post sixties generation in the US definitely owe the comparatively easy time that they have had to the Civil Rights movement, for which they are in debt to African-Americans.

But that is a digression from the ‘hatemongering’ business.

{{Hatemonger may invoke hard umbrage in you as you are equating it to another terrible trait that you referred to.}}

Exactly which terrible trait? The absolute worst thing you can do is not face the truth squarely in the eye. It eventually leads to a host of other ills. I am a free speech absolutist. That is why I detest the notion of ‘hatemongering’. Attempting to suppress and censor open discussion is something to be fought to the end. Everything else is a lesser evil – even fascist ideology.

{{I tested the whole thing and find that I would rather take a strictly moderated site for a better quality of discussion than an unfettered site for innuendos. Free speech is for everybody and quality needs restrictions.}}

I’m not so sure that quality would improve. It would certainly depend on just who’s doing the moderating and their private agendas. A sententious dullard who sees in himself the embodiment of virtue, fairness, good sense, so-called ‘universal values’, could easily emasculate this site, convert it into a venue for the exchange of vacuous feel-good bromides. Would certainly fit the agenda of the India-Pakistan bhai-bhai crowd. Such people are a menace.

Also I wouldn’t be so casually dismissive of peoples’ intellects. Lots of people who post here are quite sharp. And there is real value in exposing lies on the spot, which some people have made their mission.

{{I doubt that in this age of religious extremism, there can be any discussion on religion for the sole purpose of intellectual dialogue.}}

This is where you and I probably part company. There may well be private agendas, egos, vanity, hatreds petty or deep, underlying what anyone says on any topic under the sun – not just religion. It doesn’t matter. We are grown ups here (mostly). Individuals ought to be able to factor out the merely personal from so-called ‘intellectual’ content. Let the free marketplace of ideas decide.

AlephNull #various
In my 4 years on chowk, invariably the hatemongering argument has been used to obfuscate discussion on the following topics, and more:

1. Armed jihad in textbooks

2. Negative references to Hindus in textbooks.

(Watching AH Nayyar describe a Goddess Kali reference from Pakistani textbooks on TV recently was personally illuminating to me. It made me suddenly understand why so many Pakistanis had called me Kali in these 4 years. Apparently raising the issue of what is said about Kali in Pakistani textbooks is hatemongering, but given what Pakistanis were taught about her, calling ME Kali is A-OK. Anyway I am flattered because those Pakistanis were taught that Hindus are asked to capture nonHindus and sacrifice them to Kali).

3. Public collection of funding for jihad against India.

4. Pakistani nuke threat to India much before 1998.

5. post 9/11 Musharraf intention to shut down Afghan jihad but maintain the Kashmir jihad

6. Presence of Al Qaeda remnants in Pakistan

7. Blasphemy and Hudood ordinances


Except for 6 and 7, which are of tangential relevance to Indians, all other items are very relevant to Indians and it is perfectly legitimate for Indians to discuss these, post references and viewpoints. However, departing from the official Pakistani point of view is immediately termed `hatemongering`.

There is a definite pattern here.

Hatemongering is also the accusation used to disrupt Indians discussing Indian affairs.

On one hand, talking about what the US, UK, Australian, Afghan, Indian, etc governments are seized of (armed jihad emnating from Pakistan) is hatemongering. On the other hand accusing all Indians and their parents of killing Muslims, simply because they write their opinions about BJP(irrespective of their opinions about BJP) was termed `fighting hatemongering`.

Re houris as incentive for armed jihad. A load of PAKISTANI and foreign studies on houris being considered/touted as the incentive for jihadis was summarily dismissed as `unreliable sources`. As Ibn Warraq pointed out, the issue was not whether these incentives were consistent with scriptural Islam or not, the issue was that such incentives are widely offered/accepted as motivation for armed jihad.

The puzzling thing is that one can shut people up on chowk, but what of the world outside? It is evident MANY people in academia and media including in Pakistan, are ruminating and collecting information/understanding on all the topics listed , how will this chowk talk of hatemongering stop all those?

It isn`t simply a few press reports, whole books have been written on each of the above subjects. It defies logic that simply abusing chowkies for bringing up the issues will suffice to resolve the issue in the real world.

The SDPI report is a case in point. Indian chowkies who raised this issue earlier have been consistently misled/lied to on this subject, as fellow chowk interactors, as Indians seeking to understand Pakistan, as persons who were abused as Hindus.

Not ONE of those who posted long posts obfuscating and spewing vitriol on Indians bothered to think to him/herself, `let me take a look at some textbooks when I get a chance and see what they say about Hindus, and verify whether I am right, or I am mistaken and there are indeed derogatory references to Indians/Hindus`. If they had had ANY honest purpose, they would have checked.

The lesson is, obfuscation is meant to hide the truth. For instance, it is clear to me that there is blatant lying on the houri issue. That one interactor had honesty enough to come even so far in the discussion is a big thing. For this reason I have to appreciate his openness and candor, given the general trend. Those who are altogether silent on the subject too, I cannot fault totally, at least they donot post to mislead.

