[Reader-list] Arundhati Roy in Karachi

[Rahul Asthana]

Inder Salim,

"The charge against Arundhati Roy is that why she chose not to speak
the language of US in Pakistan."

Who made this charge? 

"The boy ( Taliban boy
> ) should be
> killed instantly the moment he said that ‘woman’ and
> ‘plastic bags’
> should be banned. That is perhaps, the argument."

Who made this argument?

Thanks
Rahul


--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Inder Salim <indersalim at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Inder Salim <indersalim at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Arundhati Roy in Karachi
> To: "reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 8:59 AM
> Dear All,
> 
> "You must be either very dumb or very rich if you fail
> to notice that development stinks", says Gustavo Esteva, a
> Mexican
> activist and development critic. And in a article, couple
> of years
> back, Arundhati Roy wrote, “ The world is journeying on a
> terrible
> path “.
> 
> I want to know who disagrees with the above two statements.
> And those
> who see the fanatic Muslim terrorist as the most poisonous
> growth in
> the happiness producing paddy fields of the world , which
> we urgently
> need  weeding,  then I disagree.
> 
> The charge against Arundhati Roy is that why she chose not
> to speak
> the language of US in Pakistan.  The boy ( Taliban boy
> ) should be
> killed instantly the moment he said that ‘woman’ and
> ‘plastic bags’
> should be banned. That is perhaps, the argument.
> 
> Now who has put this tag ‘Taliban’ on the forehead of
> millions of
> Muslims in the world, who else, but the USA. Are not
> talking about the
> masters who play this game? If not why?
> 
>  Is ISI and the Pakistani Establishment the only masters of
> this boy?
> What if USA/West is the hidden master of this game, and if
> that is a
> possibility, then how the police, who is thief himself will
> catches
> the thief?  Seeing it from a perspective of treatments
> on canvas, this
> handling of Af-Pak issue by USA is as unaesthetic as Iraq
> war was.
> This is bound to generate ugliness, but unfortunately, they
> are
> probably content with their actions, as usual.
> 
>   Looking seriously at the problem ,  I think
> 9/11 was a long term
> investment for USA/West to harvest dividends. The threat,
> which is
> more projected than real,  to their securities has
> already hardened
> the boarders, and the  excuse to inspect/control the
> weapons in our
> backyards has become real. They almost say, that we should
> know what
> is  happening in your homes. The trouble is that our
> knowledge of
> their homes does not reveal that hidden agenda.
> 
> Meanwhile, they will make us forget that it was their
> willingness in
> the first place to manufacture these weapons of mass
> destruction, so,
> we all will believe that ‘they there’ are right 
> and ‘we here’ are
> wrong. They design the guns and bombs, they finance it,
> they
> distribute it, and they decide how to fix the
> responsibility.
> 
> We already know that taking a stand against the boy with
> disdain for ‘
> they there’ is a demand of times, some sort of
> pragmatism, so we need
> to say yes, yes, let us kill the boy and thousand and
> thousand of
> other like him. We want development, even if it
> ‘stinks’.
> 
> This sound called USA/West has already killed half a
> million in Iraq
> and we still believe that the enemy of humanity is this
> terrorist,
> this terrorist only.  We must be naïve to give all
> the benefit of
> doubts to them. ( here, them and us is not a black and
> white contrast,
> but we need to know how much of fiction is weaved in the
> us-like as
> them-like, or even, vice versa. )
> 
> Sad, if we think that to kill this boy is the remedy to our
> ills, then
> how to let us go ahead with killing the entire
> Taliabanized  society
> in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which runs in millions. 
> Mr. Jamal, a
> Pakistani Journalist said that there are half a million
> hard core
> units ( Jihadis/individuals ) from Madarasas ( schools ) in
> Pakistan.
> First, how to mark one by one, and how to change the
> programmed grey
> matter inside the head. As Ashish Nandy rightly pointed out
> that
> Modern societies have no previous  experience to deal
> with a person
> who is willing to die, for a cause, which is not
> necessarily valid for
> rest of us.
