A thread. Plz bear with me.
I have been on Twitter from 2016 under various anonymous handles.I don't think I should have be here before that to be called a veteran or validate myself.These attributions like veteran or Facebook refugee should not matter as long as you make sense.

Even if you don't make sense, you still have an individuality and agency.People who claim a higher pedestal here or complain about standards of debate going down simply can't digest that fact that they no longer dictate the terms of discourse (in Foucaultian sense) on Twitter.

Contarary to popular belief,Twitter today is not intolerant, as it used to be.This space has never been as inclusive and accessible as it is now.I think perspectives of young people who have turned to Twitter from Facebook are more grounded in experience than those who prefer...

who prefer to live in temple of scholarly self righteousness.Azaadi for them is nothing more than an academic timepass(maybe a little more than that) .New generation feels passionately about it.

"Veterns", by patronising them,intimidating them, labelling them as aggressive, intolerant "newcomers" who don't know how to maintain the decorum of debate obstructs the possibility of them being heard and pushes them to periphery.

The logic produced by these attributions is related to broader purpose of taking centre-stage(one simply can't take away the equation of power here just because it's not visible)and make these newcomers sound vacuous.

There is also this faux intellectual belief that young people need to "learn", "unlearn" and "deconstruct " to be relevant to changing landscape of discourses.These hegemonic caveats drawn at the outset remove genuine people from the political agency not only by instilling in

them an intellectual insecurities and creates a political subject representing the "other" through the lens of elite scholarship and high theory.This is precisely what indigenous scholars were subjected to by European Anthropologists.

The methods that we use to engage with them are pre-colonial, that effaces their oppressed selves from discourse.These approaches of engagement offend people's sense of humanity and have been rejected by every post colonial thinker.

We engage in debates or discussions for the greater good of our cause of Azaadi,to understand what is to be done and what not. But this peculiar intellectual spirit of classifying people(on the basis of what they read),

inclined towards the colonial notion of evolution of mind,compartmentalising knowledge, is a pitfall that makes dialogue almost impossible and creates a latent domination of elite narratives.

This presumed gap of mind and intellect puts on a lens that devalidates their experinces, their presence, their history and voice. This unequal power of defining, essentializing and labeling creaters an "other".This creates a deepest distrust and suspicion amongst the " Other "

towards our research, arguments and even to our morality. I strongly believe that methods of engagement are very important as it reprsents a set of conventions about how we learn, how we produce knowledge and how we make others learn.

We need to understand that, in a place like Kashmir people have developed their own epistemological traditions which frames the way they see the world, the way they organize themselves in it, the questions they ask and the solutions they seek