AlephNull !

I expressed my doubts and in the kind of discourse that normally takes place here- often not in the class of cerebral inspiration, I may have missed “hoori” discussion by simply thinking that posters’ intellect does not deserve a full read of their posted gems. However, I am astounding by the Pak Army’s policy of offering “hooris”.
In declining cells phase of my life, if there is some opportunity to score w/o much effort, I would not hesitate to do that. I hope that most of the “hoors” are from Peshawar as that was my last stop in my school days in Pak and I did score there, admitting that I was unable to overcome the last NO in many situations.
Anyways, the term itself was made popular by the surplus value meisters, thus the equation to fascism that you espouse. I would lower the volume on that. As I said people need to make distinctions, it is expected in view of their knowledge of western value system and somewhat adhering to it in their personal and professional lives. It is also true that two countries from the subcontinent are still submerged in the sea of mediocrity and disrespect of cultures, religious or ethnic backgrounds is fairly common. We commonly hear words like Habshi(black), Chinki(east asian), Gujju, Musla, Bania, dhagga(Punjabi), Makkar(locust) for Urdu speaking in Karachi) shuddhi-impure Christianity or Islam or even Maleech for low caste or Muslims in India. You may not be aware of all of these derogatory and racist epitaphs. In reality we hate diversity and have problems living with that and continue to fall for easiest way to win an argument. In doing so, the subliminal aversion to diversity surfaces in quite clear expressions. In the US, both Pakistani and Indians show similar disdain and ridicule for blacks in their private conversations.
Hatemonger may invoke hard umbrage in you as you are equating it to another terrible trait that you referred to. A simplistic use of the word may be somewhat acceptable in describing the oft repeated discourses on chowk.

“In practice Chowk has a fair approximation to free speech,…”

I am beginning to have second opinion on that. I tested the whole thing and find that I would rather take a strictly moderated site for a better quality of discussion than an unfettered site for innuendos. Free speech is for everybody and quality needs restrictions.

“My assessment is that this restriction on unfettered public discussion of religion………………. The sooner religious sermonizers get used to this the better.”

I am in agreement with that. Still, In view of my contention that we generally lack the ability to accept diversity in our daily discourse, we end up hyping religious discussion to the level of ridiculous and the block loses all boundaries. I doubt that in this age of religious extremism, there can be any discussion on religion for the sole purpose of intellectual dialogue. Discarding the underlying religious pretensions should be the first priority but often the hardest thing to do.

Plats8 #216

Actually I was amusing myself by subjecting Tahmed sahib’s second dictum:

{{And too many murders in the name of religion have been committed in India for any Indian to point fingers at Pakistan without having the other three fingers pointed to India.}}

to one particular line of reductio ad absurdum. It was certainly not the most economical and succinct refutation. Much terser would be to observe that the dictum can be turned on its head to contradict itself, by saying, for example, that:

“Too many murders of Indian citizens have been committed by Pakistanis (in Kashmir), for the Indian state to bother itself unduly about a thousand or two thousand Indians killed by their fellow citizens in Gujarat.”

Or:

“Too many Kashmiri pandits have been ethnically cleansed from their ancestral homes in the Kashmir valley, for Indians to bother about Gujarati Muslims forced to flee and abandon their homes in the wake of violence in Gujarat.”

And:

“Too many Indian Hindus have been killed by Muslims (of whatever nationality) in Kashmir, for Indians to worry about less than two thousand Indian Muslims killed in Gujarat.”

I indistinctly recall reading something on the lines of the last version from someone in the VHP crowd. To me it sounds like vintage Togadia. Once the principle of ignoring some crimes because others of similar nature have been committed somewhere else or at some other time, and have perhaps gone unpunished, is accepted, the door is left open for claiming indulgence for all kinds of criminality and lawlessness and mob violence on the grounds of “they started it first” or “their ancestors did such and such to ours at some point in the past”, etc. etc.

In my view the most defensible position is that “a state must endeavour to protect the lives and property of all law-abiding citizens, from any kind of violence, internal or external; and deal promptly and effectively with the perpetrators of all such violence, whether law-breakers among their own citizenry or unfriendly foreign powers.” This is completely equitable, classic in its simplicity, and leaves no room for stupidities like Tahmed’s second dictum.

HP #211

{{I doubt that anybody on this board, be a Pakistani or an Indian has ever equated above actions with demonizing Islam.}}

False. In one form or another it has been done innumerable times on Chowk. Recall the recent attempts to suppress very pertinent questions about the Pakistan Army’s houri policy as ‘ridiculing Islam’?