> 
> The trouble begins when for example, a Megaphone Company is
> delighted
> to sell its product to thousands of mosques in thousands of
> villages
> in the these two countries. They are happy to push the
> sales, but have
> the so called peace generating  companies ever
> campaigned against the
> sale of their product to these companies. They should have
> reminded
> them that the muezzin does not need scientific means to
> push religion
> in the minds of people, but goodwill, trust, compassion and
> simplicity
> etc. But they do the reverse, they tell them lies, and try
> all the
> tricks to sell their product, and so  why it is
> surprises us if we get
> a Tabliban from such promotions. This is just a case in the
> point.
> 
> The trouble begins here, for example, terrorist uprising in
> Kashmir
> created all the violence against the innocent people in the
> valley.
> Both Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims suffered terribly, and now,
> yes, when
> there is a visible mistrust against them ( 
> terrorists) in the valley,
> and we feel people are returning back to normal life, how
> are we going
> to define ‘peace’ and ‘development’ in real sense
> of the word. What is
> normal life? And if it means a return to the decadence and
> a dumb
> chase of American style of living, at a terrible cost of
> our
> environment and cultural moorings, then what should I say.
> 
> This I am saying, even if people will forget  the core
> Kashmir issue
> which is presently unresolved.
> 
> Just by killing the  remaining 3000 odd terrorist in
> the valley, I
> don’t know what we, the so called peace loving people,
> are going to
> achieve.
> 
>  I never said, that the presence of terrorists in the
> valley is/was a
> future catalyst to resolve the issues which I have raised,
> but their
> absence too wont change the rules of the game which are
> nothing ,but
> what Gustavo’s ‘stink’ generating projects talk
> about.
> 
> Will  there be a solid peace in the region. I doubt.
> The propaganda
> right now is that the  terrorist caused the delay in
> development.
> Logically, yes, but what development.
> 
> May be we need to define this animal called development
> first before
> we go to define the terrorist.
> 
> The trouble begins, here again , as Mr. Jamals interviewer
> pointed
> out, that the Terrorist can not lead a normal life even
> after the
> issue is resolved. So how to treat the situation?
> 
> So what is the way out ?
> 
> Love and regards
> Inder salim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > Arundhati Roy (AR) is in fashion. Rebel in fashion. A
> rebel with many causes to whine about with no solutions to
> offer. Since her grip on realities is uncertain, all
> that she can indulge in is vague intellectualising. That
> has always been in demand. Greater the obtuseness, easier
> it is to be highly thought of by unthinking minds.
> >
> > Zubeida Mustafa knowingly or unwittingly brings out
> the vaguness of AR when she says "Roy’s advice to avoid
> being ‘with us or against us’ has implications she
> didn’t elucidate". Zubeida goes on to say "In times when
> action is needed and a position has to be taken — even if
> verbally — inaction or neutrality unwittingly props up the
> status quo."
> >
> > How shallow minded AR is, gets highlighted in what
> are ostensibly quotes from her speech(es) at the WAF meet.
> >
> > AR: "In India, there are two kinds of terrorism: one
> is Islamic terrorism and the other Maoist terrorism. But
> this term terrorism, we must ask, what do they mean by
> it. "
> >
> > KK: Note the word "they". Who is this "they"? Why did
> AR fail to mention that there is also public discourse on
> 'Hindu terrorism' and 'Economic terrorism'.  Even on
> 'State terrorism' to some degree. What is this "they" she is
> trying to create? Or, is she trying to say there is no
> 'terrorism' in India and that it is just a figment of the
> imagination of the "they"?
> >
> > AR: "I’m here to understand what you mean when you
> say Taliban."
> >
> > KK : AR also spoke about a Taliban Boy. How did she
> know the boy was "Taliban" if she is yet to understand what
> they mean by "Taliban" in Pakistan? She seems to have her
> own understanding of that term "Taliban". Why doesnt she
> tell us what she means by "Taliban"?
> >
> > AR (On Taliban): "Do you mean a militant? Do you mean
> an ideology? Exactly what is it that is being fought? That
> needs to be clarified.
