[Reader-list] How someone "well connected" got RIK

[Aditya Raj Kaul]

Good job Kshmendra. For last few hours I really wanted to reply to Aman; he
has made a laughing stock of himself by making self-contradictory statement.
Your blunt mail sums it up all well.

Indeed, as someone just mentioned; activities of a certain "media savy
individual" and his "lobby" have been much disturbing for past some days.
Its a work of mere frustration.

The reply from the college authority is a of a very obvious nature. Who on
earth will agree that he used his contacts in the college and elsewhere to
scuttle someone's screening and then over that put his own screening in the
same time slot; and same day? What an act of bravery he did / Isn't it ? Its
sad to see a person of so much respect to do such pity things just to please
a certain lobby of maybe his masters. And, then what we see is a CRY BABBY
message posted on the Moderated blog of his; which only makes you more sad.

Its high time that we don't keep mum and suffer just because we are not
"well connected". One needs to make them realise the trap in which they are
floating.

Aditya Raj Kaul
www.kauladityaraj.blogspot.com




> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 06:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] How someone "well connected" got RIK
>        screening       Cancelled
> To: Aman Sethi <aman.am at gmail.com>, reader-list at sarai.net
> Message-ID: <683126.81224.qm at web57212.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Aman
>
> Let me start with a piece of friendly advice. Do not represent yourself as
> a "journalist". You are a sorry specimen. I will substantiate it.
>
> 1. You find yourself incapable of "verifying Rashneek's sequence of
> events". What a "journalist" you are Aman. One would think that it is NTK
> information or that you have to pull out a Battle Plan from the Ministry of
> Defence.
>
> 2. You suggest that Rashneek might be "simply lying". You are willing to
> risk that judgement without having any supportive information or evidence to
> reach it. Quite a "journalist" you are Aman.
>
> 3. You taunt me with """"" Further, to then congratulate the said author
> for brilliant
> "investigative work" seems a trifle premature"""""
>
> Aman, I have re-read my posting and do not see myself having congratulated
> anyone for """brilliant "investigative work".
>
> So Aman, for you, a "distortionist" might be a better tag than
> "journalist"
>
> 4. I agree with you Aman, some homework must be done , especially by a
> presumed "journalist"
>
> It is interesting that you admit that the likes of Aman will be "reduced"
> to "laughing hyenas". "Reduced" perhaps aptly describes your comeuppance.
> Inadvertent admission?
>
> Did you know Aman that the hyenas "laugh" is described as the equivalent
> of a dog's "bark"? Do you still see yourself evolving journalistically into
> a "laughing hyena"?
>
> The most delightful story about "laughing hyenas" (that you Aman aspire to
> be) is from African folklore:
>
> """"When the Creator returned he was very angry with the hyena for
> destroying the beautiful steenbok and he took a burning log from the fire
> and shoved it up the hyena's rear. The hyena howled and he rushed off into
> the bush in his shame and despair.
>
> And the hyena is still so ashamed and sorry for his mistake that he cannot
> even cry and his tears come out as desperate laughter."""""""
>
>
> Kshmendra Kaul
>
>
> Aman Sethi <aman.am at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Kshmendra,
>
> I have no qualms with Rashneek, Nishant Dudha, or even you, writing
> what ever you please about what ever you please. However, there is no
> way of verifying Rashneek's sequence of events - or to be more blunt -
> to verify if the author of the report is simply lying.
>
> Further, to then congratulate the said author for brilliant
> "investigative work" seems a trifle premature. Further, to use a open
> medium like this list to cast aspersions on someone's motives -
> without once more, providing anything other than a series of
> conjectures- is irresponsible.
>
> Thank you suggesting a journalistic method by which to prove rashneek/
> nishant's reportage - however, the onus is not on me as a reader to
> verify the authenticity of a report. The onus on reporter to convince
> me of the truth of his claim. In this case Rashneek/ nishant have not
> succeeded in doing so.
>
> At present, the information put out by Rashneek sounds like a spoilt
> 10 year old complaining to his school teacher. Which could explain why
> it is so hard to take him seriously.
>
> I would urge you to read, write, and inform as many as you can,
> especially since you seem to be such an articulate and intelligent
> person. However, as a professional "word howler" hyena" i would
