My article of May 10 in The Morung Express criticized the writings of Kaka D. Iralu as erroneous and full of relevant omissions, all leading to the conclusion that his writings on Naga nationalism are not trustworthy.
I received two responses, one from Iralu and one from Khekiye K. Sema, both in The Morung Express on May 12, 2016. I will respond to both of them in this article.
The definition of ad hominem is: "1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, page 15.
I thought it possible that I would get a substantive response to my article (as well as my April 4, 2016 article, which Iralu refers to. He says it was not dated April 4th, but it is, at least the copies I have printed out from The Morung Express). But it turns out that both responses to my article of May 10th are ad hominem attacks. That is an admission by both responders that they have nothing to say on the substance of my article.
Iralu states, in part, "I ... did not reply to your first article [4 April] because like yourself, there are many from the West who poke their noses into our history and write sweeping statements and opinions without knowing what we have gone through under India's occupational forces from 1947 to the present."
After stating that my article is, "a sweeping attack on my integrity...[,]" he goes on to say, in the next paragraph, "I have no time to give a sentence for sentence reply...." and then does what he does in all his writings, talks incoherently about the history of the Nagas and the Indian government, neglecting to address even one of my very specific allegations of error and sloppiness, omissions and lack of understanding of terms he uses, including terms from the "West". These are specific allegations, not generalizations, and he does not address them.
His whole article is typical of all his writings, and the reason that he has gotten away all this time with such writing is that anyone who reads him would either find him incomprehensible or would only look for his conclusion, which is always the same: a Naga nation or a fight to the death. I presume that those who bothered to read his book or articles would be happy to see that conclusion in writing.
At one point in his article, he states, "Finally, I am sorry to learn that you have also lost a beloved daughter called Emily to murder. I am sure as a father, your Emily is not just another statistical number in the list of murdered people. Mr. Silverstein, we Nagas have also lost so many Emily's in our struggle ...."
There is only one problem with the above sentences: I have never been married, have no children, and therefore have not lost a daughter called Emily. Nor is such a person or incident mentioned in either of my articles. This alone illustrates the carelessness with which Iralu throws his articles together.
He concludes, "...we Nagas are most amused by outsiders who visit Nagaland once or a few times; speak to a few artificial Nagas [what is an "artificial" Naga?] in the urban areas, read a few books about Nagaland, talk to a few Indian Government bureaucrats [I have talked to no "Indian Government bureaucrats; perhaps Iralu read this the same place he read about my Emily], and then -- pass sweeping opinions directing Nagas as to how they should conduct themselves regarding their future! Yes, it is an amusing pastime for us, but we try to accommodate all of you [Westerners? outsiders?] in our strides. Thank you for your many learned advice for Nagaland and my book."
You, the reader, will notice that Iralu has not cited one specific allegation related to my articles, nothing!! He has spent a career of not being challenged. His response to me only confirms my article's conclusion that his writings are not to be relied on to guide the Naga people on the critical issue of Naga nationalism. Sema avoids careless comments because he says absolutely nothing about the substance of my articles or about anything he might have written or spoken in public on the issue of Naga nationalism. He states, "The air of arrogance of Mr. R.A.S that truly reflect the Indian perceptions is thoroughly debatable and insulting to a common Naga and being reminded of the usual historical Indian attitude of looking down on the Nagas as an unequal sub-human being is intolerable."
The only thing is, Sema states words that conclude I'm looking at the Nagas in a certain very negative way, but fails to quote one word from my articles that support his views of my attitude toward the Nagas. It is the same reasoning and words that show he has nothing to add to the debate, and although he uses the word "debatable". To debate is to refer to the other person's articles and show that the other person is wrong. Sema is just throwing a lot of nasty words out there with the hope that those reading the article will accept his conclusions without any evidence. That may happen, but that is a reflection of the lack of critical thinking of those reading his response without asking where his evidence is.
Sema ends his response with a reference to my challenge to debate all of the points I made in my May 10th article when I am next in Kohima. Well, his wish has come true. I will be in Kohima as of June 26 and will leave July 23, and I will be happy to debate Sema, Iralu, and/or anyone else that would like to debate. But keep in mind that I'd like a moderator who knows the difference between ad hominem attacks and substantive debate. They seem to believe that if they babble anything negative enough about the person, in this case, me, they will sound like they are saying something logical and meaningful, which in this case, based on their two responses here, is absurd.
Robert A. Silverstein