> > I think both needs to be fought. But if it’s an
> ideology it has to be fought differently, while if it’s a
> person with a gun then it has to be fought differently."
> >
> > KK: Is AR such an ignorant idiot that she cannot see
> that militancy finds it's justifications and reassurances
> from the ideology? What is shameful about AR is that
> she uses the term 'militant' for those who have indulged in
> the most heinous of acts as Taliban and that has gravitated
> many women in Pakistan (under threat to their lives) to
> step-out and speak-out against the Taliban.
> >
> > AR: "In India, they have been fighting insurgencies
> military since 1947 and it has become a more dangerous
> place."
> >
> > KK: Note the "they" word again. But, what would AR
> have India do with those that she herself calls
> "insurgencies"? AR vagueness without any solutions. And,
> some doublespeake. In India she often hints at support for
> separatists. Why does she not espouse for India similar
> attitudes that she advocates in Pakistan where she proclaims
> "I think both needs to be fought" (whether militant or
> ideology)?
> >
> > AR (on the 'Taliban Boy'): "He was made in a factory
> that is producing this kind of mind(set). (The question is)
> who owns that factory, who funds it? Unless we deal with
> that factory, dealing with the boy doesn’t help us."
> >
> > KK: So what should be done about the 'Taliban
> Boy' while AR indulges in her vaguness of 'who owns the
> factory, who funds it?'? AR does not want her "Taliban Boy"
> dealt with. Should we in the meantime invite her 'Taliban
> Boy' to kill some more; behead some more; rape some more?
> >
> > AR: "The RSS has infiltrated the (Indian) army as much
> as various kinds of Wahabism or other kinds of religious
> ideology have infiltrated the ISI or the armed forces in
> Pakistan."
> >
> > KK: Note the words "as much". AR seems to know much
> more about the Indian Army then the rest of India knows for
> her to bring about an equivalence in the 'religion
> infiltration' into the Armed Forces of India and Pakistan.
> More likely is that she knows very little about the
> anxieties in Pakistan about the extent to which there is
> widespread suspicion (in Pakistan and elsewhere) about the
> continued influence exerted within the ISI and the Armed
> Forces of Pakistan by hardline religious ideology inspite
> of major efforts (especially by Musharraf) to unshackle
> them.
> >
> > Kshmendra
> >
> > --- On Wed, 5/13/09, Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net>
> > Subject: [Reader-list] Arundhati Roy in Karachi
> > To: "reader-list at sarai.net
> list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> > Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 8:07 AM
> >
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > The Delhi based writer Arundhati Roy has recently been
> in Karachi,
> > Pakistan at the invitation of civil society
> organizations and womens
> > rights groups. Here are two reports from Dawn, a
> Karachi based daily,
> > about meetings she attended (with an organization
> titled 'Womens
> > Action Forum') and interactions she had. I hope that
> they will be of
> > interest to people on the list.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Shuddha
> > ------------------------------
> > 1.
> >
> > Arundhati Roy and the WAF
> > By Zubeida Mustafa
> > Wednesday, 13 May, 2009
> > http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/
> > pakistan/11-arundhati-roy-and-the-waf--02
> >
> > ‘WOMEN to reclaim public spaces: a programme of
> defiance and
> > resistance.’ That is how the Women’s Action Forum
> defined the meeting
> > it held last Friday to mobilise public opinion against
> extremism.
> >
> > Although WAF’s concern to protect the space women
> have created in the
> > public mainstream has been on its agenda for some
> time, this goal has
> > acquired urgency in the wake of the events in Swat.
> The Nizam-i-Adl
> > Regulation in Malakand Division has brought people
> face to face with
> > the ugly reality of the Talibanisation phenomenon in
> the rural
> > backwaters as well as in modern urban centres.
> >
> > The Karachi meeting was well-attended by WAF’s
> standards. It is not
> > easy to mobilise women for any cause in this city of
> multiple
> > identities. The metropolis has a diversity of
> populations, cultures,
> > languages and economic interests posing a challenge to
> bring women
> > together on a single platform. Learning from its
> experience of the
> > lawyers’ movement that had succeeded in uniting the
> extreme right and
> > centrist political parties and the professionals on a
> single-point
> > agenda for two years, WAF also decided to make
> Talibanisation and
> > women the focal issue.
