[Reader-list] a thought

[Nazneen Anand Shamsi]

Dear Aarti,

1. I am enchanted by your response. I feel let down that you may not wish to
engage with me on this issue anymore. I hope otherwise. Moreover, I am
amazed that you can easily gauge my 'unlimited' energy to interact with
members on this in the same realm as you must have perhaps measured other
list members 'unlimited' energy to interact with me. That you choose to
ignore other list members tenacity in this wonderful exchange of 'unlimited
energies' is a different matter altogether, something which I would rather
not comment on. I would leave that to your good judgment.

Coming to your post, first of all Aarti, thank you very much for your
generosity by replying to my post with such care and concern. When I was
outlying my arguments I was not thinking about a modus operandi, but rather
to tell you the truth, I was thinking about modus vivendi. I was deeply
concerned about how we as list members are going to and should deal with our
differences. I still am and will always be.

Shuddha painstakingly mentions a range of conversations that reader list has
witnessed over past seven years, I see that the only one strand which binds
these conversations together is perhaps of -difference-. The question for
all us here is how do we  look at this tenuous thread of -difference-. I
would like to imagine sarai as an online mehfil and as the poet suggests any
mehfil will attract people of many callings and persuasions. Over the years
subscribers relationship to the readerlist could be summed up as-

Dil tujhe debhi gaye, apna sila le bhi gaye,
Aa ke baithe bhi na the, ke nikaale bhi gaye.

Many subscribers have in fact given their 'dil' and taken their 'sila' in
the process of making this list lively but now it seems that the issue has
become more around the way in which one engages or should engage with this
mehfil.  'Nehin mehfil mein jinhen baat bhi karne ka shaoor' is what we have
to deal with.


2. As you would have known that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. To
begin with, you are absolutely right when you say that I have 'deliberately
misunderstood' this. I have. Sometimes in order to do a mischief, one needs
to engage in 'appeals to authority'. Even when one knows that nothing of
that sort exists. And what I did in past few weeks was perhaps nothing less
than a mischief.  I was not  loyal to that unwritten code of public conduct
which Iram so rightly and perhaps angrily alluded to in the past, I would
again take comfort from the poet who has this to say about loyalty, 'Hum
wafadar nahin, tu bhi tau dildar nahin'. I must have directed my mails to
that elusive figure of 1400 list subscribers to demonstrate some 'dildari'
on this issue. But instead of taking the due process, I choose a
direct,maybe confrontational method. Because, in all my earnestness, I
assumed that a response from Sarai would elicit an immediate discussion. The
'dildari' from sarai would be more useful, if you may. In the tradition of
deafening silence with which sarai takes care of this list, what vivek did
today was nothing less than a 'dildari' There was never ever in my mind an
intention to cause harm to this list, however, I will not hesitate to do
this mischief again, if I find exchanges crossing limits of decent public
conversation. Consider this a promise.

3. I disagree with your contention that in the event if this list fails,
then sarai will not be responsible. On the contrary a death of reader list
would be as much sarai's responsibility as it would anyone's. For are we not
in this together? On a different note though, I find it strange that you
speak on sarai's behalf when you don't work there anymore as much as it
escapes my reasoning to read Iram's mail, as only concerned with her
individual capacity, though she communicates from a sarai.net address. Maybe
you understand sarai's silences more than perhaps I do. I do not have any
issues on what I find an ambivalent relationship. I let it be.

4. Just a clarification, if you had read 'mail after mail' from me, you
would have noticed that, again and again I was either trying to elicit some
sort of response from sarai community or asking everyone else to respond.
The silences of everyone else, including yours, were distressing. You must
have also noticed that, while replying to monica I wrote,  'I am at a loss
of words' here. Therefore the issue of me arguing for a moral imperative on
sarai only to intervene does not arise.

