Read on Twitter
Thanks a lot @salmanAraja for your detailed response. I have exhausted most of my arguments, so I do not have much to say. Perhaps @EmadAnsariH @sameen_mohsin @akkhan81 @nidkirm @HassanJavid_ @rafay_alam would have a lot more to contribute to this debate.
Let me respond to the easier part first. There is absolutely no attempt at targeting any particular individual - especially the organizer who I continue to hold as a dear friend. Nor is anyone claiming moral superiority to look down on those supporting NF's right to the platform
Everyone, of course, is well within their rights to take a stance on this issue. We are not fascists! And nor is it that we are seeking to create an echo chamber where we want to shut out debate or disinvite people just because we do not agree with them or dislike them.
Engaging in a debate - even on controversial issues - is what academics do, but not all the time nor for all issues. It is an established principle among scientists that they would not debate flat earther or intelligent design proponents.
It is because there is frankly little energy to keep on going in circles about arguments that the scientists have already convincingly refuted. More importantly, it gives a false sense of equality to 'the other side of the argument' as if it is equally valid.
As a lawyer, your emphasis is on precision and definitional categorization that can be universally applicable and established beyond a reasonable doubt. To be a racist is no longer a badge of honour that many people would like to wear these days.
Several people who are called out for their racism or sexism deny having such views. You expect that it must be possible to establish conclusively - again in a very legal sense of the word - that someone is a racist or a misogynist. It hardly ever happens.
We read people's works and listen to their words to make sense of what they believe in. So, it is always an approximation of what we think of other people's views. It cannot be a hundred percent correct. We say that NF is reflected in his writings, of course you can dispute this
Part of your argument is that even if it does say that colonialism was good, so what? While you agree that this can no longer be said about racism, slavery, or gender inequality, the jury is still out on colonialism because it promoted science (hugely contested), gave railways
Well, the jury has arrived at a decision, and it says colonialism was terrible; it dehumanized non-European subject populations, exploited their resources, caused wars, famines, displacements, widespread destruction- the cumulative effect continues to haunt postcolonial societies
So, we should instead be moving to debates on the question of reparations, rather than evaluating the pros and cons of colonialism.
When you say that NF is well published and has taught at reputed universities, it helps refute the argument of shutting down free speech. He has multiple platforms available to him, so it's the likes of him and other neo-cons who have access.
It is, therefore, completely different from someone like Milo Yiannopoulos, who is hated by everyone for his views, and inviting him to the universities causes an uproar. This is primarily a question for US universities where they can deal with the 'supermarket of ideas'
In our case, there is a singular narrative and a hegemonic discourse that leaves little room for alternative spaces. There is no levelled playing field here, so when people object that litfests or universities like Habib, IBA, and LUMS cater to a specific audience...
or invite speakers with a particular liberal or progressive bent, I support the reasoning of doing so. This is because, in such a context, it is okay to develop an intellectual space that can offer resistance and open up the possibility of critical inquiry.
For these reasons, I will support ThinkFest if it continues to deny a platform to Orya, Zaid Hamid, or Hafiz Saeed. It will be a political act that has basis in the specific context of Pakistan, and not an infringement on the right to free speech.
Lastly, yes, the current moment is of significance, though I, at least, would have still opposed inviting NF during any other time. The guy has built a successful career out of justifying imperial wars and the white man's mission.
NF is not invited to question him on his views; it is to launch his new book! For ThinkFest to be the platform that I thought it was, it should have amplified the voices of those who need our solidarity, in whose liberation lies the potential of our political salvation as well.
I was trying to come up with an appropriate Urdu sher to end my rant, but could not think of anything appropriate 
