[Reader-list] Rape Victim ordered ....

[S.Fatima]

Dear Pawan and others.
Firstly, I want to thank and salute Shuddha for
speaking on behalf of all the "hollow intellectuals".
Pawan, you must realize that Shuddha is not taking
your posts personally but rather speaking on behalf of
many of us. No one else seems to have the patience to
go through your endless barrage of mails and reply so
meticulously and thoroughly. And its not just your
ideology that one has to deal with - it is the style
and shallowness of your posts that one has to answer.
And no one else has been able to deal with that better
than Shuddha.

I really think that you have no concrete answer to
give about Shuddha's Kashmir's iconoclasm mail - that
was the greatest challange posed to you and you have
failed to respond. We ae still waiting for an equally
strong response to that from you. I don't think it was
a challenge posed by Shuddha personally, but on behalf
of many of us, and we are proud of that...

SF
  
(P.S.: I condemn all acts of injustice and brutality
meted out by the Saudi govt.)



--- shuddha at sarai.net wrote:

> Dear Pawan, 
> 
> Namaskar.Thanks for your prompt reply. 
> 
> 1. What motivates me (and others) to engage with you
> is the mindless energy
> you display in promoting your agenda. The list
> requires regular detoxes
> after your postings, and I find myself taking on
> part of that task (along
> with many others)  whenever I think it becomes
> necessary. But do not
> mistake this willingness with the fact that I have
> nothing better to do.
> 
> 2. Nationalism is an idea with which I have serious
> philosophical and
> ethical problems. It is my conscience, not my ego,
> that comes between me
> and nationalism. My postings (or any other writing)
> against the military
> occupation of Kashmir by the Indian state are not
> made for the sake of the
> comfort of my ego, rather it is done in an effort to
> contribute to a level
> of awareness I believe that every Indian citizen
> (and everyone else) should
> have about the ground realities in Kashmir, because
> the Indian state's
> violence in Kashmir is meted out in the name of
> Indian citizens. I for one,
> refuse to accept this being done in my name. It is
> simply unacceptable to
> me. My refusal stems from ethical grounds, and from
> my understanding of the
> ethical and discursive responsibilities that l bear
> as a citizen, and more
> importantly, as a human being.
> 
> 3. I am aware of the fact that your rants against
> 'pseudo secularism' and
> 'hollow intellectualism' usually tend to follow
> postings where you are
> exposed as being shallow. When your arguments fail,
> you turn to ad hominem
> attacks. This is a well established pattern by now.
> All we need to do in
> order to substantiate this is to follow the patterns
> in the archive of this
> list with patience.
> 
> 4. I will remind you, that in my four part posting
> on iconoclasm in
> Kashmir,posted on Diwali night, there was not a
> single 'google citation'.
> Every argument was backed by a quote, in most
> instances, extracts from the
> original text in Sanskrit were given. I was reading
> Rajtarangini, and a few
> other books that were recommended by none other than
> the venerable Rashneek
> Kher, along with other primary and secondary
> sources, all of which had
> elaborate and precise citation. The history of
> iconoclasm in Kashmir was
> demonstrated as having a much more antique vintage
> than the advent of Islam
> in the Kashmir valley. And this was demonstrated
> with quotations from
> sources that even you cannot dispute. And no, they
> were not from google.
> 
> Your 'familiarity' with the history of iconoclasm
> may predate the invention
> of google, but clearly, you are unable to offer a
> plausible and detailed
> counter-reading based on your 'familiarity'. That
> kind of 'familiarity', 
> which insists that you know better simply because of
> your ethnicity, comes
> cheap. It will have no purchase here. Work a little
> harder than simply
> wearing the shabby costume of identity when you try
> and make an argument,
> and you might be taken seriously. If not, you will
> be exposed repeatedly as
> a very poor intellectual. An intellectual who is not
> prepared to take the
> trouble to substantiate what he says. An
> intellectual who hides behind the
> mask of identity in order to fire his pathetic
> salvos in public.
> 
> 5.I am glad that you are scared. You should be.
> Whenever you, or anyone
> else make incorrect statements about people's
> biographies and their
> opinions or ideological affiliations - such as the
> speculation that - I
> belong, as you said to some - "M-L type of
> organization" on a public list,
> you will be held accountable for your statements. I
> do not confuse action
> against defamation and libel with a call for
> censorship, nor should you,
> nor should anyone else. Your invocation of Husain at
> this juncture is
> totally uncalled for, because Husain has not made
> statements about the
> biographies and lives of actual living individuals.
> I am not an admirer of
> Husain's art work. But, I believe that he should
> have the freedom to
> practice his art work unhindered. The court cases
> against him, which are
> all centred around his depictions of Hindu deities,
> betray the ignorance of
> the litigants about their own tradition more than
> they do anything else.
> Just as your knowledge of the history of Kashmir is
> nothing more than a
> travesty, so too, the depth of the awareness of
> Hindu culture in those who
> litigate against Husain is next to negligible. All
> of you, badly need an
> education, most of all about the things you claim to
> uphold.
> 
> Further, If the difference between a warning not to
> indulge in libel or
> defamation and the call for censorship is not
> transparent to you, then I am
> happy to undertake a tutorial for your benefit.
> However, that might be very
> boring for most other people on this list as they
> all seem to have a
> greater quantum of intelligence than you are able to
> muster.
> 
> 6. You say - "I am just too scared to write
> ........and wont dare to write
> the word Pseudo Secularist and hollow intellectual
> again....."
> 
> Let me suspend any appreciation I might otherwise
> have had of your weak
> attempt at ironic, self deprecating humour here. Let
> me try and take your
> statement seriously, at face value. If indeed you
> were to stop making
> baseless statements on this list because of the fact
> that your arguments
> are continuously exposed as being hollow, then this
> list's policy of being
> an uncensored space will have been vindicated. Let
> me remind you that I was
> not taking objection at the terms "pseudo
> secularist" or "hollow
> intellectual" . These terms embody your opinions,
> and you are free to have
> them and to advertise them from every rooftop.
> Opinions are not facts. They
> represent attitudes to facts. I am concerned here
> with facts, and your
> statements masquerading as facts. I was objecting to
> your saying that I was
> a member of some "ML type organization". Now either
> I am, or I am not, a
> member of an "ML type organization". I am either a
> sympathizer or not a
> sympathizer of  the idoelogy of an "ML type of
> organization". One of these
> statements is a fact, the other is a lie. I am not.
> Neither a member, nor a
> sympathizer. You are lying. Saying that someone is a
> member of something
> that they are not a member of, amounts to a lie. And
> that is why you are
> vulnerable to the charge of defamation.
> 
> In the long run, the most effective antidote against
> the most prejudiced
> opinion, the most intense slander and calumny is a
> series of open and clear
> challenges, which can take place only in a situation
> where the prejudiced
> statement cannot shine in the martyred halo of being
> 'censored'.
> 
> You have been here, you have had your say, and you
> have been exposed. If in
> the wake of that, you decide to hold your peace, it
> only goes to show that
> free speech, and the diligent, vigilant cultivation
> of criticality, is in
> the long run -  the most effective measure against
> the likes of you. I was
> certain that this was so, but I am grateful to you
> for having demonstrated,
> once again, that this is true.
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===



      Bring your gang together - do your thing. Go to http://in.promos.yahoo.com/groups