> >
> > That strategy paid off. Women had already been
> galvanised by the
> > video showing the flogging of a teenaged girl in Swat
> that activist
> > Samar Minallah courageously brought to the world
> media’s attention,
> > invoking in the process the wrath of the Taliban whose
> fatwa declared
> > her as wajibul qatl. The oppression of women is an
> issue that cuts
> > across classes to touch every female raw nerve.
> Whether it is the
> > smartly turned-out high-society woman or the working
> woman who slaves
> > all day long to feed an army of children and a
> drug-addict husband or
> > even the heavily veiled orthodox woman, each type,
> with few
> > exceptions, has expressed her horror at the flogging
> incident.
> >
> > Hence on this occasion WAF managed to bring a diverse
> crowd together
> > — the activists reaching out to the grassroots such
> as Amar Sindhu
> > from Sindh University Hyderabad, Parveen Rahman from
> the Orangi Pilot
> > Project and Sadiqa Salahuddin whose Indus Resource
> Centre runs
> > schools in the interior of Sindh, as well as the
> elites sitting side
> > by side with the three van-loads of women from Neelum
> Colony who
> > clean the homes of the rich and will be starting their
> adult literacy
> > classes from next week, courtesy Shabina’s Garage
> School.
> >
> > The variety of speakers focusing on the theme of
> women’s oppression
> > by the Taliban found a responsive audience. But the
> question that
> > made many ponder was: what next? Can this interest be
> sustained? If
> > they had not already started probing for answers, the
> thought-
> > provoking speech by Arundhati Roy, the renowned Indian
> writer and
> > activist, did the trick. Coming from New Delhi on a
> solidarity
> > mission to WAF’s meeting. Roy raised four issues:
> >
> > • What do we mean by the Taliban and what gave birth
> to them?
> >
> > • Define your own space and do not surrender it.
> >
> > • Don’t allow yourself to be forced into making
> choices of the ‘with
> > us or against us’ type.
> >
> > • Don’t be selective in your injustices.
> >
> > These should provide food for thought for those
> struggling against
> > oppression. Without being specific, Roy exhorted her
> audience to look
> > into the structures and systems that lead to a
> situation of such
> > extreme oppression, some of which is rooted in the
> class conflict.
> > She believes one has to take a ‘total view’ of the
> matter, which she
> > admitted she had come to Pakistan to understand.
> >
> > The fact is that we live in a largely grey area where
> the lines are
> > not sharply drawn. There is a lot of overlapping
> between issues
> > touching gender, class, ethnicity, culture, political
> power and
> > economic gains. It is this reality one has to
> recognise and see how
> > the contradictions can be addressed. The demand to
> take sides
> > unambiguously, expressed so vividly in the days
> following 9/11 by
> > George Bush as ‘You are with us or against us,’
> can create a dilemma
> > for people when negotiating these grey areas.
> >
> > Roy’s advice to avoid being ‘with us or against
> us’ has implications
> > she didn’t elucidate. In times when action is needed
> and a position
> > has to be taken — even if verbally — inaction or
> neutrality
> > unwittingly props up the status quo. If the status quo
> has been
> > created by inimical forces ostensibly now fighting
> their self-created
> > Frankenstein, where does one go?
> >
> > The practical approach would be to prioritise
> strategies that can be
> > adapted to changing circumstances. And what should
> these be? Here Roy
> > has a point when she says that one cannot be selective
> in the
> > justices one espouses and the injustices one
> denounces. In this
> > context Pakistanis find themselves trapped between the
> devil and the
> > deep sea. Attempting to rectify a problem here and
> another there
> > really doesn’t help because our entire state
> structure is colonial,
> > as a booklet titled Making Pakistan a Tenable State
> points out.
> >
> > Produced by 17 intellectuals, with Dr Mubashir Hasan
> as the driving
> > force, the book describes the state structure as being
> ‘based on the
> > concentration of political and administrative power in
> the steel
> > frame of the civil services under the protection of
> the armed forces.
