[Reader-list] Please Think Before You Write the Subject Line

Sat Aug 23 16:50:36 IST 2008

Dear Shivam

It was gracious of you to apologise.

You have Shuddha to thank for pointing out the incongruity of the "Hindu Terrorism" subjectline. He provided you with an opportunity to apologise and redeem some credibility.

The sarcastic comment about "KP samskars" was one of the very many trite ones that you have made a habit of. Ignorable. Such comments only define your personality and character. 

What is interesting is the 'deep anguish' the word Kashmiri Pandit (KP) seems to cause you and that seems to bring out the animal in you at it's unintelligent worst. Knee-jerk reactions. Psyche-jerk perhaps. Only you would know whether this seemingly instinctive attitude is because of pyschological scars from some traumatic personal experience or a result of your being indoctrinated/programmed to be that way. Such an attitude only contradicts your own expressed opinion that there is no homogenity in the various KP political opinions and attitudes. And yet ...

You have spoken about "non violent protests in the Valley". Admittedly there was not much of a 'physical violence' indulged in by the protestors. That does not make the "protests" benign and therefore immune to being categorised or treated with firmly. There has already been a very informed discussion on this between Shuddha and Sonia. (Use of force beyond the minimal required in the situation is condemnable and unacceptable.)

Violence does not always have to be 'physical'. I am sure you recognise the various forms that 'violence' can adopt. Psychological violence is easily understood. What needs to be understood (in context) is the violence against both the Psyche and Legalities of India. You Shivam could however argue that whatever be the form of 'violence' it is justified against India by the Kashmiris. You have done exactly towards the end of your post.

You have said that """"" even non-violent protests in the Valley are resulting in the Valley's Muslims being called 'terrorists' """"".

I am not sure that you are being factual. Yes, the 'protestors' have been called 'separatists' as perhaps many of them or most are. I do not recollect the 'protestors' having been called 'terrorists' in the mainstream media or by any serious commentator elsewhere or even on SARAI. Could you evidence otherwise to support your statement. Unless it is your own contention that "separatists" must be read interchangeably with "terrorists". If the "protestors" have been called "terrorists" by anyone (worth taking note of) then it has been sheer idiocy to do so.

My "idiocy" remark excludes the "Leaders" such as Geelani, Omar Farooq, Yasin etc being called terrorists. The deserve to be called that for their their involvement or support to 'acts of terror' or to 'terrorist organisations'. 

Here I must say that it is my contention that the machinery of the "Indian State' has also aften acted as a 'terrorist' against the innocents in Kashmir. 

You use an extremely poor argument in stating that "The condemnation of violence becomes the condemnation of politics.". You seem to suggest that if there is a "politics" then "violence" is a legitimate (not to be questioned or condemned) part of the "politics". 

By your standards then if the Jammu agitationists have a "political position", as they certainly have (seeing that the Amarnath Land matter has brought in the 'politics' of Regional Imbalance), then "violence" by the Jammu agitationist is justified because of their "politics". Or that we should not condemn the "violence" of the Jammu agitationists just because it is linked to their "politics". Not just a poor argument but a ridiculous one (in my opinion).

Whatever your (not clear) objection is to the "Jammu is Burning" tag, by no stretch of imagination, or linguistic interpretation does it automatically suggest, as you put it, that "as if someone from outside Jammu had set it on fire." It could as much mean that Jammu has ben set afire by the Jammuites themselves.

Shivam (since Language fascinates me) what would you find factually wrong with the statement "Jammu is Burning - The controversy over the transfer of land to SASB has set Jammu afire" ?

I do not mean to belittle your apology. My comments are purely addressed to some of the other things you have said.

Kshmendra

--- On Sat, 8/23/08, Shivam Vij शिवम् <mail at shivamvij.com> wrote:

From: Shivam Vij शिवम् <mail at shivamvij.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Please Think Before You Write the Subject Line
To: "Shuddhabrata Sengupta" <shuddha at sarai.net>
Cc: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Saturday, August 23, 2008, 1:15 PM

Dear Shuddha,

I admit I should have been more discreet and that in both cases, my
comments did amount to vilifying a community ("Hindus" and
"Kashmiri
Pandits") and apologise for both.

However in the case of "Hindu terrorism" I want explain my intent. On
this list and elsewhere even non-violent protests in the Valley are
resulting in the Valley's Muslims being called 'terrorists'. The
problem here is not one of vilification, but that once you have
labelled someone using violence for political purposes a terrorist you
have explained away everything there was to explain. The condemnation
of violence becomes the condemnation of politics.

It was to that sort of loose usage of the word "terrorists" that I
was
rhetorically responding to - meaning to say, that if 'Hindu' mobs use
violence, then that too, should be brushed aside as "terrorism".
Instead, we have been sold the "Jammu is burning" line as if someone
from outside Jammu had set it on fire.

However, I ought to have explained as much while posting the news
report on the attack on the Jammu Congress leader's car and the threat
to his life and not merely have left a provocative yet lazy one-liner
in the subject line.

I completely agree with you when you say:

> Arguing against the oppression that is carried out in the Kashmir valley
by
> the Indian state does not mean that we have to vilify any community.

