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

[radhikarajen at vsnl.net]

Hi, 
 it is good that society has many such vivekis to have bullshit folders to collect the same.
Regards.

----- Original Message -----
From: Vivek Narayanan <vivek at sarai.net>
Date: Wednesday, March 5, 2008 2:03 am
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Gandu world, words, Ajay and Raju
To: kirdar singh <kirdarsingh at gmail.com>
Cc: reader-list at sarai.net

> 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)
> >
> >
> >
> >   
> 
> _________________________________________
> 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/>