5.In the same grain I do not take your argument about, 'structure of a web
community' as given. I would imagine a web community to be a social
construct and like any social constructs must be subject to negotiation. I
find sarai's refusal to negotiate problematic as I feel deeply uncomfortable
while making an effort to understand silences of other list members. I agree
that sarai as an entity will never have a policy of negotiation but at the
same time, I would expect some amount of 'dildari'. Not in a sense of
generosity because frankly speaking, I would rather that sarai be less
generous but in the sense of 'daring'. 'Idhar daring karne ko mangta hai
baap' (like Pakhiya tells Munna in Rangeela)

I don't think issue of sarai's posting's will be solved forever by vivek's
intervention but at the same time time i would not like to believe that
there was absolute anarchy before, as you yourself suggest there is some
evidence of some disturbance followed by self course correction.

6. Aarti, I don't think that it is anyone's case if any noise pertaining to
reader-list is directed at this or that person, or a group so long as it is
posted on the reader-list. On reader list any noise in a sense is directed
against all those who read that post. Lets put it this way I used sarai to
make noise because I was perhaps certain that there would be some sort of
response. I am happy that you have responded. I am glad that this irritated
you to such a degree that you were compelled to write almost one thousand
five hundred words to articulate your position and your views regarding an
issue of utmost importance. The poet asks, 'Kahin mumkin hai saqi na rahe,
jaam rahe?' I would like to believe that all of us here saqi's in a sense
and we try to intoxicate each other with the jaam of our thoughts and our
world. I take that you gulped and coughed but I take that spill  in good
spirit.