> suggest that you do a spot of homework before you sit down at your
> computer. Otherwise we "scavenging hyenas" might be reduced to
> laughing hyenas.
>
> Best, as always,
> Aman
>
> On 8/26/07, Kshmendra Kaul wrote:
> > Aman
> >
> > For a "journalist" you are quite vague. Is that by design or is it a
> > compulsion arising out of your not having anything concrete to say?
> >
> > What is the "he said, she said" in Rashneek's 'report' (Nishant Dudha's
> > rather)?
> >
> > Rashneek seems to have narrated a sequence of events and stated
> questions
> > arising from them. What is it that you find objectionable?
> >
> > Rashneek is not a journalist (are you Rashneek?). He has spoken with
> passion
> > about his pain. Yet, he has managed to present rationally his
> experience.
> > "Rashneek's report" did not even state his conclusion. He put it up as a
> > question to be answered "Is Indian intelligentsia Liberal or
> Hypocrite?".
> >
> > You Aman, since you have thrust your "journalist" tag in our faces
> should
> > have 'investigated' and presented your reporting of 'what exactly
> happened'.
> > If you did that and if you carried no preconcieved notions and biases,
> you
> > Aman would have ended up with a lot of "he saids" and "she saids". That
> > would be journalism.
> >
> > Aman your derision " It is indeed tragic that he expects to be taken
> > seriously" is nothing but the word-howl of a scavenging hyena.
> >
> >
> > Kshmendra Kaul
> >
> > AFTERTHOUGHT: Many "Journalists" are extremely uncomfortable with the
> > ability of individuals to express themselves and reach readerships
> without
> > having to go through the "As reported by XXX" journalistic route. It
> > threatens the arrogance of their presumed role of being the only ones
> who
> > should report/inform.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Aman Sethi wrote:
> > As as journalist, i have always had a, perhaps misplaced, suspicion of
> > blogmedia. While blogmedia and list-servs have done some fantastic
> > work, what is saddening is how texts based on a series of loosely
> > worded conjectures pass off as investigative work. Of course an even
> > mildly critical viewing of our news channels and news media will
> > reveal the same conjectures passed off as news - usually when it
> > concerns matters of national security, separatism, and of course,
> > jihad. So perhaps i should retract my previous statement.
> >
> > Rashneek's report seems to consist of little beyond a "he said, she
> > said." In fact, he admits to as much in his "pre-emptive" post. It
> > is indeed tragic that he expects to be taken seriously.
> >
> > It would be interesting to view Pawan Durani's list of financiers. It
> > would be even more interesting to know where he gets his lists from.
> >
> > Best
> > A.
> >
> > On 8/25/07, Pawan Durani wrote:
> > > Thank you Fatima ...though it was someting "in between " .
> > >
> > > Jebeesh , what more can you expect from amateurs who unlike Sanjay Kak
> ,
> > do
> > > not have backing of people like Yasin Maliks ....( I hope I am
> > > safe)......and financers whose name i am going to reveal in few days.
> > >
> > > Its Good to be liberal...but it is dangerous to ignore the facts
> > >
> > > Pawan Durani
> > > www.thekashmir.wordpress.com
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/25/07, S.Fatima wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry to butt into this, but maybe calling the police
> > > > is a more innocent reaction than getting someone's
> > > > screening cancelled and being able to get one's own
> > > > film at the exact same time/date/space (IF this claim
> > > > is true, that is).
> > > > The rage seems to be on both sides.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- Jeebesh Bagchi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 25-Aug-07, at 8:14 AM, rashneek kher wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > We
> > > > > > filed a complaint and since Sanjay Kak is breaking
> > > > > the law of the
> > > > > > land by
> > > > > > screening a movie which does not have necessary
> > > > > censor certificate,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > Police did the rest.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Did this move satisfy the rage in you?
> > > > >
> > > > > Can testimonies of suffering justify these kinds of
> > > > > invitation to
> > > > > policing of our intellectual lives?
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn't taking recourse to punitive action an ally of
> > > > > our deep fear to
> > > > > live life with disagreements?
> > > > >
> > > > > If police is brought in to intervene, will there be
> > > > > people left to
> > > > > argue with and convince?
> > > > >
> > > > > best
> > > > > jeebesh
>



-- 
Aditya Raj Kaul
Blog: www.kauladityaraj.blogspot.com
Website: www.adityarajkaul.tk