[Reader-list] I HAVE CAMPED HERE

[Gayatri Chatterjee]

I HAVE CAMPED AT THIS SARAI AND WILL BE STAYING ON FOR A WHILE

Dear Shuddha,
You had written: "My only question to you is - why look for solace or
respite in the writing of public or private intellectuals, or people at
Sarai, on the list."
It definitely is a sign of weakness on my part to look for solace. Instead,
I should have said, "I will not accept any solace, I will be inconsolable."
In a certain way, that is what has happened; there is no solace in anything.
Nothing is quenching that dry burning in the region of my throat and heart.

You had written: "You, have intervened, that is what matters, and we need
more such interventions on the list, without anyone of us bothering to think
whether or not we are the kind of people to whom the 'privilege' of speaking
out devolves by some unaccounted for virtue."
I was not thinking of 'speaking' in this list as a 'privilege', since all of
us in the list automatically are entitled to do so. We, members of this
e-mail list speak, hear and think 'through it'. Of course, we are engaged in
such activities in other 'sites' as well - as someone pointed out. But, when
I am speaking within Sarai, I am a Sarai-member - for the moment.
As far as the use of the term 'sizable intelligentsia' - I term such things
'raw material', something one 'works' with.  At that moment, I started with
that 'raw material', wanting to ask what more we could do with it, with that
particular 'situated-ness'. In another site, I would say other things - not
say 'those' things at all! I will return to this a little later.
'Intelligentsia' is a category; and so is 'principals-and-teachers' - who
decides what kind of announcement the morning meet should have (referring to
Reyhan's mail today) - another category (teachers of course is a sub-set).
Intelligentsia was a bad word in China and belonging to the six low
categories. Just learnt from a talk by G. P. Deshpande the other day that
China has now included that category (intelligentsia) in the high top tens.
They are doing this, in order to be better heard in the world and engage
with globalisation - their fashion. I thought, all of us here, all the
activists, writers, filmmakers, doctors, social workers, social scientists,
etc (should I have said middle-class - No, we are part and not whole of it -
or we are something else) as forming this group, who are sharing talks and
silences.
Why name a category? Because I do want to, like the Chinese leaders :-), not
ignore any category that history throws up; but want to use it to our
advantage. Perhaps there were more reasons, but I need more time to think
why I used labels.
And I cannot think of a category-less civil society.

You have written: "But in saying this I also take exception to your
expectation that some of us ought to be more responsible in terms of writing
than others. Do correct me
if I am wrong about this. I think everyone is equally responsible for the
silence. The list belongs to all those who have subscribed to it [.]. And
this is the expectation that some of us should be more articulate than
others. That some of us (in this case on this list) have more of a
responsibility to speak and be heard than others. I have serious
reservations about this position."
I re-read my mail to Sarai and tried to see whether it singles out those in
the physical space of Sarai. But, all the while, I have only addressed the
Sarai-List!
No, I did not have any face in front of me when I wrote that. At the end, I
ask why I cannot think and write something that will make a lot of sense,
but the 'you' thereafter is a collective, which also means 'me' or 'us' in
sentences that are interrogative or imperative.
I was playing with these categories: I/We, You/You, S/he/Them. If we are to
think of the kind of civil society we want, we need to work with them, with
categories like insider/outsider.
Yes, you have been wrong there - but this is a wrong I would like to latch
on to for a while. This has happened before, when people running the Sarai
machines have been held responsible I don't remember what but I was reminded
of that occasion. Let us ask why we should do that - hold as responsible
those who run an organisation, when it is convenient to us, when we benefit
from it otherwise (we would un-subscribe ourselves, if it did not give us
pleasure or brought us no benefits by the way of information and
solidarity).
Now, notwithstanding the fact that it gave you the impression you were
singled out, let us assume that, this letter from Gayatri Chatterjee was in
fact written to the Sarai Reader-List. If I did not do that, then it is a
bhayankar mistake and there is nothing I can say or do, but sit and mend
myself quietly. If I have done that, then we should also ask why you took it
in that manner.
Let us henceforth, once and for all, take this as a given that we are a
group. Those who 'run' Sarai need not ever tell the rest of the group they
too are 'equally' responsible, and so on. Let us not create anymore
'insiders' and 'outsider'. That must be the a priori - that sense of
functioning.
Hey you Shuddhabrata Sengupta, who are you to tell Gayatri Chatterjee, that
she is also a responsible insider of the group? I am that. Of course, when I
physically travel to Delhi, and then take a bus or an auto from Mayur Vihar
or wherever and visit Sarai-premises, I will continue to feel pleased as
punch when you guys welcome me, give me a hug, show me around, chat - brèf,
when I am treated like a guest. I do not want to lose that privilege.

