[Reader-list] Gandu world, words, Ajay and Raju

[Vivek Narayanan]

Dear Kirdar and Mohit,

(incidentally my "bullshit" folder is reserved essentially for people 
who habitually post more than two repetitive, content-less mails in a 
day, to this list)

Firstly to Kirdar: you say you have a problem with the "language and the 
symbolism" of Inder Salim's posting, although you still do not give 
direct quotations from the piece to explain yourself.  As a result, I 
still have no idea what you mean by symbolism.  Please explain, giving 
direct quotations please, what about the *symbolism * you consider 
offensive, especially religiously offensive, which is what you are 
implying.  This is not self evident, because I especially do not find 
any offensive religious references in Inder's posting.  (Apart from the 
fact that, in keeping with many ancient South Asian philosophical 
traditions, he denies the existence of god.  Nothing new or offensive in 
that.) Only Ravana is called a gandu-- and while some other south 
indians on this list may, and perhaps should, take offense to such 
outright denigration of our great hero, Rama, on the other side, is at 
all points referred to by Inder Salim as "lord Rama" or suchlike.  And 
of course, Rama's moral ambiguity in relation to Sita is not Inder's 
invention but lies at the very core of Valmiki's account itself.  
Valmiki was a poet, and thus not so clear cut, and far more willing to 
admit to ambiguity than some of his stupid, literal-minded followers 
today.  As Ramanujan argues: if we truly respect and love the traditions 
of the Ramayan, then we should want to celebrate the dizzying 
multiplicity of versions and interpretations.

Incidentally, it is only homosexuals that ought to be offended by Inder 
Salim's putting the word "gandu".  However (I could be wrong) something 
in the post tells me that Inder has perhaps nothing against homosexuals, 
and maybe, that he "rather relishes" them.

So on the question of whether certain words should be used on this list, 
I think we disagree, Kirdar.  I could, if needed, go through each 
instance of a "bad word" in Inder's posting and justify its use there.  
I doubt very much that the crematorium workers in Inder's story would 
talk like high society butterflies.  They might well use ritual insults 
to add colour and rhythm to their sentences-- we all know swearing can 
be an art form, although some of us are not so skilled in our own use! I 
have  no problem with such words appearing in our texts the way they 
appear habitually in the mouths of our people-- I would be against us 
using those words against each other of course, but that is a different 
question altogether. 

For a neuroscientist's view on the subject, take a look at this: 
http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/15-09/pl_print (I 
read the whole essay online, but I can't find it now-- can anyone?)

But I do still request an explanation *with supporting quotes* that 
tells what about Inder's "symbolism" you find offensive.  Please.

And to Mohit-- you ask what made me "suddenly jump in this issue".  
Well, I could ask you the same thing, but I already know the answer: we 
both jumped in suddenly because everyone has a right to jump in, and 
does so, on this list.  Although, if I may say so, I feel I jumped in a 
little less suddenly than you, and I jumped in because you jumped in, 
and because I felt that Inder's posting was not being read carefully enough.

However, here lies a mystery.  Kirdar says, in his reply below, that he 
has "no problem with the intention of Inder Salim's story" and that he 
even "appreciates" parts of it.  Furthermore, he argues that Inder's 
note has been "simply misunderstood" as a provocation.  How true!  So in 
other words, he agrees with me that there is nothing, when considered 
closely, to take religious offence from Inder's posting.  (What he 
objects to, I guess, is art.  Like Plato, he would wish to exile the 
poets from the republic.)  Mohit, for his part, insists that he has not 
"said anything against [Inder's] posting" -- which suggests that he has 
no problems with it and does not take any offence from it all.

This means that I was wrong, and I apologise for assuming that Kirdar 
and Mohit were offended.  Going by the quotes above, at least, neither 
of them found any problematic religious offence in Inder's post-- which 
is exactly as it should be!

Perhaps we might now begin talking about the actual substance of Inder's 
post?

Time out
Vivek

kirdar singh wrote:
> Dear Vivek
> I have been following some of your mails. Its interesting to note that
> some ordinary emails coming to your inbox go into the "Bullshit"
> folder, while the literal bullshit goes into the ordinary folder, and
> you even come to defend it. What's bullshit for MRSG is vlaueable for
> you and vis a versa.
>
> Look I have no problem with the intention of Inder Salim's story - I
> don't need a justification for it. I appreciate the collective past
> and the ontology and so on. But I do have a problem with the language
> and symbolism. You won't care to react to it but I take MRSG's
> following phrase very seriously:
>
> "Everytime one Salim starts like this, it will be replied like this."
>
> Now I know Inder Salim will not care to clarify to MRSG what his
> religious identity is, or the fact that he is neither a Muslim nor a
> Hindu (and I respect and appreciate that). But are you happy about the
> fact that your posting has been simply misunderstood by someone as a
> "provocation by a Muslim" and it naturally has to be replied with a
> further provocation to all Muslims. The entire internet is full of
> such provocative and abusive debates between Hindus and Muslims.
> Inder, you mentioned rabid communalization in your rejoinder (which
> you are against), but isn't your original post (due to its sheer
> creative language) leading to further rabidity (unless you clarify).
>
> But I think that's what most of us don't want to do - we do not want
> to simplify and straighten our communication since it would no longer
> be creative. All the problems of this world (which you have mentioned,
> Inder) need clarifications, dialogue, clearing of misunderstandings
> first. Art and black humour can come later. That's my opinion - you
> may disagree.
>
> Kirdar
>
> (and by the way, MRSG, could you specify a source from which you got
> the "history" about Muhammad and his indulgences)
>
>
>
>