[Reader-list] Rape Victim ordered 200 lashes and prison by Saudi judges
Pawan Durani
pawan.durani at gmail.com
Sun Dec 2 11:52:07 IST 2007
Dear Shuddha ,
The was actually no need to write such a long long mail and choking the
megabytes of bandwidth had you read my mail carefully.
I had written : "Each time you talk of secular parties which you love even
though they may be aligned with a ML type of organisation and at the same
time you need an anti allergic tablet if BJP is called secularist as well."
Now neither did I write that you are a member or sympathiser of a ML type of
a organisation .Your hate for something which doesnt suit your judgement led
you to write a boring long snobish mail which was out of place and out of
context. Please have some sleep before you reply to me again.
As for previous mails , you very well know that you chose an author and a
quote that suits your argument , and chose to ignore that doesn't. Some
quotes of Kilam's book suited you and you quoted them.
At the same time Ms Kauls book did not suit you and you connected it
with the book publishers , Utpal Publisher having a nationalistic ideology
on Kashmir.
Not that I do not know that you are averse to certain type of facts , which
was quite evident when you did not even condemn Sanjay Kaks wrong depiction
of facts.
I have survived the terrorists like Yasin Malik 19 years back. I know them
and their background better , and that makes me understand the necessity of
Indian Army in Kashmir and I am proud of the sacrifices Indian army has made
to protect our land from the evil.
Pawan Durani
On 12/2/07, shuddha at sarai.net <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.
>
> Your fear is a sensible fear. If you lie, I will be scary. Very scary. Try
> and stick to the truth, and to what you know.
>
> regards,
>
> Shuddha
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10:47 pm 12/01/07 "Pawan Durani" <pawan.durani at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello Shudha ,
> >
> > NamaskAr.........Hope you dont term me a rightist for using
> > "NamaskAr" word.
> >
> > I could sense from your mail the anger and helplessness you feel .
> > Before you advise me to chill , please apply that to yourself.
> >
> > I still do not understand as to if arguing with me is so
> > insignificant or minor , what motivates you to reply to each of my
> > post even if really doesn't matter . I know somewhere you know the
> > truth as well , and it is an ego in you which keeps you defending
> > yourself and attacking my nationalistic viewpoint.
> >
> > If I write about Pseudo secularists in general , you take it as an
> > insult to yourself . If I talk about hollow intellectualism which
> > some believe in ,you again take it so personally . C'mon .....Chill.
> > I may be referring about someone else as well.
> >
> > Well , about your research about iconoclasm , the less said the
> > better . My knowledge about Kashmir has its roots well before google
> > was invented. And for those who want to make rest of world believe
> > that humans came out of eggs, google would help them write long long
> > stories.
> >
> > About my posts on various subject, i believe Partha may like to
> > confirm it .,....i have at many instances posted an article which I
> > found interesting . And whenever someone replied , i just said that
> > these views were not necessarily mine . I always provide a link to
> > the original. I do not blame you for not understanding these
> > basics......i have learnt it long back.....it may take you few more
> > years.
> >
> > And about your threat of defamation , well I am scared. So should
> > others be in this society of double standards . Where a person
> > defends Hussain but is planning to to encourage people to file a
> > defamation against me.
> >
> > I wonder what others have to say about threat of Shudha.
> >
> > I am just too scared to write ........and wont dare to write the word
> > Pseudo Secularist and hollow intellectual again.....
> >
> > But are you one for real ?
> >
> > Pawan
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/1/07, shuddha at sarai.net < shuddha at sarai.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Pawan,
> > >
> > > I am well aware of the ground realities of any situation I choose
> > > to write about. I am sure, that you must be aware by now that I
> > > make it my business
> > > to research anything that I write about on the reader list in some
> > > detail.
> > > I suggest you take a close look at your own levels of awareness of
> > > what you
> > > claim as your own history (I notice, for instance, that there is
> > > as yet no
> > > reply from you or Rashneek to my annotations on the history of
> > > iconoclasm in Kashmir).
> > >
> > > And no, I am neither a member, nor a sympathizer of any "M-L type
> > > of organization". I would urge you not to make public assumptions
> > > about the biographies of individuals you do not know. It's risky,
> > > you end up running the risk of being called either a liar, or
> > > being exposed as being very ignorant. You also run the risk of
> > > being accused (rightly, in my opinion) of defamation if you
> > > continue to articulate assumptions of this nature on any public
> > > platform. So, be careful.
> > > I think that your problem is that you want to put people into neat
> > > boxes, on which you want to put labels that your limited
> > > understand can make snese
> > > of, and then assign you assign to these lablels - roles in the
> > > shadow boxing joust of your own imagination. So, first you decided
> > > that you would corner us by sending us the details of the
> > > atrocities of so called communist regimes, then, when we argued
> > > that the atrocities of so called communist regimes are
> > > indefensible, you changed tack. When we argued strongly against
> > > the atrocities of regimes led by communist parties, such as has
> > > happenned in West Bengal, you turned around and defended Buddhadeb
> > > Bhattacharya.