> > The structure could be defined as
> feudal-military-bureaucratic.’
> >
> > The problem is systemic. In a state ruled by ‘a
> government of the
> > elites, by the elites, for the elites’ it is
> inevitable that it is
> > authoritarian and exploitative. Change can come when
> there is
> > mobilisation of the people for change. When WAF
> mobilises women to
> > fight against injustices it prepares them to also
> fight for change.
> > The need is to empower them and instill confidence in
> them.
> >
> > Two women I have written about who are fighting for
> change come from
> > the poorest of the poor and theirs is not a feminist
> agenda. They are
> > fighting to have a roof above their heads. One is the
> wife of Walidad
> > from Muhammad Essa Khaskheli who came all the way to
> Karachi in the
> > heat of summer to save her goth from being snapped up
> by a feudal in
> > the neighbourhood.
> >
> > The other is Parveen whose one-room ‘mansion’ in a
> katchi abadi of
> > Clifton is now under threat of demolition. She is
> resisting the
> > exploitative system that cannot provide shelter to the
> poor.
> > Initially she hesitated — was it ‘proper’ for a
> woman to protest she
> > had asked me. When encouraged she decided it was.
> These are women on
> > the way to empowerment and that is WAF’s agenda.
> >
> >   2.
> >
> > ‘I’m here to understand what you mean by
> Taliban’
> > by Salman Siddiqui
> > Friday, 08 May, 2009
> > http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/
> > pakistan/arundhati-roy-sal-02
> >
> > Is there a threat of Talibanisation engulfing the
> entire region?
> >
> > I think it has already engulfed our region. I think
> there’s a need
> > for a very clear thinking (on this issue of
> Talibanisation). In
> > India, there are two kinds of terrorism: one is
> Islamic terrorism and
> > the other Maoist terrorism. But this term terrorism,
> we must ask,
> > what do they mean by it.
> >
> > In Pakistan, I’m here to understand what they mean
> by this term. When
> > we say we must fight the Taliban or must defeat them,
> what does it
> > mean? I’m here to understand what you mean when you
> say Taliban. Do
> > you mean a militant? Do you mean an ideology? Exactly
> what is it that
> > is being fought? That needs to be clarified.
> >
> > I think both needs to be fought. But if it’s an
> ideology it has to be
> > fought differently, while if it’s a person with a
> gun then it has to
> > be fought differently. We know from the history of the
> war on terror
> > that a military strategy is only making matters worse
> all over the
> > world. The war on terror has made the world a more
> dangerous place.
> > In India, they have been fighting insurgencies
> military since 1947
> > and it has become a more dangerous place.
> >
> > Swat and the Taliban boy
> >
> > It is very important for me to understand what exactly
> is going in
> > Swat. How did it start? A Taliban boy asked me why
> women can’t be
> > like plastic bags and banned. The point is that the
> plastic bag was
> > made in a factory but so was the boy. He was made in a
> factory that
> > is producing this kind of mind(set). (The question is)
> who owns that
> > factory, who funds it? Unless we deal with that
> factory, dealing with
> > the boy doesn’t help us.
> >
> > Water is the main issue
> >
> > One danger in Pakistan is that we talk about the
> threat of Taliban so
> > much that other important issues lose focus. In my
> view, the problem
> > of water in the world will become the most important
> problem.  I
> > think big dams are economically unviable,
> environmentally
> > unsustainable and politically undemocratic. They are a
> way of taking
> > away a river from the poor and giving it to the rich.
> Like in India,
> > there’s an issue of SEZs (Special Economic Zones),
> whereby the land
> > of the people are given to corporations. But the
> bigger problem is
> > that there are making dams and giving water to the
> industries. This
> > way the people who live in villages by the streams and
> rivers have no
> > water for themselves. So building dams is one of the
> most
> > ecologically destructive things that you can do.
> >
> > Fight over Siachen glacier
> >
> > There are thousands of Pakistani and Indian soldiers
> deployed on the
> > Siachen glacier. Both of our countries are spending
> billions of
> > dollars on high altitude warfare and weapons. The
> whole of the
> > Siachen glacier is sort of an icy monument to human
> folly. Each day
> > it is being filled with ice axes, old boots, tents and
> so on.
