[Reader-list] Fwd: kashmir pictures

Wed Aug 20 20:42:49 IST 2008

Dear Inder Salim

Your tendency to trapeze all over the place and delve simultaneously into a number of subjects makes it difficult for me to have a well-reasoned or reasonable dialogue with you. Almost every single time I have interacted with you, I have let you have the last say  because I have reached a stage of "I cannot handle THIS any more".

Your 'stream of consciousness' style of discussion does not suit me since I do not have that kind of an intellectual skill. My limitations. So it does not interest me.

Much of what you wrote in your last post eluded the limitations of my undersatanding.

My request to you is that if you are interested that I respond then please stick to the topic. Another request is that the freedom with which you ask questions and expect answers must be reciprocated by you in equal measure in answering questions asked of you.

Aarti found 'frightening' my 'seamlessly' mentioning 'Ethical' and 'Legal'. I tried to respond to that with my argued point of view as best as I could.  

That is when you stepped in.

You quoted me partially and thereby attributed to me a distorted interpretation of my "mockery of democracy" statement. I pointed this out to you with explanations. You have not commented on that. I realise that you are brimful with "hate" so might find it difficult to accept reason.

You asked about "legalising Homosexuality in India". I addressed it best that I could. You have not commented on that.

Instead, in your 'stream' you have chosen to 'flow forth' at one go with "ethics"; "electrons"; "sexuality"; "freedom"; "aesthetics"; "order of nature"; "quality relationship"; "societal ethics"; "law"; "radical thought"; "changes in society"; "proporational representation"; "Kashmir"; "democracy". That was your preamble.

I am not sure whether you are the idiot or I am, I am not sure whether you are confused or are trying to confuse me, but one thing I am sure about is that I understood very little of whatever you were trying to say. My limitations.

How then can I possibly respond.

- A kind soul has suggested that perhaps readings from the works of Emmanuel Levinas might explain how "Ethics" is not of the "Individual". That might be of interest to you. I personally have no idea who Levinas is.

- You have misquoted me. I never spoke about """""" ' order of nature' between same sexes as  exception, and therefore, not defining 'quality relationship' in a society,""""""". You must apologise to me for misquoting me so blatantly.

- You are free to believe that """""  "sexuality is not innate, but a product", """""". I have no objection. But, honestly I have no idea what you are trying to convey through that half-baked quote.

- I again have no idea what relevance your specifically mentioning Kashmir has to "Electoral Reforms". "Proportional Representation" was incidentally only one of the examples I had mentioned.

- Since the "K" word has come up, I have a very low opinion of your understandings about "Kashmir". I also have no respect for your positions on Kashmir. So, unless you say something really worthwhile, you deserve to be ignored.

- Again while on "Kashmir" it is shocking to see many a times, how easily you get away with quoting a line or two of Kashmiri Poetry and with devious mis-translation distort the very essence of the Poem by presenting it out of context.

I could go on about the rest of what you have written but do not have a whiff of an idea what the connections are with what was being discussed. I do not want to waste my time and yours. You wanted an opportunity to give your discourse whether pertinent or not to what was being discussed. You have given your discourse.   

Kshmendra 

Regarding your Postscript. You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about when you say "i want kashmiris to get what india has promised them in 1947. it should be their choice to be what they want to be." Your statement only reinforces my very low opinion of your understandings about "Kashmir"

--- On Wed, 8/20/08, 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: Wednesday, August 20, 2008, 11:05 AM

Dear kshmendra

1.  i still see 'ethics' as a free electron sharing orbirts between
sexuality, freedom and aesthetics. you talk aboutt ' order of nature'
between same sexes as  exception, and therefore, not defining '
quality relationship' in a society, which reflects, 'societal
ethics', necessary for formation of 'law'.   i see it a little differently. I
quote  text : "sexuality is not innate, but a product", This thought
emnates from simple subjective discourses, which is suitable to
radical thought, necessary of changes in society. Yes, changes, even
to implement ' proporational representation'.  You will also have
discover a different law to retain 'kashmir' if PR system for new
democracy is brought into practice.

2. i dont see myself as a blind kashmiri nationalist, in fact, i am
not a natioinalist at all. i want every body to  realize her/his inner
artistic being.  When i am asking for legalizing 'homosexuality' or a
healty space for 'sex workers' it applies to whole humanity,
irrespection of geography, caste, colour and religon.  Needless to
say, that how much artists beling to a universal human being, rather
to a limited  concept of ' nationalism' . When Lal Ded was living,
kashmir had indeed a different territory, but she talked about
universal  values, quite profoundly which transcends a territory.
Marking territory is a dog behaviour, which has very little to do with
subjective discourse. that is what is feel.

3. Time and again, i have talked about my discomfort with idealogical
or religous fundamentalism. So that  applies  to kashmir and the rest
even. In today's post by Shuddha, we read how Lord Shiva danced with
the poor and opressed , and clebrated ' datura' an intoxicant which
too has not legal sanction is Brahmnical Hinduism, or law. I beleive,
the job a true believer, is to rip the text, what Derrida taught, and
what even  many seers and saints did in their times. Mansoor Halaj
will be known for his defiance against the ruling elite who killed him
in the name of defending the sacred text. When we defend the law of
land as sacred text, we are playing the role of an opressor. This
happens at various levels of thought. I am constantly examinging my
behaviour at the same time. That is my inner process, too.
Deconstruction is ' performativity', too.

4. India needs freedom of kashmir as much kashmir needs, This is what
Arundhati Roy said, I agree with it, There should an end to this
Kashmirs as villians in india and vice versa. And if that new free
kashmir is bereft of ethics, morality, and respect to its past, it
shall be our duty to talk about that, like we talk about it now. About
demolition of temples in kashmir, i remember, the famous Iranisna flim
maker, who said that the responsibiltiy of destruction of Bamyaan
Buddhas statues in Afganistan lies on the shoulders of Americans.  I
see Indian mindless policy directly responsible for jamat-it islami
kind of things in kashmir. When Sheik Mohd Abudhha was bullied by
India, and when his audience was shrinking, he went to hazratbal and
spoke from a different mike. If you push the other, then violence
looks inevitable. it is all sad, but we need to be couragous to speak
the truth, and return to subjectivity and not define our acts as '
natural' and others  as as 'unatural'

with love and regards
is

i want kashmiris to get what india has promised them in 1947. it
should be their choice to be what they want to be. It has a lot to do
with ehichs and morality. Yes, kashmiri pandits suffered

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
wrote:
> 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/>
>

-- 

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/>