Alok Rai & the ghost of Patrick Swayze

Alok Rai writes in the Wire, in relation to the 'hum dekhenge' controversy-

There are certain domains of intellectual activity where the necessary reading strategy is a kind of doggedly pedestrian literalism. Engineers (and perhaps lawyers, too) must strive to use language as unambiguously as possible, must strive to strip language of its polysemy.

Rai is wrong. A theoretical discourse uses Tarskian primitive notions which are undefined. This means polysemy comes as standard in any epistemic discourse- i.e. one concerned with truth conditions and the degree of justification attributable to belief. However, where an epistemic activity is primarily concerned with being 'action guiding' or improving  'phronesis'- i.e. practical skill or techne- it can have an unambiguous interpretation for a purpose that is not 'intellectual' but rather is 'utilitarian'. This means giving a restricted extensional range to Tarskian primitives for a specific purpose. However, to find that utilitarian formula, the lawyer or engineer has to use language with more, not less, polysemy than that of the epistemic activity itself. This is because it is looking for 'wriggle room' in a higher order language.

Thus an engineer seeking to diagnose the problem with a particular malfunctioning machine will first explore a domain of higher generality to find a 'tweak' though, if this is to be incorporated as an element in future design, he will then seek an increasingly restricted interpretation, or parametrization, of terms he borrows from Physics- a subject in which he has some intellectual competence. This enables technicians, who may have no intellectual competence at all, to do maintenance and repair work on the basis of an unambiguous 'algorithm'. But that work is not 'intellectual' it is purely utilitarian.

Something similar may be said about the ratio in a particular judgment. It has a restricted meaning. It may reflect a particular school of jurisprudence but can't be said to endorse all the conclusions of that school.

In Political theory- polysemy is standard and in pragmatic politics it is 'higher order'. However, for political 'enrollment' or mobilization- e.g in popular agitations- great 'phronesis', involving a narrow akrebia, or precision of langage, must be deployed- otherwise the political program will soon collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. Thus, as a philosophical matter, a 'Humanist' may appropriate the terminology of a Carl Schmitt. But, a popular political movement which celebrates that Nazi lunatic can't claim to be Humanist or Left Liberal.

Alok Rai, who used to teach Literature at Delhi University, thinks 'polysemy is troublesome' which suggests he was teaching it to attack dogs, not young human beings. The truth is, University students, should be exploring polysemy. Thus a clever undergraduate might receive praise for arguing that Shakespeare was actually a Sufi poet'. Indeed a dissertation could be approved which sought to show that Ibn Arabi's notion of barzakh reappears in Erasmus and the Elizabethan tradition. However, if a Middle School student wrote 'Sheikh Peer of Bradford upon the A1, was the son of a Kashmiri kasai who wrote beautiful Sufi verse in English'- they will fail their exam. They won't get a credential. Their path to white collar employment will be obstructed.

It may be that Rai did not have very good quality students. Indeed, it is more than likely that no English Department attracts intelligent people. But, it must be said that Rai himself does not make arguments of the 'Shakespeare was Sufi' type. Instead he boldly asserts nonsense of the 'Sheikh Peer was son of Mirpuri Kasai wot lived in Bradford but Modi and BJP are shamefully hiding his fact.'

Consider the following-

This troublesome polysemy works through denotation and connotation, through sound and rhythm, through the music of verbal performance.

That isn't 'polysemy'. It may be 'allusiveness' and have emotional valency. We may term it dhvani. Earlier English writers may have called it 'reverie'. But it is univocal.

It functions both at the level of individual words, and through a variety of rhetorical devices, through linguistic strategies and figures of speech which have generated tomes in all literate cultures.

However, 'dhvani' or 'reverie' are determinate, though complex. By contrast, polysemy is the notion that anything can mean anything in a manner that exhausts infinity.