Warm regards

Nazo





On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Aarti Sethi <aarti.sethi at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Nazneen,
>
> I am not going to get into an interminable exchange on this, an exchange
> which you have demonstrated unlimited energy for in your interactions with
> other list members, but I confess, I have not the capacity for. So very
> quick responses to the substantial points you raise because I think they
> pertain both to what you see as a modus operandi for getting action -
> "making a lot of noise"- as well as the premises on which a discussion of
> list protocols can ensue.
>
>
>>
>> Could I suggest that what appears to you as an 'institutional obsession'/
>> 'irritating'/ 'intellectually lazy'  argument may in fact be an 'appeal to
>> authority'. In a virtual world where this list floats, with nameless places
>> and place less names, the only clear and distinct sign which appears to me
>> was a sarai.net address. This is a sarai.reader list and I think it is
>> common sense to address my raves and rants concerning the list to the most
>> visible  and perhaps the most stable of all landmarks. I agree with you
>> completely that sarai's institutional stake is limited to providing a
>> context
>>
>
> I am unconvinced by 'appeals to authority' because I think you deliberately
> misunderstand what the nature of authority is in this case. Sarai has
> explicitly in this and other instances made clear that its jurisdiction as
> far as the reader-list goes extends to providing a context, and an
> administrative function. There is no ambiguity in this position at all. In
> doing so Sarai also makes clear that the responsibility for its health and
> functioning thereby devolves onto all who participate in it. If we all
> together cannot devise forms of communication and conversation which
> contribute to its health then the list will die. And this is not the first
> time that an online platform dies for such reasons. If such a situation were
> to come to pass we would only hold our selves responsible, not Sarai because
> it failed to clean up when the list community made a pig's ear of it. I do
> not see how nameless places and placeless names are an argument for
> intervention, or an argument for Sarai's intervention in the form of
> regulation. It is too easy to posit absolute anarchy on the one hand, solved
> through legitimate institutional intervention.
>
> Does this mean I am opposed to regulation? Not at all. I think if all of us
> have a conversation regarding the protocols that we think collectively would
> make the list a better forum for discussion, by all means these protocols
> must be put in place. You will notice that I have responded positively to
> vivek's suggestion, with a qualifier, which I am submitting to the list
> community at large. I am opposed to the way in which you say "I think all of
> us who are non-sarai expect an intervention from Sarai". All of us do not.
> Or at least we are not agreed on what the terms of this intervention are to
> be. I am also taking exception to the way in which you hail Vivek's response
> as a gesture of greater value simply because he has a sarai.net address.
>
> Autonomous communities come with a great deal of responsibility and its up
> to all of us to take this seriously. The only reason I am belabouring this
> point is because I have read mail after mail from you where you posit Sarai
> as a judgment-delivering body when in fact neither does Sarai view itself in
> this fashion, nor in fact do a majority of list members. And you explicitly
> foist onto people who happen to work at Sarai a greater articulative power
> when in fact they are explicity disavowing it, as you did in your
> interaction with Iram.
>
>
>> And I laud this, 'gesture' but ultimately when push comes to shove, as in
>> Radhikarajen's instance, it was left only to the discretion of list admin to
>> take a call.
>>
>
> I'd like to submit that what you define as a 'gesture' and this is not the
> first time you have done so, is not a 'gesture' alone. It is in fact the
> structure of this web community. Therefore there is no moral highground that
> Sarai is seeking to occupy (which you have also alleged) when Shuddha and
> Iram make clear what the terms of their engagement are. They are simply
> trying to explain to you, yet again, the basic architecture of list
> functioning. Regarding the discretion of the list admin. Yes, it was finally
> left to the list admin. But I can say with confidence that the occasions on
> which this has occurred can be counted on the fingers of one hand. This, for
> a list which has been in existence now for almost 7 years, where 'turbulent'
> would be a mild adjective to describe conversation, is, I can assure you,
> extraordinary. I would actually read this in exactly the reverse way in
> which you choose to. That it in fact testifies to the fact that we can
> course correct, and have done so, without constantly asking Sarai to
> intervene, and actually, and this is what irritates me, making intervention
> a moral imperative on Sarai's part.
>
>
> I don't see any reason why I should not direct my rants for punitive action
>> to a sarai.net address. It makes more sense to one to write to the
>> non-interventionist Sponsor of this list than to address them to a
>> fsrnkashmir at gmail.com or aashu.gupta20 at gmail.com not because by directing
>> to these mail address I would be diluting the issue but because I guess by
>> deliberately dragging sarai's name I hoped to provoke perhaps a lot more
>> people,
>>
>> Which was the intended objective.  I have always believe that one should
>> make a lot of noise if one is uncomfortable with the way in which things are
>> being done.
>>
>
> Certainly one must make a lot of noise. But who must this noise be directed
> to? On this we disgaree fundamentally. You think it is more effective to
> lobby "sponsors", as you so charmingly put it. I think we should address
> everyone who is part of this community. If the structure of the reader-list
> were other than what it was, then yes, demands for "punitive action" should
> be directed solely at Sarai. But that is not how the reader-list functions
> or has functioned. So there can be no demands for "punitive action" at all.
