Debate like a Christine Fair

People of Orient in general and Indians in particular love a good argument not based on falsehood but facts, though I should be saying Hindus (instead of Indians) not saying here because Atheists and bleeding heart secular humanists might protest saying that I am taking away Minority (read Muslims) rights, though Muslims are not the only minorities, and I am not sure how my assertion of Hinduness has got anything to do with Minority rights. Well that is what seculars say! Though it is a different matter that few idiots in west think that they are the last batch of brilliant people left in the world. You see that is why they patent turmeric as their invention.

Recently I had a friendly duel with Christine Fair. It started on her post on twitter regarding the recent Missouri shoot out.

She was trying to suggest or generalize this as an isolated man doing a mindless act; this is her assessment even before nobody knows about the motive including Police. Though all incidents of similar pattern in the past, be it Boston marathon bombings, fort hood killings or for that matter Sydney siege recently, all were motivated by Islamists or Islamic Jihad or simply Islamic Terrorism.

I was just replying that atheists like her rescue Islamists unknowingly by such sweeping unimaginative generalizations, though I have told her that this comment is not related to this incident. For which she said that not all Islamists are terrorists. Yes, correct but all terrorists are Islamists, I replied.

Then out of the blue she concluded that I am maligning the Islam religion and she declared that there are also Hindu Terrorists.

 I have been zealously maintaining the dignity of debate, but then she instantly dismissed me as a soapbox. I think this is how normally Atheists behave when they have no argument to make or they just lost one. Here is Tarek Fatah who does exactly that. Though it is a different case with Tarek because he is a self-declared Marxist. We know what they are.

Firstly I have admired her work on Pakistan, her recent book “Fighting to the End: Pakistan army’s way of war” which I have finished reading few weeks ago. The impression I had was that she would be objective with facts when her casual opinions are questioned. I was looking for a virile scholarship in her arguments but what I have got was vile bigotry in response. I am appalled by the behaviour of these PhD’s.

Hence I further questioned her to come up with incidents of Hindu terror, asked her to quote at least 10 and I have also said that she can include the Samjautha case which normally fancies Pakistan and Islamists of India. And I wanted to see what she has got to say on this. I was stunned by her conspicuous silence. Normally this is what PhD’s of west do when they fear of losing an argument.

I knew she had nothing to answer. Though she has blocked me on some flimsy grounds. But later it appears that she has cited LTTE as Hindu Terror and made few simplistic assumptions on Gujurat riots. I pity her ignorance.

I never thought she will bring her idiocy out in the open on subjects she knew nothing about. It is very clear that she is a half-baked crook on this subject when she says Tamil Tigers are Hindu Terrorists. Technically speaking she had nothing to cite on Hindu Terrorism apart from two sundry arguments that borders on lies and falsehood.

When it comes to LTTE, Prabhakaran was a self-declared Marxist/Communist, he being a Hindu or no Hindu makes any difference? People don’t call Islamic Terrorism just because of their whim, they (Islamic Terrorists) do what they do because of their allegiance to an ideology of death cult called Radical Islam which is structured and definitive. That is why it is called as Islamic Terrorism. It is not about being phobic about anybody or any religion. I think she has lost her way on this argument.

If she talks about Swami Assemanand and others then I would say that she is still living in her fools land. It has been argued in courts that Assemand’s confession was extracted through coercion and confessions made out of coercion will not be treated as an evidence or not enough to charge somebody, Section 24 Indian Evidence Act 1872.

After a losing an argument on Hindu Terror she conveniently chose to block me so that her PhD credentials can be saved.

This is the problem with academics whose scholarship is based on events not on some well informed theories; they react to how a specific act occurred not why. Hence their limited imagination and reliance on falsehood when they are cornered on issues on which they had nothing to say.

I do not fall under the category of normally what people think I fall under. I have already made my positions clear.

My advice to PhD’s of west is that if you don’t know about few subjects please admit that you have nothing to say and shut up. Otherwise people are going to know that you are a bunch of idiots.

Can we separate politics from law ?

Whenever I try to give a political dimension to a legal question, I am cautioned by learned people and teachers by a statement “You should keep yourself away from Politics”. Instantly I would ask myself why?

This is not the question only with respect to academia but in general too. Suppose we are travelling in a public transport and if you happen to discuss your political views with your fellow traveler, what if he does not agree? Or what if he weakens your argument. What if it ends in a duel? May be that is why generally if someone talks about it – Politics, others might just say “here we go we have got another wayward”. If that is the case we should declare “Aristotle” a wayward.

But here I would like to ponder over such cases with in the academia. On the other day my teacher and I were discussing some legal questions on few things, one of the item that came up was federalism and Art: 370 of Indian constitution.

My view was that India is not strictly a federal country; any time centre can usurp all the notional powers given to provinces or states.

And it completely depends up on temperament of the leader who is ruling at a specific point of time. Nehru and Indira Gandhi are such leaders whose tendencies were always unitary and they rarely indulged in the practice of federalism. May be we have had a single party rule for a very long time. But that is not the point.

The moment I have taken few names in politics, comes the caveat “Don’t mix the politics” in law.  Then the question would be is it really possible or is it appropriate to view politics and law as two separate worlds? May be yes. But it should not be, if we are looking for a holistic view. After all law is nothing but the result of political deliberations and in effect law is an offspring of politics. Without politics, law is not possible. But in the Indian context unlike west we have a lot of practical difficulties if we ever have to engage in daily life political discussions. Though in broad terms ‘Politics’ could mean everything we do in our life, here I am only referring to relations between public & political parties which rule the former through an institution called government.

Aren’t we discussing politics all the time? When fuel and cooking gas prices are hiked we deplore the actions of govt. because we know it is they who have taken this decision.

Why academia as a whole does not engage itself in political discourse is an important question. At least teachers from the depts. of Humanities and Social sciences rarely discuss current issues in public or classroom. That is why there is a scant regard for social sciences in India.

In India people do not practice “Transaction based reactions” i.e., you do not agree/disagree with a person but only with issues. Even though congress is neck deep in corruption it is possible that few people including I could agree on few issues that does not mean that I am either Pro or anti.

But the compulsion of teachers not to discuss current politics with students in particular or with in academia at least is because if your political inclinations are known, there will be issues in career progression i.e., becoming from guest prof. to tenure prof. or from an Asst. Prof. to Prof. or to go on and become a vice chancellor or directors. So there is hardly a requirement of your subject mastery. Additionally they fear professional retaliation if they make their inclinations apparent.

In reality if we endeavor to answer critical legal questions in its entirety, keeping politics aside will not help either the student or teacher. Way to go for Democracy in India!