We may say- 'reading Shakespeare nowadays makes me feel a sense of 'Ars longa Vita brevis, whereas, when I was young, it confirmed me in the illusion that passion could outlast the Universe'. Here the dhvani has changed- but it has done so in an intelligible and determinate way. By contrast, the following statement is an example of polysemy-  'Reading Shakespeare now confirms in my faith in the Mochizuki proof of the abc conjecture. This is because of the  algorithm I've found which transposes Shakespeare's sonnets into lemmas in category theory'.

Abhidha and vyanjana are only an entry point into a whole world of Sanskrit rhetoric.

Rai is wrong. Neither the 'root meaning' of a word nor its variations give people an entry point into the world of Sanskrit rhetoric. At best these are scholastic tools to enable cretins to get a credential pertaining to the subject. Sanskrit rhetoric- like English rhetoric- existed before there was any etymological dictionaries or scholastic 'Nirukta'. What mattered was whether there were smart people who had worthwhile things to say in the common dialect.

Sanskrit rhetoric died long ago. Some stupid savants continued to dish out credentials in that shite. True, a smart guy- like Shyamji Krishna Varma- could use his High School Sanskrit to win fame as a Sanskrit orator. This enabled him to attend Oxford while helping Monier Williams with his dictionary. But Varma only got the title of 'Pundit' from the Brahmans of Benares because he had something worthwhile to say.

Likewise, aspiring engineers might, in other traditions, start with metaphor and metonymy, with synecdoche and other un-pronounceables.

Rai is being sarcastic. The truth is no gifted writer anywhere in the world has ever started with this shit. It is the stock in trade of third rate pedants.

There is a whole science (or two) out there, of the slippery relation between words and their meanings.

No there isn't. Academics who pretend otherwise are as stupid as shit and nothing can disguise this fact.

And poetry, by its very nature, seeks to employ (and extend) the whole range of linguistic possibilities of both ambiguity and precision – not only to say more than a pedestrian literal reading of the words would suggest, but even that which mere ordinary language may be unable to say, except when deployed by a skilled user.

'Deployed by a skilled user' means Chomskian 'i-language'. The thing does not exist. That's why the Pentagon does not have a Universal translator. By contrast an 'e-language' approach, such as that used by Google, can, on the basis of data-mining and sophisticated Statistical techniques, be quite useful.

What poetry seeks to do is to say something true and interesting. The quality of 'apoorvata'- novelty and freshness of expression- is sought for.  This can be achieved if the poet genuinely has talent and if he has hit upon a superior 'Structural Causal Model' of an alethic sort. This happens very seldom. That is why we find the perorations of even our greatest poets so tedious to read. We wonder why the authors of one or two lapidary gems of expression felt compelled to turn out such dismal stuff. The answer is that they were caught up in the foolish availability cascades of their day. They wasted their genius on petty squabbles of a foolish type.

Censors and bureaucrats have always found this propensity of poets tricky – and engineers could be a contemporary addition to that coterie of flat-footed literalists.

Nonsense! Nobody gives a shit about poetry anymore. We assume that the writer is a cretin who was sexually abused and who spent long years in rehab or a psychiatric ward.

Now, children, Faiz’s Hum dekhenge invokes that transformative moment – which probably extended over years and even decades – when the established idols and authorities in seventh century Arabia – the but, taaj and takht – were overturned by a new faith that grounded itself in an ethic of equality and a commitment to reason.

Nonsense! A society which wages wars and captures slaves is not grounded 'in an ethic of equality.' Rai may think Islam is 'committed to reason'. He may feel that the idols worshiped by Hindus and the icons to be found in Catholic Churches should be smashed. He is welcome to weep bitter tears that his Kayastha ancestors were not all turned into eunuchs and sold as slaves. But, if this is so, why does the man not embrace Islam- or, if he has already done so, why not change his name to something more purely Arabic?

