[Reader-list] Pratap pandey

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Dear All on the Readers List, and Pratap Pandey

This is apropos of the discussion on Pratap Pandey’s postings on the Reader 
List. I would like to state here that I have sometimes found my self deeply 
appreciative of the incisiveness of what Pratap Pandey writes here, and 
sometimes irritated, and on occasion totally disgusted. Let me add that none of 
my judgements of Pratap Pandey’s writing has anything to do with the language 
or register in which he writes. But it has to do with the arguments that his 
writing embodies. It matters little to me as to whether or not people use 
language that refers to body parts or not. For me, a sphincter is as good or 
not as an elbow, or the brain. Just as a body without a brain is not much use, 
so too, a body without a sphincter is not much use either. And in the end all 
body parts are odorous! However, it is evident  fithat there is a level of 
exhibtionistic bragadaccio in the way Pandey deploys what he adolescently 
thinks is ‘bad language’ to intimidate others on the list. I might not find 
this intimidating, even if it bores me to death to see someone be juvenile. But 
I can understand that others might in fact find the intensity of Panday’s 
vitriol anything less than intimidating. I find this intimidation, especially 
when it comes from someone who, on occasion can think very incisively, 
pathetic. Equally pathetic is the imputation of motives on to other members of 
the list, on the basis of their location. If Ranit or Vinita or anyone else 
posts a message about a meeting that they wish to attend, in New York, or in 
New Rajendra Nagar, that is their prerogative, and Panday has no business 
wasting our time by telling us what his personal problems with migrants are. 
And who amongst us is not a migrant? Why should the migration to America be 
more unacceptable than the migration to Kalkaji from Lajpat Nagar really beats 
me. 

However, the issue here is not merely about language, it is about arguments. I 
find it unacceptable that Pratap Pandey criticizes someone merely because they 
happen to be working or working in the United States of America, if they happen 
to be of an ethnic origin that allows him to put on to them the mental label – 
Indian. By Pandey’s logic, anyone who earns their bread outside the territorial 
boundaries of the republic of India (or anyone who earns their bread) is 
deserving of his old testament  fire and brimstone. I have no affection or 
respect for any location or place – the usa or India are interchangeable 
notations for bits of land and fragments of law. A sphincter is as good as an 
elbow. So any blanket statement about NRIs or what Panday calls Global 
Aedicated Indians is as meaningless as any blanket statement about any other 
kind of Indians, or Germans or germans (notice my respect for the distinction 
that p(P)anday makes between the  ‘G’ and ‘g’ in G(g)ermany in his posting to 
Britta). 

So I can’t buy the line that all our troubles in India are because of ‘Global 
Aedicated Indians’. This seems to indicate a category of at least some people, 
who are innocent, or are not implicated in the authoritarian vision that Panday 
critiques. I want to know -  who is innocent? - local educated Indians, 
vernacular snobs, English speaking elites, small town intellectuals, 
metropolitan cosmopolites, working class people, middle class people, 
lower.upper.middle class people? Panday’s problem is his smugness. His belief 
that there is such a thing as  a repository of original ‘un’fascist innocence 
that we all need to recover. I don’t think there is. If it is there, it is 
somewhere in the juvenile aristocratic disdain in  Panday’s head for what  he 
calls vetan bhogis. Who here, is not now, or will not be, in the near future 
(if they are students) a ‘vetan bhogi’. 

Having said all this, I also do not think that my criticism of Panday needs to 
be seen as advocacy that  Panday should be asked to leave this list. I think 
(and there may be differences  of opinion amongst us about this) that our 
commitment to free speech on this list must mean that we are prepared to give 
space to opinions, and styles and registers of speech that we absolutely, 
categorically disagree with. Those of us who disagree must do so, publicly. 
Anyone who thinks that the list must not be characterized by occasional bouts 
of macho juvenilia has a responsibility to post actively, in a way that they 
think is conducive to healthy discussion. To be silent, and then say that one 
could not speak because others spoke ‘badly’ is really a dime excuse for 
discursive laziness.

To appeal for the ejection of a person on the grounds that they use sexist 
language is to fall into the trap that much of Indian mainstream feminism is 
in, which is -  to protest against obscenity, to call for bans, and to not do 
anything that contributes to a pushing of the boundaries of what can be said. 
Arguments can be encountered only by arguments, and if you thinks that some 
thing is an instance of ‘offensive language’ then it is as much your 
responsibility to counter that usage with something that is at least as 
creative, as hungry for attention and provocative as that which you critique. 
To my mind, this is the responsibility that free speech brings with it.

Besides, just because I think Panday bullshits his way through life on this 
list a lot of the time, does not
Contradict the fact that he sometimes talks very sensibly and elegantly and 
intelligently, and that sometimes the sense and the nonsense go hand in hand, 
and indeed, might have something to do with each other. Its me as a reader who 
has to display the responsibility of critical discretion.

Finally, for anyone who finds Panday reallyoffensive, I would endorse the 
elegant solution that Pankaj has proposed earlier. Just filter him out of your 
mailbox. That way his freedom to rant, and your freedom to not have to listen 
to him, are both guaranteed. He will then also understand that there are risks 
he is taking when he stoops so low as to brandish his particular brand of 
personal invective. And amongst the risks is the possibility of having many, if 
not most, if not all, people on this list, deciding to filter his messages out 
of their mailboxes. Then he may continue to rant in the ethereal solitary 
confinement of the virtual space of this list, but that is a corner he will 
have chosen for himself. A list that believes in free speech, can also be 
painfully cruel, in freely choosing to ignore someone who continues to offend 
people on it. This is not censorship, because no one will force Pandey to not 
speak his mind or his elbow or his sphincter aloud. It is merely the choice 
that we may exercise (just as freely) to not listen to him, if we so please. 
I am quoting Pankaj again – 

“If you dont want to read what he has to say just make a filter and ignore all 
his messages.
a procmail filter for the same looks like this .I'm sure Eudora has similar 
facilites.

:0				# Anything from pratap
* ^From.*pnanpin at yahoo.co.in
trash				# will go to $MAILDIR/trash”

In fact, Eudora does have similar facilities. Just go into Eudora. Select mail 
from anyone you find offen
offensive in your inbox. Now click on ‘Special’ in your menu bar, click on 
‘Make Filter’ . In the part that says ‘Match’ - Click on the button that says 
“From Contains’ (the box next to it should have the offending persons e mail 
address, in this case - pnanpin at yahoo.co.in  - and then in the part that says 
“Action”, click on the box that says to Delete Message (transfer to trash). 
This should do the trick. 

Then Professor Pandey might find his corner very stimulating. Thet silence, of 
that corner can be deafening and I hope that Pandey does  mend his ways, so 
that it does not get \ unleashed on to him.

The worst thing for post-er thirsty for an audience, is for that audience to 
decide to become, for that person,   a mirage. So, beware Professor Pandey and 
kindly mend your ways if you want to continue having a conversation with most 
of us.


Cheers

Shuddha

--
Shuddhabrata Sengupta
SARAI:The New Media Initiative
Centre for the Study of Developing Societies
29 Rajpur Road
Delhi 110 054
India
Phone : (00 91 11) 3960040