Silence. Yes, once I saw all of you, imagined you sprawled everywhere, on
chairs, steps, those stools at the colourful coffee-bar, seated before the
computers or standing listlessly, silently. Silence in a real space is very
comforting; but what is it in a virtual space?
And then, I was only comparing the situation with that after 11 September.
The question simply had been, why we talked so much then?

And then again, in this virtual space I am no guest! I have camped here - as
much as I continue eternally to be an itinerant writer/singer, a pathik
continuously camping at this sarai. No, I am not trying to describe my life
as a romantic cliché. This is merely a metaphorical way of describing (even
if partly) it. As a free-lancer, I have been associated with many
organisations and institutes and have experienced just the opposite. I have
seen people who run them getting upset if we outsiders thought of the
organisation as our very own, wanted to behave as a group. Once, I was
asked, 'How long will you continue with this kind of prostitution (meaning
my freelance activity)?' I had replied to that man, 'Yes, I know I am not as
married (to an institution) as you are.' Today, the man is 'divorced' from
that institution - well! But woh kissa phir kabhi - that story another time.
There are metaphors and metaphors J

In early phases, some lack of formulation, immaturity in thought and gesture
is all right, No? But on the other hand, some grown-up-ness must become the
raw material we start with. Otherwise, the impression will be that some are
speaking more, being heard more.
Even after September 11, there was a call for the members to speak (and not
post so many forwards). I had responded with some garbled thoughts. And
after that - this! Speaking and keeping silent - we engage in/with both -
while inhabiting this virtual space.

You have written: "In fact when we are saying that someone is 'talking too
much', or that their speech act is 'overvalued' we are actually pointing to
the fact that no one else is speaking. Perhaps if everyone did a little bit
of speaking up now and then, than neither the silence nor the speech act of
any particular individuals ('sizable' or 'established') would mean such a
big deal."
Absolutely. It is not a big deal that I wrote something at that moment. May
be, I should make a more concerted effort to formulate what kind of civil
society we have created, desire, deserve. What we have gained, what is
getting lost, etc.
Pratap, to speak is not being moral. Heavens, No!

You have said: "On the one hand we have some people complaining about the
way in which the list has drawn attention to someone speaking, and on the
other we have you protesting, very rightly, about the fact that no one has
spoken. I think this is a fascinating paradox for a list to find itself in."
It is normal common enough paradox. But, soon those who speak 'too much'
will wait and step aside, when others speak; those who had been silent will
find their words, tongues, and intonations.
Speaking is gestural. And I was making a gesture - as a member of a group,
as an individual, as a friend, as a stranger - to you, to you, to us, to
them, to all of us.

Free speech and free silence are both - you are right - signs of a
discursive community. I was at that point showing (not showing off, but
demonstrating) the paradoxes of discourse at a time like that, paradoxes
that show up in sharper light the paradoxes that exist at peacetimes
(speaking relatively, again).

You ask: "I need to know how this fluctuating amplitude of silence can be
measured."
I think neither speech nor silence can be measured. But, either can make one
uncomfortable or happy; and then we might note that, muse on that, comment
on that.

This has gotten long and I promise to make more sense once Mother India goes
to press. But let me say, this was no big deal. I spoke the only way I could
at that moment. I made the only gesture I could make and reach out to the
group. 'It' belonged to that moment. Another time, I might say other things.
Or remain quiet for a very long time, when some one says something that gets
my tongue. I might keep silent in shame, in fear or if that someone makes me
introspective. Silence and speech - both mean so many things. It is for us
to understand the import, the nuance, the underlined message - the said and
the unsaid. Because, it is 'us' speaking - to ourselves.