I suspect the truth is that he is merely virtue signalling. He doesn't really believe that 'but-khanas' must be smashed because they are an affront to Allah. He says that Seventh Century Arabia had 'taaj' and 'takht'. Where? Not in Mecca. Not in Medina. No doubt Caliphs had 'taaj' and 'takht' but that was after the Islamic conquest had begun.

This moment of the inception of Islam – and its subsequent trajectory – is itself deeply ironic, but that needn’t detain us here.

Why not? It is highly germane. An explicitly Islamic poem, penned by a Pakistani ultra-Nationalist who was a great chum of Bhutto- who was responsible for both the 1965 War and the Bangladeshi genocide- is being chanted by people who oppose a Bill which would give Citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Islamic Republics with a long history of ethnic cleansing. Faiz's poem affirms that at the end of Days, Allah will intervene to annihilate the non-Muslims. They won't get refugee status anywhere on Earth. They will burn in Hell fire for all eternity. No doubt, Rai feels that this is a very reasonable claim- because, he tells us, Islam is committed to reason. It is also a truly egalitarian outcome because non Muslims are an abomination in the sight of the Lord and the only equality they can enjoy is that of damnation.

It is this moment that is present in Faiz’s poem as a metaphor, a shorthand for invoking – for present political purpose, in late-Zia Pakistan – the energies associated with that transformative moment.

What was that transformative moment? It was the triumph of Islam over people of all other Faiths. It was the enslavement of many people of non Arab descent. Faiz's Pakistan had ethnically cleansed its non-Muslim populations. His chum Bhutto had declared the Ahmadiyas non Muslim. Faiz had not raised his voice against the Government when the Pakistani Army raped and slaughtered Bengalis. Furthermore, he chose to return to Zia's Pakistan precisely at the time when it was waging 'Charlie Wilson's war' against Leftists and Soviets in Afghanistan.

What in fact happened after Iqbal Bano sang 'Hum dekhenge'? What did people actually witness? The Army held the country in a vice like grip and Bhutto's daughter- whose husband seems to have killed her surviving brother- was allowed to be a very corrupt puppet. But, her 'Uncle' Gen. Babar pushed Pak's Taliban strategy. Meanwhile, what did the pseudo-Socialist elite do? It enriched itself from what had turned into a narco-state. Its kids got Ivy League credentials and Green Cards. They listen to Faiz's poetry on Coke Studio Pakistan. Whatever happens to that country can't greatly affect them.

By contrast, Indian students who quote Faiz and protest against the C.A.A don't have wealthy parents who will send them to Harvard or Yale. Even for IIT students, the gates of emigration to greener pastures are closing.

They need to open their eyes and look around them. India is not an Islamic Republic. Saying Islam is great is fine- if you are actually a Muslim. Otherwise, you look like a virtue signalling cretin. Why not simply say 'Those of us who are non-Muslim must immediately slit our own throats. Otherwise those sweet boys in the Pakistan Army may get shot while trying to conquer the country.'?

In that moment, whether in seventh century Arabia or 20th century Pakistan – the abandoned and the disinherited, the destitute and the forsaken, find their voice and find the courage to assert themselves.

Really? Did 'the disinherited and destitute' take over the running of Pakistan? Of course that is what happened! Arre, Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan all started off as chai-wallahs! It was not the Army which brought them into politics! Perish the thought! Each and every one of them was born in a small hut. Even now if you go to see their aged mothers or other relatives, you will find them living like ordinary people. By contrast, in India, the Army picked up the son of a billionaire who had studied at Eton and Harvard and they taught him to speak in Gujerati and Hindi and then foisted him upon the Indian people- most of whom are actually pious Muslims and who are very learned in Persian and Arabic and thus who can understand every word that Faiz uses.

Incidentally, anyone who is uncomfortable with the use of religious idiom for non-religious emotions should read Bhakti poetry, start with Meera and her phantom lover.

