[Reader-list] response to Roger Das

[Vivek Narayanan]

Hi,

As a coordinator of the independent fellowship programme at Sarai, I 
would like to respond to the mail below and make some important 
clarifications.  Hopefully these will be of use to future applicants as 
well as to members of the reader-list community.

1.  Firstly, I would like to reiterate that the reader-list is an 
*unmoderated* list.  This means that no one at Sarai approves or rejects 
mails based on their content.  However, we insist on postings only in 
plain text and not html format; the reason for this is partly to prevent 
the spread of viruses and other malicious files.   Dear Roger, a quick 
look at our archives shows that your messages were all in html format, 
and a return message was sent to you asking for you to resend the 
message in plain text format, which you did not do.  So in future, 
please be sure to set your mail client to send messages in plain text 
and not html, and there will not be any problem with posting.

It goes without saying that on an unmoderated list such as ours, the 
members are themselves responsible for ensuring a high standard of 
discussion, and avoiding vindictive or personal attacks.

2.  Independent fellowship applications are carefully read and vetted by 
a large committee with diverse interests.  Selections are made on the 
basis of the quality and relevance of the proposal and not for any other 
reason; we have found that the involvement of a diverse and closely 
engaged committee helps to ensure this. 

3.  If an i-fellows proposal addresses the same general topic that has 
already been covered by an earlier project, this is not necessarily 
grounds for disqualification.  What we would look for in the new project 
is that it approaches the old theme from a different angle or 
methodology, and that it complements or adds to the earlier work in an 
interesting and valuable way.  Thus, we are able to build a growing body 
of related research, rather than just having scattershot and singular 
attempts. 

4.  In the case of the project you refer to, Roger, it was selected 
partly because of the rich, sophisticated and nuanced quality of the 
writing in the proposal, the distinctiveness of its approach (informed 
by literature, filmmaking practice and ethnography) and, also, because 
it showed the participants had already done detailed preparatory 
research and visits to the graveyard/crematorium in question, prior to 
applying.  The focus of the work on a single site was also a factor, 
because it meant the research could more likely be feasibly completed in 
the fellowship period.  Furthermore, we do indeed consider all of the 
selected projects as addressing topics that are useful and relevant to 
our own work and the intellectual depth of our networks, especially 
since there are virtually no other funding avenues in the Indian context 
for much of the research that we support.

5.  It is extremely unfair and sexist to suggest that fellows are given 
preference on the basis of their gender.  We recently did a detailed 
statistical analysis of the gender ratio in all the years of the 
fellowship program and found that, both overall and in individual years, 
slightly more men than women received the fellowship; this matches up 
with the national sex ratio.  Since all the fellowships are listed on 
our website, you're welcome to do the math yourself.

Lastly, I would like to say that we are sorry if we have alienated or 
offended any of the applicants to the programme whose proposal was not 
selected.  Last year, for instance, we received more than 450 
applications; subjectivity is an integral part of the selection process 
in the humanities, arts and social sciences; we may well err in 
rejecting very good proposals every year, and we have a cap on the 
number of projects we can fund.  At the same time, we continue to be 
excited by the proposals we have selected, and by the sheer range of the 
fellows' themes, approaches, and backgrounds.

Yours,
Vivek.



roger das wrote:

> I would like to draw the attention of all that in the organisation 
> like sarai there is partiality dominating the process of selecting 
> Independent fellows. I have notice so many absurd or irrelevant topics 
> were selected this time but I was surprise to see the same useless 
> topic was selected this time also. In 2003-2004 *[Hindi] submited by 
> Md. Abdul Khaliq, *Delhi and in this year 2004-2005 the same topic but 
> in english *Death and the Bazaar: A Look at the Death Care Industry 
> submitted by *Tasneem, Fatima and Marya, Delhi. The only difference 
> this time was the medium and sex. Like the other, this auspicious 
> organisation too goes for fairer sex irrespective of their talent and 
> originality. This shows that these fair sex lack professionalism and 
> due to these kind of people there is umemployment in our country. 
> Their place would have been filled by new topic by any talented and 
> intelligent person if the organisation  fellowship there was a topic 
> /*Dilli Ke Kabristanhen Aur Shamshanhen Ka Vishleshanatmak Rekheinkan 
> */had been act impartially during selection.
>
>  
>
> I didnt expect such thing from sarai. And above all I am sure they are 
> not going to post this letter to the list like before. 
>
> I must advise these girls to not cheat from next time if they really 
> want to succeed in life. But I know they will say WHO CARES! and 
> continue copying
>
>  
>
> roger
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=34442/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>