{{Hatemongering, which unfortunately exist on this board, is extrapolating certain unsavory elements of Pakistan state to all Pakistanis.}}

Hatemongering is a completely worthless notion. It invariably comes with several attendant logical and conceptual errors. The most important one is to conflate an attribute with the people to whom the attribute applies. ‘Bearing nationality N’, or ‘having been born in religion R’, or more generally ‘belonging to some group or other’, are simply attributes of a particular person, together with an infinity of other possible attributes. Possessing a particular group membership attribute may say a little – or a lot – about a particular person. It in no way completely circumscribes or characterizes that person’s human totality. This confusion of the attribute with the person is compounded by the common use of the word ‘identity’ when ‘attribute’ would be more accurate. Historically the confusion has been encouraged by religious and tribal establishments, because it is the source of their power over human minds. It is the root of fascism and of abominations like ‘Two Nation Theory’ and Hindutva.

But at any rate, the confusion between attributes and personal identities results eventually in associating any criticism of a body of ideas, or of a religion, or of a nation’s founding myths, or of the current policies of a state - with an attack on those who, in some way or the other, are associated with those ideas, with that religion, with that nation, with that state. Moreover, a criticism of ideas, or actual ridicule of the people associated with them, is regarded as an ‘offence’ of the same nature as actual physical violence. This is the point at which the resident Chowkmullah issues his ‘hatemongerer’ fatwas. This worthless hatemongering notion if allowed to run amok has the effect of suppressing discussion of anything potentially embarrassing to the Chowkmullah’s sensibilities. In practice Chowk has a fair approximation to free speech, so for the most part the fatwaholic does not mange to suppress unfettered discussion and only ends up turning himself into a public laughing stock.

There is one particular frequently occurring subcase of the ‘hatemongering’ notion that deserves special mention, and that is the charge of ‘maligning/bad-mouthing religion/religious figures/religious sensibilities’. The notion that this is double plus ungood and is to be avoided is a part of the Indian version of political correctness and still influences the minds of otherwise intelligent people. Despite my own irreligiousness I have perhaps not yet completely expunged this particular stupidity from my psyche.

My assessment is that this restriction on unfettered public discussion of religion should at best be viewed as a temporary concession to the current political immaturity of Indians – they can still be roused to physical violence by mere words ‘insulting’ to their dearly held religious beliefs. This restriction should never be allowed to shackle unfettered discussion on a forum for ideas. The moment some domain of ideas or human experience is exempted from unfettered discussion, opposition, criticism, ridicule, satire, it develops without check in a malign and cancerous fashion. Exempting religion from unrestrained discussion is fundamentally inequitable. There is no good reason why religion in general – or particular religions – should get a free ride in the marketplace of ideas. The sooner religious sermonizers get used to this the better.

Tahmed #203, #210

{{I realize you are still upset because I refuse to engage in ``serious discussion`` with you}}

Oh, I’m crushed, devastated, utterly heart-broken. When I read #203 last night, I wept into my pillow, I sobbed myself to sleep. Life has lost all meaning for me since the Great Intellect Tahmed declined to engage in ’serious discussion’ with me. I might as well hang myself from my bedpost.

Sarcasm aside sahib, you with your usual combination of childlike naivete and arrant presumption, have once again gotten hold of the wrong end of the proverbial stick. I need to disabuse you of your risible delusions for the nth time. To be taken seriously in debate, you need to have a good grasp of ground facts; to have adequate reading comprehension and recall; to be able to reason logically and think through the consequences of your arguments. Your hopeless inadequacy on all these counts has been clear to me for a very long time.

Consequently, when I comment on or dissect your posts, satirize or lampoon your opinions, it is not in the hope of engaging you in ‘serious discussion’. Your posts are of interest to me not because of your arcane knowledge and dazzling conceptual insights; on the contrary. I wade through your reams of self-righteous sermonizing not because I enjoy pompous sanctimony but because of the insight you unwittingly provide into the mentality of the Pakistani elite. You are nothing if not prolific, and the recurrent motifs in your discourse are most interesting for those who wish to study the underlying pathology.

{{Your basic point (ignoring your snide remarks about me personally) is that I have taken it upon myself to go after ``hatemongerers`` on chowk. And that I have the nerve to point out that most hatemongerers happen Indian. What exactly is so outrageous about that?}}

Sahib, I have nothing but total disdain and contempt for your pet notion of ‘hatemongering’ and the attendant ‘hatemongerer’ (sic). Your ceaseless reiteration of this notion on Chowk, and your regular ‘hatemongerer’ fatwas bestowed on those who offend your particular parochial sensibilities, have left me convinced of its utter, complete, total vacuity and uselessness.

My best guess is that the ‘hatemongering’ notion finds its roots in the primitive tribal concept of ‘blasphemy’, in the stupid idea that religious notions and religious figures deserve automatic respect and reverence and should be exempt from criticism, and in anachronistic Persianate notions of politeness and tolerance based on not giving offence other peoples’ sensibilities. These notions are hopelessly dysfunctional in today’s world; they lead to denial of reality and eventually to needless human suffering. I loathe, abominate, despise and detest these ideas; I reject them utterly.

Had you been even a wee bit quicker on the uptake, you might have divined all this on your own. Since you are not, I have to spell it out explicitly.