> > > You tried to invoke Sethusamudran, then, when we said yes,
> > > Sethusamudran was a bad idea, you had no space left to squirm.
> > > Then you post some atrocity in Saudi Arabia, and we say, yes Saudi
> > > Arabia is hell, and now, you have less and less room to maneuver.
> > > Really, it must be hard being you.
> > >
> > > Finally, whenever you have nothing left to say, when your
> > > arguments are in
> > > shambles, when your misrepresentations stand exposed, you invoke
> > > and hurl the term 'intellectual' as a term of abuse. As if the
> > > work of evolving a critical understanding of the world were
> > > something to be ashamed of. I see
> > > no reason to be ashamed of intellectual work, just as I see no
> > > reason to be
> > > ashamed or any other kind of human activity. Can you imagine a
> > > situation where we would go around churlishly accusing each other
> > > of being 'pastry cooks', or 'dancers' or 'acrobats' or
> > > 'steelworkers' or 'photo shop operators' whenever we were faced
> > > with the weakness of our own positions and arguments. It would be
> > > absured. It would actually be pathetic. And when
> > > you cry 'intellectual' you sound just as absurd, just as pathetic,
> > > just as infantile.
> > >
> > > You write, you argue, you try to present your view of the world.
> > > Unfortunately, that makes you an intellectual. Just as what I do
> > > makes me an intellectual. There can be debate about the quality of
> > > our arguments, about how well they stand up to reason, and to the
> > > complexities of our times. There can be arguments about whether or
> > > not our intellectual work is
> > > of any value. But accusing people of being 'intellectuals' per se,
> > > is frankly, neither here, nor there. It is a meaningless statement.
> > >
> > > We all have a lot of things to do in our lives. And believe me,
> > > arguing with you is only a very minor, highly insignificant detail
> > > in the rich tapestry of our days. Regardless, it shall continue to
> > > be done, whenever it
> > > is crucially necessary for it to be done. Take my advice, relax,
> > > chill out,
> > > think about a few things other than what you have made your pet
> > > obsession, and don't jump to the gun all the time. You misfire,
> > > badly. And sometimes the bullets ricochet in your own direction.
> > > Or as we might say in football
> > > parlance "self-goal se bachte raho saathi" ("stay clear of self
> > > goals, friend")
> > >
> > > regards
> > >
> > > Shuddha
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10:42 am 12/01/07 "Pawan Durani" < pawan.durani at gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > Dear Shuddha , While as you have an obsession with Modi and
> > > looking at how
> > > > few of you try to link everything and anything communal
> > > > happening with Modi , I wonder where does your conscience lead
> > > > to ? Each time you quote " Indian States Military
> > > > Occupation In Kashmir " , without knowing the ground
> > > > reality talk of your ignorance of the ground reality . You would
> > > > be ready to accept figures given by a terrorist or a separatist
> > > > organisation and at the same time averse to the real figures.
> > > > Each time you tend to ignore the genocide of hindus which
> > > > happened over a period of time , but you feel merry to spread
> > > > discontent among minorties by harping on a one time incident of
> > > > Gujarat. Each time you talk about structure of Ram Temple being
> > > > destroyed [ which some of you called Babri ] , and at the same
> > time non of you have ever discussed hundreds of temples being broken
> > > > down to peices in Kashmir . Each time you talk about liberty of
> > > > expression and at the same time you want all these liberties to
> > > > be taken with Hindu relegion. Each time you talk of secular
> > > > parties which you love even though thay may be aligned with a ML
> > > > type of organisation and at the same time you need an anti
> > > > allergic tablet if BJP is called secularist as well. Each time
> > > > you speak of evil in Babu bajrangi but you have closed your
> > > > thoughts for Yasin Maliks , Bitta karate and Hamdanis. Cmon
> > > > ...get over Modi fixation . get over your thought that Indian
> > state has "occupied" Kashmir. Get over that Military is anti
> > > > people in Kashmir . Get real.....life is much more real than
> > > > typing few words on the keyboard. Pawan Durani
> > > >
> > > > On 11/30/07, shuddha at sarai.net wrote: Dear Pawan,
> > > >
> > > > Hell comes in different flavours, as I tried to explain in an
> > > > earlier post, and as is evident from your posting of the brutal
> > > > treatment meted out to a young woman who has been the victim of
> > > > gang rape in Saudi Arabia.
