[Reader-list] On Arguing, Stammering and Spitting

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Dear Kirdar, Yousuf, Gargi, Inder, Aarti, Aashima and others

I think the discussion regarding the recent accusations made on this  
list, despite having been occasioned by an unfortunate excess of  
words, have been productive. I am writing this mail by way of  
response to the points that many of you have raised seperately. I  
hope that you will excuse me for bunching them all together in one  
mail. I do not wish to overcrowd all our mail boxes this evening more  
than what has been done already.

Let me say at the outset that I have learnt a great deal from the  
experience of having to argue with positions contrary to mine on  
Kashmir on this list. I have no hesitation in saying that. My request  
for a ban on two named individuals does not, as might be noticed,  
involve everyone who takes a different position (and there are shades  
within these differences) from mine on Kashmir, India, nationalism,  
Islam or the state form; not Rashneek (though he did on occasion lob  
at me words that imply that I was a 'terrorist' or maintained  
relationships with 'terrorists') not Chanchal Malviya, not Vedavati,  
not Lalit Ambardar, and certainly not Kshmendra Kaul. I respect,  
welcome, enjoy difference. And though I think that we must not let a  
discussion on Kashmir or India or confessional identities drown the  
list, I maintain that they are important, necessary and have their  
place.

However, I do agree with Kirdar, that apart from the fact that Pawan  
Durani and Aditya Raj Kaul have practiced libel, (which in my view is  
sufficient reason to eject them from this list) they also do take up  
a lot of the time and energy of the list by compelling us to respond,  
over and over again to the same kind of posts. I do not think this is  
good for the health of the list. This is my personal opinion, though  
of course, I will abide by the evolving consensus of the list and the  
decision of the moderator.

  There is hardly ever anything new or even reasonably eye-opening in  
what Aditya Raj Kaul and Pawan Durani say. Other than 'Yasin Malik is  
a terrorist', 'X, Y, Z are paid agents', or statements that suggest  
that anyone who questions the methods and tactics of the Indian  
state's so called 'war on terror' is a sympathiser with terrorism. if  
not a terrorist themselves, and the occasional tired anti- 
totalitarian-left jibe (aimed at whom, I do not know, because i have  
yet to come across a Reader List poster singing peans to Stalin, Mao,  
Enver Hoxha or Pol Pot), they have very little else to say.

Because this is a publicly archived list, someone or the other ends  
up having to respond to their posts, for the sake of the record, just  
as repetitively as them. Which in a sense continues to drown and  
crowd out other voices, other issues, other tones and registers of  
writing. This is why, though I will continue to engage with an Indian  
nationalist position on Kashmir  honestly, critically and with all  
due respect as and when it emanates from other list members, I will  
have no difficulty in bidding farewell to the exhausting business of  
finding myself feeling compelled to deal with Pawan Durani and Aditya  
Raj Kaul on a daily, sometimes hourly basis. Also because, I do not  
believe that the endless clarifications and corrections that I have  
to post to their outpourings do not necessarily lead to a significant  
increase in anyone's knowledge. They merely do damage control. And if  
there is no damage, there will be no need for an eternity of damage  
control.

That might free up some more time and energy for me to share some of  
my other interests and curiositites, and engage and learn from the  
interests and curiosities of other list members. My life, let me  
assure you, does not begin and end at the Banihal Pass.

Incidentally, Pawan Durani is incorrect when he says in his last post  
that i demanded his exclusion once before on this list, and then  
apologized. I did accuse him once of defamation, and asked for an  
explaination, but unlike this time, did not ask for a ban. And once  
it was pointed out to me by him that he had not said exactly what I  
had thought he had said (that I was a member of an 'ML type of  
organization' ) i apologized. I find bans repugnant, and I find  
myself compelled to demand one this time, because I think that a  
concrete offense has been committed, and that this offence, since it  
violates the trust and confidence that we all share in this list is  
sufficient reason for me to demand the removal of the two concerned  
individuals. I was waiting to see if there was even the slightest  
hint of remorse, regret or apology in their conduct, subsequent to  
the posting that I made detailing their false allegations. I have  
seen none. I personally think that we do not need to engage any  
further with these individuals.