WTF?! Meera had a 'phantom lover'?! Whose ghost was it?  OMG! It must have been Patrick Swayze! One day Meera was casting a clay pot and then the ghost of Patrick Swayze took off his shirt and came to embrace her from behind. BTW & FYI, Meera was not a Hindu lady. She was not a devotee of Lord Krishna. Anyway, people in India had never heard of any such deity. Hinduism was invented by British to divide and rule the country. Kindly read Meera's bhajans. She says again and again- 'Meera ke phantom lover Patrick Swayze hai. Humko unke saath dirty dancing mangta hai. Tum sub Hindutva se math fool ho jao. Hinduism is creation of British Raj. Narendra Modi ka asli naam hai Nicholas Maugham. Tum sab very ignorant desis ho! OMG! What is the point of talking to you thickies? Even cows have more sense.'

The originator of the “complaint” – one Sharma – is a certified Islamophobe,

Because Rai has given him that certificate. Oddly, it is worth more than any other credential he can hand out.

but the IITK “committee” must decide whether it is more uncomfortable with Faiz’s religious idiom, or with its deployment for political purposes.

No, the committee must say 'all this is nonsense. Only cretins like Alok Rai can get any mileage out of it. Get back to your studies kids. Otherwise you'll be unemployable.'

This raises the question of the deployment of religious idioms – language, but also practice – in public spaces, both for religious purposes – the devi-jagaran and the namaaz – and also for extra-religious and even non-religious purposes – the whole Ram Janmabhoomi charade.

Was it a charade? A lot of people seem to think the Ram Janmabhoomi movement is what put the BJP in power at the center. By contrast, this anti-C.A.A agitation won't help the Left-Liberals. It will consolidate the Hindu vote during General Elections.

There is also the related question of equal access to public space, as also the matter of the necessarily delicate equilibrium of both giving (and taking) offence in a multi-cultural, multi-faith society.
Dr Sharma reads some idiot Mughal invasion narrative into Faiz’s ‘Kaaba’ reference and feels offended.

It is all very well to say a narrative is 'idiotic'. However, if that narrative leads to dramatic political upsets- the rise and rise of the BJP, Brexit, Trump's victory, Orban's eclipsing Merkel, the crackdown on Uighurs, etc, etc- then something more is required of us. We have to accept that, rightly or wrongly, political Islam- and thus Islamic terminology- is seen as an existential threat to non-Muslims even in powerful and rich countries like the USA.

But I am surely on stronger ground in feeling offended at his Brahmin stigmata, his chutiya and his janeu, because for me they symbolise a whole regime of Brahminical inhumanity, of untouchability.

Chutiya? Is this guy serious? Does he think Brahmans have vaginas? Why does this Kayastha- whose ancestors sucked up to the ruling power and who mercilessly exploited the illiterate peasants- feel he is on 'stronger ground' for getting offended by the sacred thread of the Brahman? At least some of his ancestors, to my certain knowledge, wore it. That's the problem with having a famous grandfather. Everybody knows somebody who is related to you. Even if you pretend that your ancestors were untouchables, your Uncle will come forward to prove the reverse was the case. The archives of the Raj are filled with petitions by Kayasthas and other such hybrid castes asserting superior 'Varna' status.

Kayastha domestic rituals were and are conducted by poor Brahman priests. Some ultra-posh people may dispense with it, but if the daughter marries into an orthodox family, they are obliged to keep up appearances and conform.

Many wealthy Kayasthas had a Brahman 'maharaj' or cook. Why does this worthless cretin say Brahmans symbolize untouchability? Everybody knows Kayasthas practiced it while fleecing illiterate villagers. Rajendra Prasad was Kayastha. His servants would not allow Mahatma Gandhi to use the toilet. Why?  Gandhi appeared poor and lower caste. Prasad has written of the horrendous treatment Kayasthas meted out to their women- forcing them to be parda-nashin to such an extent that they sickened and died. Why is this worthless cretin blaming people from a poorer, but more honest, class for the crimes committed by his own ancestors?

