[Reader-list] Not So Fabulous Fables by JTSA

[Pawan Durani]

Dear All ,

A must all read.

And for those who lack vision, a little food for them in return.

Pawan


http://www.anniezaidi.com/2010/04/little-more-truth-now-were-talking.html

A little more truth, now we're talking about truth


Dear Editor,
(Countercurrents.org)

I have just had a book out – a collection of essays based on reportage
and travel over the last few years. I wrote it in the hope that
through these stories of reporting from the field, other people too
could share in my understanding of me, my times and my country.
There has been a great outpouring of goodwill and support from family,
friends and colleagues. I have been exhausted and happy, particularly
when I see that the average person is actually willing to engage with
some of the more serious issues I've put in the essays. But today, I
am also forced to worry: What would happen if everything I wrote was
disbelieved, or challenged by others who didn't want to agree with me?
Additionally, what would happen if a group of people who disliked me
or my politics was to try to discredit my reportage by issuing public
statements about me?
Earlier this week, I was forwarded an email with what appears to be a
statement issued by the Jamia Teacher's Solidarity Association (though
I cannot find it on their own website, it does appear on
Countercurrents, a website that I have a fair amount of respect for.
The piece (dated April 25, 2010) accuses journalist Praveen Swami of
being a liar. To my knowledge, this is the first time a pressure group
has formed that publicly singles out a journalist on a given beat for
such strident criticism, and in absolute isolation from his/her
organisation and other journalists who cover the same region/beat. I
was concerned, partly because it seemed like an attempt at
constructing outrage against one individual, isolating him from his
field of work and thereby discrediting even the editorial leadership
of the newspaper he works for by indirectly insinuating that the
editors don't know what they're doing.
Before I go any further, I would like to declare some basic facts. Mr
Swami was bureau chief at a time when I was working for Frontline, and
I just have a book out in which he features in the acknowledgments. He
was a good boss and very un-boss-like in that he treated me as an
intellectual equal (unlike certain other older male journalists whom I
shall not name here) and was always up for a good debate, always
listening with an open mind to what I had to say. He is still a
friend.
However, this is not about loyalty or a defense of friendship. This is
about journalistic integrity and the rights of reporters to report the
truth as far as they can access it. The correct thing to do, if you
suspect a journalist is not quite doing his job, is to write to the
editor of the paper. The Hindu is one of those rare papers that has a
readers' editor. It is surprising that the teachers' association did
not send in their note to the editor there. Or that they did not put
it up as a press statement on their own website, addressed to the The
Hindu editor. It would have given Mr Swami a fair chance to defend
himself. It seems wrong to me to accuse someone without giving them a
chance to have their say. You, being an editor who stands for truth -
even truth that is not immediately apparent and which is often ignored
or willfully suppressed - probably understand this sentiment. Though I
must also say that if I had been an editor of a website that carried
the aforementioned note by the JTSA, I would have expected the
allegations to be a little more rigorously researched and properly
phrased, or I might have found myself slapped with a libel suit.
However, I have done your job for you. Like a good journalist, I wrote
to Mr Swami asking for a clarification, with specific reference to the
examples of the 'lies' the note referenced. He has answered with a
point by point rebuttal of the JTSA's allegations (see below). Having
read it, it appears that the note you have published betrays a certain
terminological inexactitude on the part of the writers, not to mention
wide swathes of intellectual laziness (which is strange, considering
these are professional intellectuals). But we can always conduct
debates with intellectual rigour at another date. For now, I am hoping
that you will be fair, and publish Mr Swami’s rebuttal for the sake of
editorial integrity.
Regards
Annie Zaidi



April 28, 2010



Dear Annie:



Thank you for your letter.  I’m glad that, unlike many people I know,
you’ve actually sought my opinion on the allegations that the Jamia
Teachers’ Solidarity Association has levelled at me.  Some people seem
to have been perfectly content to circulate the allegations without
any effort at verification.  Since the JTSA’s allegations have not
been addressed, to the best of my knowledge, to my Editors at The
Hindu, I’ve had no opportunity to respond to what I believe are
scurrilous allegations. However, I do hope you will not be upset if I
take the liberty of circulating my reply to you to a few people who
may be interested in what I have to say.



