Naeem Mohaimen at Drishtipat Blog has an op-ed in Daily Star today that’s very interesting, and quite well-written. I agree with Naeem that the issues that he raises need a much more serious and substantive discussion and debate in our political space than we have seen so far. And Naeem rightly puts blame on the rank dishonesty, open greed and short-sighted lust for power of our political elite and the emptiness of the platitudes put forward by their partners and dupes in the intelligentsia for the rise of Jamaat. I am, however, concerned about the casualness with which Naeem throws around key terms in the debate. I actually stopped reading and scratched my head in puzzlement when he conflated Arabist and Islamist. Naeem bhai, they really are very different things…

I don’t bring this up to be a pedant about it, or anal. The casualness with which terms of import are thrown around creates some doubt about how seriously Naeem - and others like him - wish to engage in debate and discussion on these issues, whether they mean to convince, or impose. The unquestioning and wholesale adopting of terms such as “Islamist” from the post-9/11 North American discourse is troubling, particularly as one realizes how unsophisticated the discussion of Islam among the media punditocracy here has been. And if Naeem wants to successfully confront the problem he raises, the debate has to be sophisticated and learned. Further, secularism is the proverbial elephant described by the blind men, and yet secularism gets casually thrown into the mix as well, as though the terms of reference are manifest. What exactly does Naeem mean by secular Islam? Are we talking about secularism of the American variety, Indian, French, or Turkish?

Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.

- Robert Frost, Mending Wall