So unless IIT-K wishes to collude with the abandonment of the constitutional provision of equality, they must tread carefully – they might have to tonsure Dr Sharma.

What is this idiot babbling about? Is it that Sharma has, or doesn't have, a 'tuft'? But some Kayasthas also had that practice.  No doubt, if their Muslim patrons didn't like it they would chop it off. But, more often, Muslims wanted Kayasthas to present as orthodox Hindu because they were more useful in that way.

No doubt, a hundred years ago, some ambitious Kayasthas decided to 'go native' because they foresaw that Congress would grab power. They abandoned Persian for Sanskrit- India's second Prime Minister was a Kayastha who had found it worthwhile to acquire the 'Shastri' credential. As for Premchand- he starred in a movie about a strike. Then his own workers went on strike over unpaid wages. So Premchand had to surrender some of his film money to appease their greed. No doubt, some of those workers were poor people with names like Sharma. Bastards! How dare they demand wages! They should all be tonsured!

Of course, and we are getting there, in Hindu Rashtra, Hindus will be deemed more equal than others, and Brahmins even more so. Welcome to world of Manusmriti.

As opposed to the world where Meera's phantom lover is Patrick Swayze.

I insist – there is no shame in ignorance.

Rai, it is true, has no shame. He has done well out of his willful ignorance. But he could have done even better studying something sensible or doing something useful.

Indeed, that is the premise on which all educational endeavour rests.

WTF? Is it really true that if you go to Harvard or Stanford, they will say 'there is no shame in your being completely ignorant of Physics. Kindly accept this PhD for your dissertation which reads- 'Super String theory is something I know nothing about. Still, I watched 'Big Bang theory'. Please give me a Phd in the subject because I am utterly without shame in making such a brazen request.'

Even IIT-K must aspire to reduce, if not quite remove, ignorance.

Very good of Rai to say so, I'm sure. I hope he will accord an equal indulgence to Harvard and Stanford.

And, no doubt, the utility of ignorance as a resource was known to the Romans who kept the masses pacified with bread and circuses – though, as in the present climate of rising unemployment and widespread distress, only circuses might have been less effective.

Why did the Romans employ Greek tutors? How is it that their achievements in construction engineering endure to this day? Rai is not ashamed of his ignorance in this respect. He says 'panem et circenses'- except he doesn't because of his unblushing ignorance- but does not understand that this conjures up a mental image of the Roman Colosseum- a marvel of design- and thus belies whatever shitty little point he thinks he is making.

But what is unique to our phase of history is the weaponisation of ignorance.

Cretin! You just said the Romans did it. Then how can the thing be unique to our age? Do you actually read over your own shite?

This is a large subject, and must encompass fake news and social-media echo chambers, and big-data driven micro-targeting – the entire and frightening gamut of challenges to democracy.

The problem here is that Rai is part of an ex-elite echo chamber which pretended that political Islam was a sweet little kitten whereas the BJP was a Nazi party intent on genocide.

But here, it is perhaps sufficient for us to note the uniquely Indian contribution to this crisis, our evolution of a legal apparatus that enables the weaponisation of ignorance through the jurisprudence developed around “hurt religious sentiments”.

But Mohammad Ali Jinnah sponsored the first legislation of this type back when Premchand was still swindling his workers.
I suggest Rai convert to Islam and go to Pakistan where nobody is sentenced to death for blasphemy. He will be so much happier because there are no evil Brahmans there. That is why Pakistan is such a paradise. It is Brahman propaganda to say it has slipped behind, not just India, but also Bangladesh.

So any fool can raise a complaint. And many fools do. But it’s sad to see IIT-K sinking to this level. 

But what level has Rai sunk to? I remember meeting him in the early Eighties. It wasn't obvious at all that he'd turn out to be such a tosser. Personally, I blame Patrick Swayze's ghost. If only it had done some nice dirty dancing with Rai then his condition now would not be so pathetic.