[Reader-list] a thought

[TaraPrakash]

What I gathered from what Nazneen has been saying in the first of all mails, 
especially those written to Iram, is that she doesn't want people to send 
her personal mails on the topics discussed on the reader list. Was there 
something else? If Iram did, I couldn't find anything indecent about it.

"baat ye hai ke baat kuch bhi naheen"

There is not much to be so touchy about it. I know the list has been having 
some tough times, but keep the administration out of it. There are ways to 
avoid receiving mails. Technology gives us that option. It is a democratic 
list any undue exercise of control by anyone at Sarai will make the members 
think in the same way as quoted in Nazneen's mail
"Baithe bhi naheen the, nikaal bhi diye gae."


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nazneen Anand Shamsi" <nazoshmasi at googlemail.com>
To: "Aarti Sethi" <aarti.sethi at gmail.com>
Cc: "Monica Narula" <monica at sarai.net>; <reader-list at sarai.net>; 
"Shuddhabrata Sengupta" <shuddha at sarai.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] a thought


> 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/>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> _________________________________________
> 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/>