The principal JTSA claim, if my understanding is correct, is that I’ve
invented a suspect for the Bangalore and Pune bombings, undermining my
own earlier position—as they see it—that Hindutva groups had carried
out the attacks.



Separately, the JTSA also makes two, somewhat mutually-contradictory
claims: first that I blindly broadcast the views of India’s
intelligence services, and secondly, that I make up stories.  The
first of these two charges is, by its nature, difficult to prove or
disprove: after all, if someone has persuaded themselves that I am an
agent of India’s intelligence services, my denials are hardly likely
to persuade them otherwise.



It seems common-sense to me that the issue is not who I get my
information from—which I am professionally bound, as you know, not to
disclose—but how accurate that information is.  This brings me to the
second claim—i.e., that I have invented or misrepresented facts.  This
allegation is a serious one, but can be tested.  Below, I’ve put my
responses to their claims in the order in which they appear.  Please
make up your own mind.



JTSA[1]

My Response



While the Pune police commissioned experts to draw sketches of the
suspects based on this footage, ATS dismissed this exercise as
“anything but useful”, as their source, the CCTV footage, was itself
grainy. (Siasat, April 12). Where does Swami stand on this? He wrote
in his 19th February piece: “All that investigators have by way of
suspects are three men recorded holding brief meetings before the
blast by a poor-quality closed-circuit television camera. From the
videotape, it is unclear if the men had anything to do with the
attack.” Exactly a month later, Swami conveniently develops an amnesia
about Abhinav Bharat and even about the poor quality of CCTV footage.
What was earlier ‘unclear” and hazy has in one month segued into solid
shape: in the form of top Indian Mujahideen (IM) operative Mohammad
Zarar Siddi Bawa ie., Yasin Bhatkal….





The  JTSA is right: I did indeed write about grainy video footage
obtained from a camera installed in a hotel opposite the German Bakery
(I’ve dealt with the Abhinav Bharat issue they’ve raised below, to
avoid confusing issues).  What I didn’t know when I wrote the story
was of the existence of footage from the second CCTV camera, installed
above the cash counter in the German Bakery.  Please note, though,
that the existence of this footage was known to journalists other than
me long before the Maharashtra Police Anti-Terrorism Squad disclosed
its existence.  Mid-Day, to cite just one of several examples that can
easily be unearthed from the internet, had an account of its existence
as early as February 17, 2010.[2]  The article made clear that the
police had instructed witnesses not to talk about the footage: “Pravin
Panth, cashier at the bakery, said, ‘I have seen the footage, but I
cannot reveal the inputs. I have been advised to refrain from
revealing details to the media as this may harm investigations’.”
Please also note that Yasin Bhatkal’s possible role in the bombings
was dwelt on at this stage of the investigation by other
journalists.[3]





Clearly, Swami’s changing perceptions about the CCTV footage is in
accord with the shifting attitude of the ATS itself.





I wish my supposedly-formidable contacts in the intelligence services
and elsewhere had told me about the cash-counter footage.  That they
didn’t should lead to some obvious inferences; the implications are
too clear to need fleshing out here.  As the JTSA points out, the
Maharashtra Police Anti-Terrorism Squad did indeed claim that it had
identified Yasin Bhatkal, from footage harvested from the cash-counter
camera.  This was widely reported in early April, before I wrote.[4]
I was, I have to say, sceptical—hence, I worked to access the footage,
and see for myself if the man in the tape did indeed resemble Yasin
Bhatkal.  I was reasonably satisfied by what I found.  In any case, if
investigators changed their views when new evidence came to light, why
is that a problem?