> There can be discussions amongst all of us regarding how to regulate
> conversation in a manner that we all find productive. Unfortunately you see
> this as a rhetorical gesture on Sarai's part. I am trying to tell you it is
> not.
>
>
>
>
>> I consider this strategy far more engaging and an exercise in thinking
>> together than say, for instance, without sounding rude to you, writing
>> intellectually engaging stuff like- 'Enough. Just. Shut. Up. Be. Quiet. Do
>> Not Speak. You embarrass and insult yourself.' But of course this was
>> written with respect to a specific context but still, the above remark
>> pertains very much to a broad discussion concerning how we engage on the
>> reader list.
>>
>
> I actually do not see this remark as being any less intellectually engaging
> than some of your own writing. But lets leave that aside. That remark was
> made as a specific response to a person who has used language in a manner
> that is beyond any schema of justification. All I asked was that they desist
> from speech, followed by a friendly reminder of the fact that he was
> insulting and embarrasing himself. I agree its not elevated conversation, I
> also agree that it is in no way a model for list interaction, and I would be
> the first to admit that one should desist from this form of speech. But
> given the kind of speech and the long dure of this speech that it was
> directed against, I am loathe to apologise for this stray remark.
>
> I hope I have made myself abundantly clear. And keeping recent calls for
> economy of articulation in mind, I will not be engaging with you on this
> anymore.
>
> Warm regards
> Aarti
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Warm regards
>>
>> Nazo
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Aarti Sethi <aarti.sethi at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I think this is a good idea but I am not entirely convinced. I fear it
>>> might lead to a situation in which conversations might dry up quite fast
>>> because often an exchange consists of people responding quite quickly to
>>> positions. Are we sure we want to impose a moratorium this strict wherein it
>>> becomes impossible for me to engage with six mails I might wish to, or
>>> respond to a thread where several people are coming in at the same time. I
>>> also recognise though that in a moment  marked by the excess of too many
>>> words some economy of articulation would be very welcome. So can this be
>>> modified to say that I am allowed one response to an ongoing thread only,
>>> and one new thread which I initiate?
>>>
>>> best
>>> Aarti
>>>
>>> P.S And Nazneen, without sounding rude I am beginning to tire of your
>>> institutional obsession with Sarai. It has been made clear over and over
>>> again that Sarai's institutional stake in this list is limited to providing
>>> the context. This is as it should be. I used to work at Sarai, I do not
>>> anymore. My relationship with the list extends from before I joined Sarai,
>>> continued while I worked there, and sustains now that I do not. I see no
>>> reason why my stake in this list is reduced or altered because Sarai no
>>> loner happens to be my employer. Those at Sarai are not judges on high who
>>> will determine how everyone else who has spent as much time contributing to
>>> the discussions and general health of this list over now 7 years, nor should
>>> we force them to become that. I think in different ways those who work at
>>> Sarai and are members of the reader list have expressed tehir unwillingness
>>> and discomfort with this regulatory role that you insist on attributing to
>>> them. So please lets think together about this. I find this constant
>>> petitioning to Sarai very irritating and I also think its intellectually
>>> lazy.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Nazneen Anand Shamsi <
>>> nazoshmasi at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Vivek,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for a thought provoking post. Undoubtedly yours is perhaps the
>>>> first instance, when we have someone from sarai.net seriously taking up
>>>> a
>>>> initiative to put in place modalities of engagement, in his personal
>>>> capacity.
>>>>
>>>> I unhesitatingly endorse your move.
>>>>
>>>> Further on, I suggest that the list admin set a deadline of a week's
>>>> time
>>>> for any discussion on this issue. After  the completion of such a
>>>> deadline,
>>>> this rule must come into pace. Despite Shuddha's insistence, in this
>>>> morning's riposte to Radhakrishnan's mail, I think, insofar as all of us
>>>> here who are non sarai.net, we expect some sort of initiative from
>>>> sarai. I
>>>> am certainly not in a position, none whatsoever, to dictate the terms of
>>>> engagement but nevertheless, I feel your suggestion needs to be taken up
>>>> seriously by all concerned.
>>>>
>>>> May I suggest that responses that belong to different threads be
>>>> restricted
>>>> to one post, instead of just one post a day. Regarding content, may I
>>>> also
>>>> suggest that a provocation and its response must not include any ad
>>>> homenium
>>>> remarks. A similar warning must be issued against any such post,
>>>> followed by
>>>> dismissal.
>>>>
>>>> I would urge everyone one who is a regular sarai express junkie to
>>>> respond
>>>> to Vivek's timely intervention.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Nazo
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Shahnawaz Khan <fsrnkashmir at gmail.com
>>>> >wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Sounds Good. Amazing if people would be able to hold their trash with
>>>> them
>>>> > for the night.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Aashish Gupta <
>>>> aashu.gupta20 at gmail.com
>>>> > >wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > Completely agreed. Very innovative.
>>>> > > Aashish
>>>> > >  _________________________________________
>>>> > > 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/>
>>>> > >
>>>> > _________________________________________
>>>> > 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/>
>>>> >
>>>> _________________________________________
>>>> 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/>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>