> > Meanwhile, that battlefield is melting. Siachen
> glacier is about half
> > its size now. It’s not melting because the Indian
> and Pakistani
> > soldiers are on it. But it’s because people
> somewhere on the other
> > side of the world are leading a good life….in
> countries that call
> > themselves democracies that believe in human rights
> and free speech.
> > Their economies depend on selling weapons to both of
> us. Now, when
> > that glacier melts, there will be floods first, then
> there will be a
> > drought and then we’ll have even more reasons to
> fight. We’ll buy
> > more weapons from those democracies and in this way
> human beings will
> > prove themselves to be the stupidest animals on
> earth.
> >
> > Money and the Indian elections
> >
> > Whatever system of government you have, whether it is
> a military
> > dictatorship or a democracy, and you have that for a
> long time,
> > eventually big money manages to subvert it. That has
> begun to happen
> > even in a democracy (like India). For example,
> political parties need
> > a lot of publicity, but the media is also run by
> corporate money. If
> > you look at the big political parties like the
> Congress and the BJP,
> > you see how much money is being put out just in their
> advertising
> > budgets. Now where does all that come from?
> >
> > RSS and the Indian establishment
> >
> > The RSS has infiltrated everything to a great extent.
> In India, we
> > have 120-150 million Muslims and it’s considered a
> minority…It’s
> > impossible to not belong to a minority of some sort in
> India. Caste
> > or ethnicity or religion or whatever, in some way
> everyone belongs to
> > a minority. The fights that many of us are waging
> against the RSS and
> > against the BJP are to say that we live in a society
> which
> > accommodates everybody. Everybody doesn’t have to
> love everybody, but
> > everybody has to be accommodated.  The RSS has
> infiltrated the
> > (Indian) army as much as various kinds of Wahabism or
> other kinds of
> > religious ideology have infiltrated the ISI or the
> armed forces in
> > Pakistan. They are human beings like everyone else and
> they too get
> > influenced.
> >
> > Indian media and sensationalizing of news coming out
> from Pakistan
> >
> > I think the media in both countries play this game.
> Whenever
> > something happens here, they hype it up there, while
> when something
> > happens there, they hype the news here. We say that we
> live in times
> > of an information revolution and free press, but even
> then nobody
> > gets to know the complete picture…
> >
> > The Pakistani media is a little different from the
> Indian media. They
> > stand on a slightly different foundation. But both
> share the problem
> > of a lack of accountability…The trouble in India is
> that 90 per cent
> > of their revenue comes from the corporate
> sector…there’s increasing
> > privatization and corporatization of governance,
> education, health,
> > infrastructure and water management. So in India you
> see an open
> > criticism of governance, but very rarely criticism of
> corporations.
> > It’s a structural problem. It’s not about good
> people or bad people.
> > It’s just that you can’t expect a company to work
> against itself.
> > This is a very serious issue which needs to be sorted
> out.
> >
> > Is the Indian army a sacred cow?
> >
> > The Indian army is quite a sacred cow especially on TV
> and Bollywood.
> > But at the same time if you talk to the people in the
> Indian army,
> > they say that they feel that the media is very
> critical of them. I
> > don’t share that view. I think it is a sacred cow.
> People are willing
> > to give them a lot of leeway.
> >
> > Women and their fight for justice
> >
> > When women fight for justice, we must fight for every
> kind of justice…
> > We must fight for justice for men and justice for
> children. Because
> > if you fight for one kind of justice and you tolerate
> another, then
> > it’s a pretty hollow fight. You may not be able to
> fight every
> > battle, but you should be able to put yourself on the
> line and say I
> > believe this.
> >
> >
> >
> > Shuddhabrata Sengupta
> > The Sarai Programme at CSDS
> > Raqs Media Collective
> > shuddha at sarai.net
> > www.sarai.net
> > www.raqsmediacollective.net
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________
> > 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/>
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________
> > 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/>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> http://indersalim.livejournal.com
> _________________________________________
> 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/>