Swami’s articles appear magically, faithfully reflecting the
Intelligence reports. After the Batla House ‘encounter’, he launched a
tirade against all those who were questioning the police account of
the shootout labeling them all ‘Alices in wonderland’. He went so far
as to identify ‘precisely’ how Inspector Sharma was shot by claiming
that “abdomen wound was inflicted with [Atif] Amin's weapon and the
shoulder hit, by Mohammad Sajid”…. And no sir, Swami’s conclusion was
not based on post mortem reports of the killed, fire arm examination
report or ballistic report but on this innocent fact: “the
investigators believe that…”





The National Human Rights Commission studied the same evidence I
did—and more which was not available when I wrote.  It says:  “…swabs
which were taken from the right hands of Mohd Atif Ameen and Modh
Sajid by the doctors at the time of post mortem in AIIMS were sent in
sealed bottles to CFSL for dermal nitrate tests in the laboratory. The
same were found to contain gun shot residue. This conclusively
establishes that Mohd Atif Ameen and Mohd Sajid had both used fire
arms at the time of incident”.[5]  Unless it believes that the NHRC is
an intelligence agency, the allegation made by the JTSA is untrue.



Swami however felt no need to pen an article when the postmortem
reports of Atif and Sajid revealed that they had been shot from close
range and that neither of them sustained gunshot wounds in the frontal
region of the body—an impossibility in the case of a genuine
encounter.



I didn’t.  I still don’t.   Having studied the available evidence, the
NHRC concluded: “In such circumstances, the action taken by the police
party in which Mohd. Atif Ameen and Mohd. Sajid received fatal
injuries and died is fully protected by law”.[6] Parenthetically, I
note that members of the Facebook group I believe the 2008 Batla House
encounter was FAKE  insist that “not only the JTSA report, but also
NHRC (a statutory body of GOI) says that the encounter is fake”.[7]
Either these people have not read the NHRC report—or are lying.





When two crude bombs went off outside the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium ahead
of the match between Mumbai Indians and Royal Challengers Bangalore on
17th April, the Karnataka Home Minister V.S. Acharya announced that
the state Police were investigating the alleged involvement of the
cricket betting lobby. He forcefully denied any link with the earlier
blasts in the city in 2008.

But Yasin Bhatkal seems to have preoccupied Swami’s mind on 19th April
for he evokes him again in connection with the stadium blasts
(“Stadium Blasts herald new IM offensive”). Citing the ever
cooperative ‘investigators’, he says that the ‘similarity in design’
and the manner in which some bombs failed to explode are a sure
indicator of the IM hand





Leaving aside the minor irony here—the JTSA’s great faith in an
embarrassed BJP politician—there are two facts that need to be
recorded.  In pursuit of the government’s “betting mafia” story, the
Karnataka Police arrested five Uttar Pradesh suspects.  Those suspects
were cleared of any involvement in the attacks by the Uttar Pradesh
Police.[8]  Second, I clearly identified that suspicions directed at
Mohammad Zarar Siddi Bawa, a.k.a. Yasin Bhatkal, were based on what
investigators were telling me.  Similarity in bomb design is quite
evidently reasonable ground for suspicion—though it is not of course
proof.  Since I have no independent expertise in bomb forensics, the
information was clearly attributed to investigators.  Its up to
readers whether they want to believe them or not.






Swami here details the biographies of SIMI activists in South India,
making the link, ever so cleverly, between SIMI—and yes, IM—and the
stadium blasts, without providing any evidence of their actual
linkage.



I’m a little uncertain here about precisely what the allegation is
here—but think the JTSA has some problem with my suggesting that SIMI
and the Indian Mujahideen are linked to terrorism.  I’m in good
company, I think, in this belief.  Javed Anand had a must-read article
on the issue some time back.[9] Yoginder Sikand had some good
background earlier.[10]  If you’re willing to fork out a few bucks for
more detail, do read C.  Christine Fair on the subject.[11]  This is
just a tiny part of a mass of literature—not including charge-sheets,
trial records and so on—on the subject.  You don’t need access to the
Intelligence Services to access it—just a few hours in a good library







Like so many people driven by blind faith, the JTSA’s members don’t
seem willing to be persuaded by fact.  Increasingly, the positions of
its supporters seem driven by bizarre conspiracy theories.   For
instance, Omair Anas, one of the leading lights of the “Shut Up
Praveen Swami” group[12] (which includes among its members an odd
array of Islamists linked to the Jamaat-e-Islami’s student wing as
well as members of that flag-bearer of Delhi’s regrettably
unsubstantial radical-chic, Sarai), has this post up on his Facebook
wall:



