Bias does not always appear as open prejudice. Sometimes it hides behind humour, loyalty or harmless banter. A person may think a joke is innocent because it reflects an old school friendship, without realising that it can hurt others or revive divisions that should have been long left behind. This is why people can speak about social reform and still behave in ways that go against the values they claim to support.
A recent dispute on X, involving a figure who describes himself as a proud Biscocite, philanthropist and social activist directed a rancourous video directed at Burn Hall School (BHS). This act raises a question that goes beyond the people involved. This video and related posts mocking the institution drew criticism before the video was later deleted by this figure. Whatever the intention may have been, the larger question remains: when does school pride become public provocation, and who benefits when old school rivalries are brought back into public debate?
School is where friendships begin and lasting memories are made. Former pupils naturally take pride in their schools, their history and their traditions. But pride becomes prejudice when it depends on putting another institution down. The value of a school cannot be measured by insulting another school, nor can a person’s character be judged by the institution they attended.
Kashmir has more serious problems than arguments about which school is better. Unemployment, income inequality, a lack of opportunities and the daily struggles of ordinary families already place a heavy burden on society. Schools should encourage learning, confidence and service, not divide people into rival groups. Public arguments that turn school identities into weapons do little for a society that already has enough problems to deal with.
The contradiction becomes clearer when public figures, such as him, describe themselves as highly active philanthropists or social activists. However, people who speak about fighting social problems or helping poorer sections of society must also understand that their own unwarranted behaviour sends a message, a kind of lip service which they don’t accept. Theirs is a trait warranting introspection. The compassion of so called activists cannot be limited to charitable work or public appearances. It must also be shown through responsibility by realising that people feel hurt by words or trolls.
There is another question worth asking about the nature of public activism. When someone, such as this figure, regularly meets politicians from different political backgrounds, praises intellectuals with different views and maintains relationships with people from different sections of society, it is reasonable to ask what core principles guide their activism. Meeting people with different opinions is not wrong. In fact, it can show an open mind. But being open to different views can mean having no clear principles of one’s own. An activist should be able to explain the ideas and values that connect their public appearances, opinions and social work. Otherwise, activism risks becoming a collection of public appearances rather than a clear commitment to bringing about change. This individual appears particularly good at building relationships across political and intellectual circles, but the real test of his activism is not how many such connections he can maintain. It is whether he remains true to the principles one claims to uphold.
One is also left to wonder whether the desire for public attention sometimes becomes more important than the causes being promoted. Social media rewards visibility, controversy and arguments. It can encourage people to create disagreements simply to remain in the public eye. This may not explain any individual’s intentions, but it raises an important question about the difference between seeking attention and serving society. An activist’s credibility should depend on consistent behaviour, not on the number of politicians, intellectuals or influential people appearing in their photographs on social media.
Another problem with social media is that people often treat disagreement as a personal attack. When someone questions a post, the argument quickly shifts from the original issue to accusations about the other person’s intelligence, behaviour or state of mind. This avoids answering the criticism.
The greater question also remains: why does bias make people behave hypocritically? The answer often lies in the way people connect their identity with a particular school, profession, political group or social circle. When their group is criticised, they may take it as a personal insult. They defend behaviour among their own friends that they would condemn in others. They demand respect when criticised but fail to consider the hurt their own words may cause. This is particularly harmful in Kashmir, where society is closely connected and personal and institutional loyalties often overlap.
This does not mean that schools should be protected from criticism. Every institution must be open to fair questions about its work and standards. If BHS, Biscoe or any other school in the valley has shortcomings, these should be discussed with facts and a clear purpose. There is, however, a difference between questioning an institution and encouraging people to make fun of its pupils and alumnus. The deleted video on X was not simply an example of harmless banter. It amounted to ridiculing an established and notable educational institution. Calling such behaviour humour does not take away its emotional effect on those who feel targeted. Fair criticism can improve institutions, but public ridicule only deepens old rivalries.
Kashmir’s schools, especially Burn Hall have educated generations of people, with many graduates serving in upper echelons in different social stratas and fields. Their former pupils should be able to disagree on forums.
The values schools teach, such as respect, honesty, fairness and kindness, are most important when people face disagreement. What is the value of education if its lessons are forgotten once a person leaves the school gates?
Nor should this episode be seen only as a dispute involving one individual. The wider culture of X often rewards arguments, personal attacks and the need to have the last word. People argue to defeat one another rather than understand different points of view. A small disagreement soon becomes a public fight, while the original issue is forgotten. We cannot expect social media to become a better place if we continue to contribute to its ugliness.
At the same time, school pride should never become a reason to look down on others. If someone claims to work for the common good, their values should be visible not only in the company they keep or the causes they promote, but also in the way they treat ordinary people.
True maturity is not about proving that one’s school, social circle or background is better than someone else’s. It is about showing respect, accepting mistakes and understanding that our differences should not divide us. School rivalries belong to the past. What matters is whether the education we received has taught us how to live with one another and whether it can shape a better collective future for the Kashmiri society.
Naveed Qazi is an author of fiction and non-fiction books, and serves as Editor at Large for Science Matters India. Feedback at naveedqazi@live.com
