[Reader-list] Fwd: kashmir pictures

Tue Aug 19 19:05:51 IST 2008

Dear Inder Salim

1. Sexual Choices (Morality) of an individual or between consenting Adults has nothing to do with Ethics. For and between individuals (as I wrote earlier to Aarti) the "Individual Ethics" as for example of Sexual Choices (Morality) defines the quality of relationships. The 'Societal Ethics' of Sexual Choices come into reckoning only when one person's Sexual Choices adversely impact another person's choices.

2. Go ahead and legalise homosexuality in India. You do not need my permission. I have no objection to it. 

3. But wait a minute, I see you expressing contempt for India time and again. You condemn anyone talking in favour of Indian Nationalism but are quick to speak in favour of Kashmiri Nationalism. When questioned over this contradiction you play dumb, deaf and blind and ignore the query. What is your interest in India?

4. You should ask for the legalising of homosexuality in Kashmir. It will be interesting to see how your demand will be received in Kashmir.

5. As far as India is concerned, there is some ongoing litigation over this in Delhi High Court. A competent Legal Team might be able to successfully argue it out.

6. From what I have read, it will not be possible for a Court of Law to strike down the Act under which homosexuality is interpreted as an offence but they could adjucate that the interpretation of the Act should not harshly extend itself to treating homosexuality as being criminal behaviour.

The Act talks about the criminality of  "carnal intercourse against the order of nature with another person of the same sex". In my opinion, a skillful Lawyer could argue over the "Order of Nature" bit. It would be rrrrrather difficult to get Nature to give evidence about what it's "Order' is. There are also examples available in the "Living Nature" domain (excluding Humans) where same sex carnal intercourse takes place.  These are exceptions of sexual behaviour amongst various species but so are they amongst humans.

6. You have selectively quoted and also possibly selectively read what I wrote. I did not say that the 'multi party system' makes a mockery of 'Democracy' but that the "first past the post system" (used to declare candidates in an Election as successful) that we follow in our "multi party system" makes a mockery of Democracy in India. I hope you see the difference. Please read carefully before commenting.

7. Certainly those who love India (which excludes a hate monger like you) must celeberate "Democracy" in India. But the current system is far from being perfect and needs to be rectified. What is your problem in that?

8. The same system (by and large) is followed in the UK and I would not be surprised that with stronger showings (vote shares) for the Liberal Democrats and Greens,  in the UK they will start pondering over how to rectify the system.

9. Some countries already have more credible systems where they use "Proportional Representation" or "Multiple Rounds of Voting" or "Preferential Voting". But, the dynamics of each country are unique and India will have to find out what suits it best as a rectification of the current system.

Kshmendra

--- On Tue, 8/19/08, inder salim <indersalim at gmail.com> wrote:

From: inder salim <indersalim at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Fwd: kashmir pictures
To: reader-list at sarai.net
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2008, 5:18 PM

I quote kshmendra :

"Individual maverick interpretation of Ethics is of no consequence or
importance when compared to the common consensus (or majority voice)"

 I quote khsmendra again:

"that we follow in our 'multi party system' makes a mockery of the
essential principles of "Democracy". That needs to be
rectified".

Now my reflection to that: i know examples are slippery, but, a case
in the point: what about legalizing Homosexuality in India?  here, if
you see me as one individual maverick, then we grossly differ on
ETHICS  and and LAW

about multi party system, which you feel makes a 'mockery of
democracy', is again, a negation of what you said in the begining,
a
After all the present day system of democracry is celebrated by
majority of the people in INDIA. or you think indians are 'invidual
mavericks', who dont care about ETHICS but follow THE CONSTITUTIOIN
blindly.