Once again, apologies.
Shivam

On 8/22/08, Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net> wrote:
> Dear Shivam.
>
>
>
>
> I was saddened to see that you had written "Hindu Terrorism in
Jammu" in the
> subject line of your recent post. Also, I think your remark about KP
> "sanskars" in a previous post were not in good taste, I was
saddened to read
> them.
>
>
>
>
> Arguing against the oppression that is carried out in the Kashmir valley
by
> the Indian state does not mean that we have to vilify any community. And
> even if communities get vilified in this debate by some of its
participants,
> I expect you not to reciprocate in kind. As a journalist whose work I
> respect, I expect much better of you.
>
>
>
>
> I must point out to you that nowhere in the report  that you had forwarded
> does it say that a 'Hindu' mob attacked the Congress politician,
or that
> they were raising 'Hindu' slogans, (even if we assume that they
were
> nominally Hindu) it merely says that they were raising 'Anti-Congress,
PDP
> and NC" slogans.  And a mob attack, though reprehensible, is not an
act of
> terrorism. To say it is to mirror the tactics of those who poison every
> discussion on these matters (all over the world) by adding the prefix
> "Islamic" to terrorism. It is as ridiculous to talk about
Islamic or Hindu
> terrorism as it is to speak of Islamic of Hindu agriculture or mining.
>
>
>
>
> Crowds in the Kashmir valley often raise, "Anti Congress, PDP and NC
> slogans" and they are generally Muslim crowds, and sometimes they set
fire
> to vehicles and ransack homes. Just as it would be totally inappropriate
to
> tag such an episode as an instance of "Muslim" terrorism, so,
too I think it
> is totally inappropriate and uncalled for on your part to tag this report
> with the headline "Hindu Terrorism in Jammu"
>
>
>
>
> This kind of rhetorical grandstanding does not help anyone, and I would
urge
> everyone, especially Shivam, to be restrained and thoughtful while
> forwarding posts.
>
>
>
>
> best,
>
>
>
>
> Shuddha
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 22-Aug-08, at 3:17 PM, Shivam Vij शिवम् विज् wrote:
>
>
> Jammu: Protesters attack Congress leader
>
>
>
>
> 22 Aug 2008, 0045 hrs IST,TNN
>
>
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Jammu_tense_protesters_attack_police_station/articleshow/3389045.cms
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> JAMMU/SRINAGAR: There was no let up in violent protests against the
>
> revocation of forestland transfer to the Amarnath Shrine Board on
>
> Thursday, as senior Congress leader and former J&K deputy chief
>
> minister Mangat Ram Sharma had a narrow escape when protesters
>
> attacked him at Bhagwatinagar in Jammu. ( Watch )
>
>
>
>
> SSP S D S Jamwal said Sharma was attacked while he was visiting a
>
> doctor with his grandson. "Protesters attacked his vehicle with rods
>
> and stones," he said. Sources said a cop saved Sharma from the
>
> rampaging mob and whisked him away on his scooter. Raising
>
> anti-Congress, PDP and NC slogans, the protesters set three cars in
>
> Sharma's cavalcade on fire. "Later, the mob also torched a nearby
>
> police nakka," a police officer said.
>
>
>
>
> Sharma has been at the receiving end of the Amarnath protesters; mobs
>
> have twice attacked his house in Jammu's upmarket Gandhi Nagar
>
> neighbourhood. Day curfew, meanwhile, was lifted from Jammu and
>
> Udhampur districts, while it was relaxed for varying periods in other
>
> areas of the province. Curfew was reimposed in Jammu after violent
>
> protests on Wednesday, the third and final day of Shri Amarnath Yatra
>
> Sangarsh Samiti (SASS)'s 'Jail Bharo Andolan'.
>
>
>
>
> Authorities relaxed curfew for three hours in Kishtwar town, the scene
>
> of communal clashes on August 12 that left two people dead and several
>
> others injured. "Curfew was relaxed for 11 hours in Samba," a
senior
>
> official said.
>
>
>
>
> A large number of people turned up for Samiti's scheduled
"funeral
>
> ceremony of Union government" programme in Jammu. Reports from across
>
> Jammu region said similar processions were carried out "to register
>
> protest against Centre's silence over the Jammu agitation".
>
>
>
>
> The Valley remained largely peaceful for the third consecutive day,
>
> after 10 days of violent street protests against the alleged economic
>
> blockade left at least 22 people dead.
>
>
>
>
> Police resorted to teargas shelling and mild baton charge to disperse
>
> protesters at Munawarabad in old Srinagar. "The protesters were
trying
>
> to march towards United Nations Military Observers' office," an
>
> official said. He said no one was hurt in police action.
>
>
>
>
> Students continued to boycott classes and took to streets. "The
>
> indiscriminate use of power proves that New Delhi wants to suppress
>
> Kashmiris," Rafiqa Akhtar of prestigious Women's college said.
She
>
> said college students' protests prove that even youth are against
>
> "imperialism".
>
> _________________________________________
>
> 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/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Shuddhabrata Sengupta
>
> The Sarai Programme at CSDS
>
> Raqs Media Collective
>
> shuddha at sarai.net
>
> www.sarai.net
>
> www.raqsmediacollective.net
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 

National Highway - http://shivamvij.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/>