Naveed Qazi
Bias does not always appear as open prejudice. Sometimes it hides behind humour, loyalty or harmless banter. A person may consider a joke innocent because it reflects an old school rivalry, without realising that it can hurt others or revive divisions that should have been left behind. This is how people can speak about social reform while behaving in ways that contradict the values they claim to uphold. A recent dispute on X, involving a figure from Srinagar who describes himself as a proud Biscoite, philanthropist and social activist, has brought this contradiction into focus. He shared a rancorous and insulting video targeting Burn Hall School accompanied by posts mocking the institution where his peers from school also indulged in the act. The content drew criticism before he eventually deleted the video from his X profile. Whatever the intention behind it, the episode raises a question that goes beyond the individuals involved: why does school pride lead to public provocation, and who benefits from bringing old school rivalries in the valley back into public debate?
Schools are places where friendships begin, lasting memories are made, nostalgia is experienced and values are learnt. Former pupils naturally take pride in their institutions, their history and their traditions. However, pride becomes prejudice when it depends on putting another school down. The worth of one institution cannot be established by insulting another, just as a person’s character cannot be judged solely by the school they attended. Kashmir has far more serious concerns than arguments over which school is better. Unemployment, income inequality, limited job opportunities and the everyday struggles of ordinary families already place a heavy burden on society. At a time when people need greater cooperation and understanding, turning school identities into grounds for rivalry serves no meaningful purpose. Educational institutions and those associated with them should promote learning, confidence, mutual respect and public service, rather than encourage divisions that follow people into adult life.
Those who use school identities as weapons on social media or elsewhere only add to unnecessary social tensions in a society that needs greater solidarity. The contradiction is particularly evident when individuals, such as him, who present themselves as active philanthropists and social activists engage in behaviour that encourages division and ridicule. Philanthropy and public service are not measured merely by charitable activities or public appearances, but also by how one treats others and contributes to social harmony. Genuine activism must begin with personal responsibility, because those who advocate solidarity and social reform must ensure that their own conduct reflects the values they publicly promote. It must also be reflected in how people treat others, particularly when they disagree with them. That was not the case with this individual. That is why words, online ridicule and personal attacks can cause genuine hurt, and those who advocate social responsibility should be conscious of their own behaviour. Otherwise they present themselves as men of lip service. There is also a broader question about the principles guiding public activism. When an individual, such as this figure, regularly meets politicians from different political backgrounds, praises intellectuals with contrasting views and maintains relationships across various sections of society, it is reasonable to ask what connects these activities.
There is nothing inherently wrong with engaging with people who hold different opinions. Indeed, the ability to build relationships across political and intellectual differences can be a valuable quality. This individual appears particularly adept at maintaining such connections. However, the real measure of an activist is not the number of influential people they know or meet, but the principles that guide their public conduct and social work. An activist must be able to demonstrate consistency in their values and philosophical orientations. Otherwise, activism risks becoming a superficial collection of public appearances, rather than a coherent commitment to bringing about change.
“Modern social media debate often prioritizes winning arguments and fueling hostilties—such as immature school rivalries—over mutual understanding and basic decency. True maturity and education must teach individuals to accept mistakes and navigate differences constructively, serving as a foundation for a more united and compassionate Kashmiri society.”
Social media often rewards visibility, controversy and confrontation, creating an environment in which public attention can become more important than the causes being promoted. This does not establish anyone’s personal intentions, but an activist’s credibility should rest on consistent conduct and meaningful contributions rather than social media photographs with politicians, intellectuals or influential people. Another problem is the tendency to treat disagreement as a personal attack, shifting attention from the original criticism to accusations about the critic’s intelligence, behaviour or state of mind. Public figures, such as him, who claim to promote social change should be willing to face questions and address criticism on its merits rather than turn every disagreement into a personal confrontation.
More broadly, people often identify so closely with their schools, professions, political groups or social circles that criticism of those associations feels like a personal insult. They defend among their own friends the behaviour they would condemn in others, demand respect when criticised and overlook the hurt caused by their own words. Such selective fairness is particularly damaging in Kashmir, where close social connections often make personal loyalties and institutional identities difficult to separate. None of this means that schools should be beyond criticism. Every institution must remain open to fair questions about its standards, performance and responsibilities. If BHS, Biscoe or any other school in the Valley has shortcomings, these should be discussed with evidence and a clear purpose. But there is a fundamental difference between scrutinising an institution and encouraging people to ridicule its pupils and alumnus. The deleted video on X was not simply harmless banter. It amounted to ridiculing the values of an established and respected educational institution. Calling such behaviour humour does not remove its impact on those who feel emotionally targeted. Fair criticism can help institutions improve, whereas public ridicule only reinforces old divisions.
Burn Hall has educated generations of pupils, many of whom have gone on to serve in senior positions and upper echelons across different professions and fields. Their former pupils should be able to take pride in their educational backgrounds without feeling the need to diminish others. Ultimately, the values schools seek to teach, including respect, honesty, fairness and kindness, should be universal and matter most when people encounter disagreement. Education should help individuals look beyond narrow loyalties and develop the ability to engage with others respectfully. What is the value of education if its lessons are forgotten once a person leaves the school gates?
This episode should also encourage wider reflection on the culture of X in Kashmir, where arguments, personal attacks and the desire to have the last word often receive more attention than reasoned discussion. People increasingly argue to defeat one another rather than understand different points of view. A minor disagreement can quickly become a public confrontation, leaving the original issue behind. Social media in Kashmir cannot become a more responsible space if its users continue to contribute to hostility. School pride should never become an excuse for looking down on others. True maturity is not about proving that one’s school is superior to someone else’s. It is also about accepting mistakes and recognising that differences should not lead to ugly divisions. People who promote school rivalries, such as this figure, illustrate a certain immaturity and lack of basic decency. These school rivalries should have been long gone. Isn’t it an important parable to ponder on? The more important question for Kashmiri society is whether the education we received has taught us how to live with one another and whether we can use those lessons to build a more united and compassionate Kashmiri society.
(The author is Editor Large for Science Matters India”. The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author and aren’t necessarily in accord with the views of “Kashmir Horizon”)
[email protected]