love
is

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Dear Aarti
>
> Ethical must be Legal. Legal must be Ethical. If this basic principle is
not adhered to then there is a flawed interpretation of either the Legal or the
Ethical. Worse still is the possibility that the 'accepted and adhered to or
propagated' Ethics or the Legality might in themselves be corrupted.
>
> Left to Individual maverick interpretation of Ethics is of no consequence
or importance when compared to the common consensus (or majority
voice)interpretation, "Ethics" of  particular relationships, could and
often do find themselves varyingly defined. When such varying definitions are
pertinent to inter-personal or inter-transactional situations, the quality of
the relationship gets defined.
>
> In what was being discussed, we must focus on 'societal Ethics'.
Such "Ethics" that permeate through and get defined for all of the
society. These must find themselves reflected in the "Laws", in the
"Legal". So, 'Ethical' must be 'Legal' and the
'Legal' must be 'Ethical'.
>
> The 'Legal' gets defined by the 'Laws'. The
"Laws" derive themselves either directly from the
'Constitution' or from Legislation as allowed for in the
"Constitution".
>
> Therefore, yes certainly Ethical must be seamlessly identifiable with the
Legal. What do you find 'frightening' in this?
>
> You could argue that aspects of the Indian Constitution are not Ethical
and therefore the Laws and Legality derived from them are not Ethical. Those
then need to be rectified once you identify them. No such specific examples come
readily to my mind. You might have some.
>
> I would readily agree with you if you and I find common our examples of
where the Lawful or the Legal does not seem to Ethical. But, your and my views
would always be subservient to how the Constitution views such Laws or
Legalities. Individual maverick interpretation of Ethics is of no consequence or
importance when compared to the common consensus (or majority voice) that finds
itself reflected in the Constitution or the Laws and Legalities derived from it.
>
> You might be resentful of and confrontational against and constantly
questioning of the "State". I am not. We the people are the
"State". That should be seamless. If you said it is not always so, I
would agree. But there is no lack of opportunity or means for making it so.
Is'nt that what Democracy is all about.
>
> The 'categories' that the 'state' gives us, are
"categories" that 'we the people' have made as having been
participants in the formation, running and conduct of the "State".
>
> What is in any case wrong with the "categories" you have quoted.
>
> Are the Police the "Guardians of the Law"? Yes they are. Are
those who break the Law, the 'law breakers'? Yes they are. Are those who
confront the Police, the "hoodlums"? Yes they are.
>
> Again it could be argued that in India, the Police are not always (in fact
often are not I would say) the "Guardians of the Law". That the Police
in India have the propensity for 'unlimited terror'. Agreed.  That needs
to be worked upon by 'we the People' and rectified. But that cannot be
used as an excuse to provide a blanket immunity to or indemnify the
"hoodlums" and "law breakers".
>
> Enough of my simple minded theorising. Let us come to the specifics of
where this discussion started.
>
> In the case of both the "Jammu Agitation" and the "Kashmir
Agitation", the agitationists acted at varying times in varying ways as
"hoodlums" and as "law breakers". The Police, the
"Guardians of Law" were justified in acting against them.
>
> There is of course the question of "use of force beyond the
requirement of the situation". Both the "Jammu Agitationists" and
the "Kashmir Agitationists" are complaining about that. This has to
be, must be, addressed and rectified. Not an excuse though for there being an
'open season' for the 'hoodlums' and 'law breakers'
>
> Kshmendra
>
> PS. Since I mentioned "Democracy", I must also say that India
follows a convoluted interpretation of "Democracy". The 'first
past the post' system that we follow in our 'multi party system'
makes a mockery of the essential principles of "Democracy". That needs
to be rectified. But, thats another story.
>
>
> --- On Sun, 8/17/08, Aarti Sethi <aarti.sethi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Aarti Sethi <aarti.sethi at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Fwd: kashmir pictures
> To: "mahmood farooqui" <mahmood.farooqui at gmail.com>
> Cc: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Sunday, August 17, 2008, 2:20 AM
>
> Dear Kshmendra,
>
> I am interested in how easily we slip into the categories that the state
> gives us. Anyone confronting the police is a "hoodlum" and a
> "law-breaker"
> who should be dealt with by the guardians of the law. How frightening this
> sort of language is, and if ever the mysticism of the law and its capacity
> for unlimited terror is on display, it is when the ethical is identified
> with the legal in the seamless fashion that you do above.
>
> best
> A
>
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:57 PM, mahmood farooqui <
> mahmood.farooqui at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: mahmood farooqui <mahmood.farooqui at gmail.com>
>> Date: 2008/8/14
>> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] kashmir pictures
>> To: kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com
>>
>>
>> Thanks Kshemendra, I can't say I am getting the answers but the
> responses
>> are making me think.
>>
>> Best,
>> Mahmood
>>
>> 2008/8/14 Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
>>
>>  Dear Mahmood
>> >
>> > Whether 'all press' is communal or not, you certainly
are.
> You are trying
>> > to instigate communal feelings by suggesting a communal slant.
>> >
>> > Times of India and Hindustan Times showed photograph of a hoodlum
>> > attacking a policeman.
>> >
>> > Inquilab showed the photograph of a person injured by police
firing.
> If
>> > this person was a part of the mob attempting to break the law
and/or
>> > attacking the police, then the injured person was a hoodlum
injured
> by
>> > police firing.
>> >
>> > What is communal in all of this? You are the one making it
communal.
>> >
>> > There was confrontation between the police and law breaking
hoodlums
> in
>> > Kashmir and in Jammu. What makes either situation communal?
>> >
>> > Which is the 'communal' one between two kinds of
photographs,
> one where
>> law
>> > enforcers are shown as being attacked by law breakers and another
one
>> where
>> > law breakers are shown as having been hurt by law enforcers.
>> >
>> > Perhaps if you had furnished the captions accompanying the
> photographs,
>> one
>> > could make a call on which newspaper showed a 'communal'
> tinge
>> >
>> > Kshmendra
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --- On *Wed, 8/13/08, mahmood farooqui
<mahmood.farooqui at gmail.com
>> >*wrote:
>> >
>> > From: mahmood farooqui <mahmood.farooqui at gmail.com>
>> > Subject: [Reader-list] kashmir pictures
>> > To: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>,
"Aamir
> Bashir" <
>> > unattore1 at gmail.com>
>> > Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2008, 12:33 PM
>> >
>> > Yesterday, nine Kashmiris were allegedly killed in the valley
because
> of
>> the
>> > police firing.
>> >
>> > Today, in the Bombay editions of the Times of India and Hindustan
> Times,
>> > there is an identical image of a policeman being attacked by a
> Kashmiri.
>> > There are no images of any Kashmiris being killed or attacked by
the
>> police.
>> >
>> > The Urdu daily Inqilab, however, shows a Kashmiri injured by the
> police
>> > firing.
>> >
>> > Is it simplistic to say that all press is communal?
>> >
>> > Is the poser itself simplistic?
>> > _________________________________________
>> > 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: <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: <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: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>

-- 

http://indersalim.livejournal.com
_________________________________________
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/>