> > > >
> > > > Being against one kind of hell does not mean that we have to be
> > > > the partisans of other kinds of hell, elsewhere. The kind of
> > > > intellectual that I find interesting it the one who has no
> > > > problem at all in terms of evolving an engaged critique of
> > > > oppression, no matter what form it takes, no matter where it
> > > > occurs. That is why, despite our respect for people like Noam
> > > > Chomsky, some of us took it upon ourselves to sharply criticize
> > > > his prevaricating apology for the 'Left Front'
> > > > government's violence against its own subjects in West Bengal
> > > >
> > > > And so, contrary to your expectations, some of those of us who
> > > > have been active on this list in arguing against the Indian
> > > > state's military occupation of the Kashmir valley have had
> > > > no problems at all in being determined in our opposition to
> > > > oppression when it occurs in Left Front ruled West Bengal, in
> > > > the current conditions of military dictatorship in Burma and
> > > > Pakistan, or for that matter when it occurs under the aegis of
> > > > the Ibn Saud dynasty in Saudi Arabia. Tomorrow, if North Korea
> > > > were to be discussed on this list, I would be certain that there
> > > > will be clear arguments on this list against the imbecilic
> > > > regime that rules North Korea at the moment. The list can be
> > > > justifiedly expanded to include Iran, the United States, Russia
> > > > and many other countries and states.
> > > > Saudi Arabia is one of the most horrible places on the planet.
> > > > It is ruled by a corrupt, decadent ruling elite and kept in
> > > > place by money, weapons and influence wielded by British and
> > > > American corporate intersts and foreign policy. If the
> > > > international community was justified in operating a set of
> > > > sanctions against the hated South African apartheid regime, it
> > > > should have no business in cosying up to the sexist,
> > > > slave-owning, xenophobic, anti-semitic Saudi regime which is the
> > > > favourite retirement support agency of third rate dictators like
> > > > Idi Amin and corrupt rulers like Nawaz Sharif.
> > > > The Saudi Monarchy, which rose to eminence as the stooge of
> > > > British foreign policy in the middle east in the early twentieth
> > > > century presides over an imbecilic and paranoid gloss of Islam,
> > > > and the particularly Salafist brand of Islam that is held out as
> > > > an ideal by the Saudi monarchy and its rented clerics is rightly
> > > > rejected by the majority of Muslims in the world. Its
> > > > significance lies only in that it is backed by petro-dollars and
> > > > American fighter jets.
> > > > One does not have to link the decadence of current Saudi Arabia
> > > > to the venality of Moditva/Hindutva. They are two different
> > > > kinds of abominations that need to be fought, and fought till
> > > > they are destroyed. I would be just as happy to see Salafist
> > > > Islamo-fascism perish in Saudi Arabia, as I would be to see the
> > > > short, sharp end of Moditva and Hindutva in Gujarat and in India.
> > > >
> > > > regards.
> > > >
> > > > Shuddha
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2:13 pm 11/30/07 "Pawan Durani" <
> > > > pawan.durani at gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > Would Someone Puhleez link this to Modi , RSS & Hindutva
> > > > > ..........some intellectual surely would ..............
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.themuslimwoman.org/
> > > > > http://www.themuslimwoman.org/entry/rape-victim-ordered-200-l
> > ashes-
> > > > and
> > > > > -prison-by-saudi-judges/
> > > > > What can be called a travesty of judiciary, the Saudi
> > > > > Arabia's Higher Judicial Council has actually sentenced a
> > > > > rape victim to receive 200 lashes and prison while the
> > > > > perpetrators of humanity's most heinous crime were
> > > > > allowed to walk free.
> > > > > The 19-year-old Shiite woman who was raped by six armed men
> > > > > was originally sentenced to receive 90 lashes for traveling
> > > > > in the car of an 'unrelated male' at the time of the
> > > > > rape. However after the woman had the temerity of not
> > > > > unquestioningly submitting herself to be tortured as
> > > > > punishment of being raped, the judges on Saudi Arabia's
> > > > > Higher Judicial Council more than doubled her punishment for
> > > > > attempting to influence the judiciary through the media.
> > > > > Her lawyer, human right activist Abdul Rahman al-Lahem, has
> > > > > been banned from carrying her case further. His license has
> > > > > been revoked and he has been called to appear before a
> > > > > disciplinary committee for challenging the judgment, which
> > > > > only punished the victim of the crime and not its
> > > > > perpetrators. The Sunni rapists were given a paltry sentence
> > > > > of one to five years of imprisonment.
> > > > > This is the horrendous state of a country that keeps its women
> > > > > forcefully behind veils only to extenuate and encourage
> > > > > heinous crimes against them in the name of maintaining social
> > > > > discipline. _________________________________________
> > > > > 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.ne t/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > > > > List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-
> > list/
> > > > >
>
>
More information about the reader-list
mailing list