I’ve never been a great fan of academics–college degrees, fellowships, and recognition via the university route. Nor am I a fan of academicians. On a related note, I’m reminded of an episode: when Emerson, a strong advocate of college education, once told Thoreau that the curriculum at Cambridge comprised all branches of learning, the latter retorted with Yes indeed, all the branches and none of the roots.

Why am I saying all this?

The purpose, ladies and gentlemen, is to welcome an academician, Mr (or is it Prof?) Abinandanan, a faculty at Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, who runs a blog–actually, two blogs.

I do not know him. Nor am I promoting his blog; in fact, I didn’t even know his blog existed (considering that he started in Dec 2004) until somebody pointed me to a specific entry. To my great surprise, I discovered it was about my blog and me, to an extent. I say “surprised” because he hadn’t sent a trackback to at least one post (he’s hyperlinked to 6 of my entries in his post) I’ve written. It doesn’t mean mandatory-tracking back is some sort of a rule in the blog world; indeed, to some, the most appealing aspect of blogging is the absolute absence of rules.

I should give it to him for airing his opinion about my blog in general, and for categorizing it in terms of its nature/theme. But then, the kind Professor operates under several assumptions, which unfortunately lend no credibility to his conclusions. The kind Professor in a different entry briefly mentions a book about logic–an excellent one at that, I own a copy of the book. Perhaps he failed to discern that it is important not to start a reasoning process with false/incorrect/questionable assumptions.

So we’ll begin, one at a time.

Says the kind Professor:

Take a look at this serious blogger (BS, for short) with a legendary reputation for being really serious.

False Assumption #1: “Serious blogger” as in “blogger with a serious countenance?” “blogger with a serious purpose?” Or does he make the statement with some genuine knowledge of Sandeep, the person who is known to be serious? Then there’s the reference to my “legendary reputation for being really serious.” I must surely have a fan following. I’d like to ask the kind Professor the source of this, my legendary reputation. I mean, I’m famous, but I’m not aware of it myself. And I guess the kind Professor possesses a knack for spinning malformed acronyms: Serious Blogger is not SB, but BS in his lexicon.

You don’t even have to dig deep into the past; here are a few from the last month or so, that exemplify the clinical precision with which BS is able to slot his victims…

False Assumption #2: (Seriously) Sandeep is now a killer. A top-notch hit man at that: “clinical precision,” “slot his victims,” etc. I’m truly thankful to the kind Professor for exposing my latent talent.

And then the kind Professor makes the biggest false assumption of all: he slots my blog as a right wing blog with the same clinical precision, which he has attributed to me.

My greatest crime according to him is the lack of politeness! In his first (response) comment on his entry, he says,

My only — and rather limited — point here is about the language: ‘Resident Idiot’? ‘Nincompoop’? Gosh, I would be scared to visit a site even to drop a comment, when the blogger sets such a tone in his posts. I am sorry I picked right wing blogs for this post, but I would say the same thing about a rabid left wing blogs, too. [...]

For one, I do not moderate my comments: people are free to write almost anything they want–I draw the line only when it gets obscene. This also proves a suspicion that lingered in my mind whether the kind Professor has really read all my entries in full, comments included. If he had, he’d surely notice the many comments that have called me a “bigot,” “an upper caste racist,” and such like. They’re are still there, intact. I’ll come to the ring wing portion later. Coming to politeness.

Idiot=A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers.
Nincompoop=A silly, foolish, or stupid person

(Source: Dictionary.com)

Continues the kind Professor in the same comment:

I would really like it if Sandeep calls Praful Bidwai’s bluff by pointing out his sins (like you have done about why some of his writings would qualify as hate speech).

A second instance that proves the kind Professor has not bothered to read my posts in full. He says in his post about me that “you don’t even have to dig deep into the past; here are a few from the last month or so…” So why doesn’t the kind Professor read my dissection of Praful Bidwai’s yet another hate-mongering piece, that I posted on May 6? I’ve documented his “sins” in some detail. Or this post where Bidwai shamelessly adorns the criminal Lalu, with a golden halo? When famous figures start to peddle nonsense consistently, you begin to doubt their sensibilities. If this goes beyond a point, you’ll be forced to conclude that they’re mentally retarded, i.e., they have become idiots/nincompoops. If I call Hitler a mass-murderer, would the kind Professor yell “impolite?” Perhaps, the gentle Professor would be appalled if he reads what’s written on other blogs. MadMan is quite generous with the word “fuck,” and Shanti is equally generous with “bitch.” It is their blog, and they’re pretty much free to write what’s on their mind. But I digress.