Aashima has raised a very important and interesting point, and I  
think it relates to what I have just said. How does the textual  
equivalent of 'spitting' relate to  what we in Raqs mean by stammers,  
mumbles, tics etc.? In the text that she refers to, (a link to which  
on the e-flux journal was posted by Jeebesh some days ago) we argue  
for a sympathy for the illegible and caution against the overwhelming  
demand for legibility that assails us all. My understanding of our  
reservations regarding the cult of legibility is as follows. We are  
often at a loss about what to say, circumstances overwhelm us, our  
situations become way too complicated, we are too ecstatic, grieved,  
wonder-struck, or ill or nervous to be legible. We stammer, we  
mumble, we scrawl, we let our tics run away with us. There is a way  
in which these circumstances force our somatic, phatic registers to  
take over. Our vocal cords and vocalization musculature overrule our  
ability to form clear or coherent or legible sounds, our fingers fail  
our ability to write letters, we blush, we shiver. A stammer occurs  
often when we are forced to say things that we might hesitate to  
otherwise, or we are forced to speak in conditions that are not  
comfortable. Or there is some other

A spit (and its textual-discursive analogue in the form of invective)  
on the other hand is a deliberate expectoration. it is quite  
different from a retch, a belch, a drool or the involuntary spasm  
that accompanies a bout of vomiting. In each of these our ability to  
control what escapes the oral orifice is compromised by the dire  
straits our body finds itself in. A spit (the kind that I am talkng  
about) on the other hand is the result of a considered decision to  
eject a projectile of concentrated hostility. You have to 'work up' a  
spit. Try doing it, and you will see exactly what I mean.

A false accusation is a similar thing. The person who makes it knows  
that he has no ground to stand on while making the accusation, and  
still goes ahead and makes it. It can only stems from the arrogance  
that underwrites the notion that one will not be challenged, or if  
challenged, one has enough lung or muscle power to 'take care' of the  
challenge. If a stammer is the kind of response that happens when we  
don't know what to say, then a false accusation (a verbal-textual  
spit) is the deliberate saying of that which we know we have no  
reason to say. In the first instance, the imposition is on the  
speaker, and in the second, on the listener-reader. They point, in my  
view, to two different ends of the dynamics of utterance and power.

I hope I have been clear. Thank you for the opportunity to think this  
through.

regards,

Shuddha

----------------------------------------
(for those who might be interested,

from
Stammer, Mumble, Sweat, Scrawl, and Tic
Raqs Media Collective

E-Flux Journal, Issue 0, November 2008


To be legible is to be readable. To be legible is to be an entry in a  
ledger—one with a name, place, origin, time, entry, exit, purpose and  
perhaps a number. To be legible is to be coded and contained. Often,  
when asked an uncomfortable question, or faced with an unsettling  
reality, the rattled respondent ducks and dives with a stammer, a  
mumble, a sweat, a scrawl, or a nervous tic. The respondent may not  
be lying, but may not be interested in either offering a captive  
legible truth to the interrogator or to his circumstances.

An insistence on legibility produces its own shadow, the illegible.  
Between the bare-faced lie and the naked truth lies the zone of  
illegibility—the only domain where the act of interpretation retains  
a certain ontological and epistemic significance.

We read each other for signs, not because we are opaque, or  
necessarily wish for opacity, but because our desires, fears, and  
experiences still require the life-giving breath of translation. The  
transparency that brooks no translation also requires no engagement.

The tree of life, and therefore of art, would be barren were it not  
for the fruit of occasional misunderstandings.

to read more - see - http://www.e-flux.com/journal/view/14