[Reader-list] Police stops screening of Jashn-e-Azadi

[Aman Sethi]

It is rather interesting that most the threads that usually sustain
beyond 2 or three desultory mails, are those that deal with the
"hindu-mussalman" question. Even arguments that on the face of it dont
seem to have much to do with the "Hindu-Mussalman" question,
inevitably come down to it.  From there on, its a quick jump to
"pseduo-secularists" vs hindutva wallahs.

Kashmir, i suppose, tends to elicit reactions such as these - where
every conversation about kashmir never remains "about kashmir" for
particularly long. It lends itself to "larger questions" about
"patriotism", "secularism and pseudo-secularism", "narender modi",
"jhola wallahs", and of course, "the search for meaning" and "the
nature of the state".

Perhaps Sanjay Kak is trying to do just that  - to make a film that is
about kashmir, and stays about kashmir.  And perhaps thats what the
kashmiris refer to when they use that tragically over-used cliche,
"all agreements should take into account the will of the kashmiri
people." A conversation, a film,  a dialogue, a protest, that is not
abt "tips of icebergs", and "symptoms of larger malaises".

Ever freedom of speech/expression makes the same mistake-
"This is not just abt the arrest of an art student in gujarat, this is
about the larger issue of freedom of speech in this country."
"This is not just about Sanjay Kak's film on kashmir, this is about
the larger issue of freedom of speech."

No its not.

It IS abt the arrest, and it IS about Kashmir. If every act of
censorship succeeds in diverting attention from the censored
object/subject/article/film towards a big picture analysis of
censorship, freedom of expression and the nature of the state, then
censorship has accomplished its task.

We are then left free to plumb the depths of our limitless
imaginations in search of We's , "Us's, Them's, and Thoses.
A.
ps: The police ARE buffoons.  Really.



On 8/1/07, Amitabh Kumar <amitabh at sarai.net> wrote:
> The way I understand it.. 'nationalism and patriotism' are not so
> bankrupt a phenomenon so as to be divorced of  'secularism &
> liberalism'.
> However, the figure of 'we' the 'suffer'ers in your argument is
> interesting. Is it geographically bound or otherwise? Whats the
> imagination of 'we'?
>   Is it 'We' the Indians? Or 'We- The Hindu's"? Or ' We- Who hate all
> religions but our own' or 'We- who only hate Muslims and Christians'
> or ' We - who hate'  or  ' We-  In a bad mood today'?
>
> On 31-Jul-07, at 11:33 PM, Vedavati Jogi wrote:
>
> > india must be the only country on this earth where 'nationalism'
> > and 'patriotism' are ridiculed ....i think this must be  the reason
> > why we had to suffer at the hands of muslim & christian invaders
> > for more than thousand years, moreover why this country was
> > partitioned in 1947 !
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Sign in and get updated with all the action!
> > http://content.msn.co.in/Sports/FormulaOne/Default
> > _________________________________________
> > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > Critiques & Collaborations
> > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> > subscribe in the subject header.
> > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/ >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>