Perhaps, the kind Professor needs to recheck his definition of a blog. For the uninitiated, a blog is also an online diary much the same like its paper counterpart. You zealously guard your paper journal/diary for the precise reason that it is for “private reading only.” You will let a very close/trusted person read it but not make value judgements. This is the reason some blogs do not keep comments open, or some blogs are viewable only by “friends” or “trusted people.” If you abhor my blog, you’re free not to visit it. Like I said earlier, I’m surprised the kind Professor didn’t air his thoughts in my comments section. Apparently he didn’t because my language was very “uncivil,” or maybe because:

If posts (which are the starting point for later discussions) are filled with such terms, can anyone say anything that might go against the blogger’s view — even if it does so in an insignificant way?

As I said earlier, I do not delete comments. You’re welcome and expected to disagree. If I see sense in your perspective, I’ll agree to it as I’ve done many times earlier. Ask Ravikiran who took apart a post I’d written long ago. I digress again.

Earlier, in his entry, the kind Professor says:

…and Girish Karnad (denigrator of Indian culture — in three parts!).

and then in the (same) comment, says:

Similarly, you described Karnad’s work as ‘third rate’. Fine. I am sure he/his work (I do like the fact that you critisized his work, not him) has been called that by many others as well. Would you say he purposely set out to ‘denigrate Indian culture’?

The kind Professor would do good to read my entire series (it’s not over yet) on Karnad fully: I’ve nowhere made a personal attack on Karnad: my thrust is: Karnad’s plays denigrate Indian culture. Where have I said that Karnad has purposely denigrated Indian culture? And show me a line where I’ve called him “denigrator of Indian culture.” A person who wants others to desist from making personal attacks should first read something fully before jumping to conclusions.

And then, the kind Professor has decided on behalf of me (?) that the worst insult I can muster is to call someone (the IE so far) “Congress Mouthpiece.” What can I say except that I’ve applied choicer epithets on the Outlook magazine? The kind Professor would do me a favour by listing out all the “abuses/vile terms” I’ve used, and then assigning them a relative weight of Vileness. We’ll be in a much better position to then decide which is my “worst insult.”

Truly, my weblog is a horrible place to visit: it’s a hate site. Sorry Professor, I’ll try to tone down from now on. However, there’s a small proverb that nags me: Practice what you Preach. The kind Professor, who is campaigning for politeness, seems to have lost his temper earlier. He has used horrifying words–unbecoming of him–such as silly thing,

Check out this silly thing which was voted the most powerful blog in the US…

and worse, has approved phrases like “congenital idiot” and “rabid right wing bloggers.” Oh but the gentle Professor also reserves a far stronger word for me who in his lexicon is a right-wing blogger. Saith the Polite Professor,

I am absolutely sure that it is only a matter of time before the BS-RS section of the right decides to use the nuclear option (a.k.a. the last refuge of a scoundrel): patriotism…

(bold in the original, underlining mine)

I see the gentle Professor has anticipated retorts to his entry from rabid “right wing bloggers.” Lest anybody doubt his patriotism he calls it the “last refuge of a scoundrel.” By implication, anybody who doubts his patriotism is a scoundrel.

I’ve rambled far too much and I know my wits are no match to those of a professor who teaches in the prestigious IISc. However, I’ll leave a teaser to the professor: he has harboured under the (incorrect again) assumption that I’m a right-wing blogger, which I’ve denied several times over in this post. In fact, the common media terminology that the RSS (and related groups) is a right wing organization is flawed and incorrect. Indeed, the term right wing cannot be used to designate any ideology native to India. If the kind Professor can tell me the reason why this categorization is flawed, I’ll be grateful to him.

Postscript: This entry is again a shining example of vitriol.