Omair Anas Who carried out 9/11 attack? Israel ! Israel! know how
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/israel-did-911-all-the-proof-in-the-world/

Sun at 23:55 · Share

Israel did 9/11, ALL THE PROOF IN THE WORLD!![13]



I have two points to make in conclusion:

First, a number of Islamist groups, as well as some of Maoist
supporters, have been engaging in a wilful misrepresentation of my
work—misrepresentation that, your letter leads me to believe, may be
succeeding simply because the audiences for this campaign do not seem
to take the trouble of reading what I have written.  For example, a
Google Groups thread claims that I have been advocating targeted
killing of “insurgent leaders (and cadres)! Understandably, away from
the battlefields. Dragged out of homes or on the city streets? A la
Mossad!?”[14]  Please see for yourself if I actually said anything of
the kind. I did indeed point to a successful campaign targeting “the
leadership and cadre of Khalistan terrorists”.  I trust no sensible
person would have objections to the targeting of these murderous
criminals.  I concluded that “Learning from its own success stories,
India needs to fight insurgencies in smarter, leaner ways. Like Andhra
Pradesh, States must invest in training facilities that meet their
particular needs; expand intelligence capabilities; and use technology
effectively. Instead of focussing on simply expanding the size of
Central forces, the Union government must understand the need for them
to be properly trained and equipped”.  [15]

Second, it seems to me a little sad that my critics have chosen to use
personal slurs and innuendo, instead of engaging in a debate on
facts—a debate I think is important and healthy.  It is all the more
dismaying when people you would expect to value civil debate engage in
these kinds of tactics.  I find these tactics despicable. I’m happy to
be challenged on points of fact and interpretation. I believe that
informed criticism is good for public debate and good journalism.
Sadly, I don’t think the JTSA statement has helped either cause.



Warm regards



Praveen


[1] Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association, ‘Praveen Swami’s Not So
Fabulous Fables’ (CounterCurrents.org:
http://www.countercurrents.org/jtsa250410.htm)

[2] Bipin Kumar Singh and Kaumudi Gujjar, ‘Footage gave important
leads: cops’ (MidDay:
http://www.mid-day.com/news/2010/feb/170210-german-bakery-blast-cctv-footage-vital-clues.htm),
February17, 2010.

[3][3] Johnson TA, ‘Yasin Bhatkal is IM bombmaker, now in Karachi:
Probe team’ (The Indian Express:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/yasin-bhatkal-is-im-bombmaker-now-in-karachi-probe-team/582699/),
February 22, 2010.

[4]  ‘IM leader Yasin Bhatkal mastermind of Pune blasts, claims ATS’,
(Daily News and Analysis:
http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_im-leader-yasin-bhatkal-mastermind-of-pune-blasts-claims-ats_1368789),
April 8, 2010.

[5] ‘Shri Kamran Siddique Gen.Secretary, Real Cause, New Delhi:
2811/30/8/08-09-FE’ (National Human Rights Commission: New Delhi, July
20, 2009). Online at nhrc.nic.in/Batla.doc.  Page 21

[6] Shri Kamran Siddique Gen.Secretary, Real Cause, New Delhi:
2811/30/8/08-09-FE’ (National Human Rights Commission: New Delhi, July
20, 2009). Online at nhrc.nic.in/Batla.doc.  Page 25

[7] http://ko-kr.facebook.com/BatlaHouse

[8] Aakash Singh, ‘Suspects arrested for Chinnaswamy blast case are
thieves from UP’ (MyNews.in:
http://www.mynews.in/News/Suspects_arrested_for_Chinnaswamy_blast_case_are_thieves_from_UP_N49091.html),
April 22, 2010

[9] Javed Anand ‘Suspect SIMI? Of course’, (The Indian Express:
http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/349496/), August 16, 2008

[10] Yoginder Sikand, ‘The SIMI story’, (Countercurrents.org:
http://www.countercurrents.org/comm-sikand150706.htm), July 15, 2006.

[11] C. Christine Fair, ‘Students Islamic Movement of India and the
Indian Mujahideen: An Assessment’, Asian Policy Vol 9 (Washington DC:
National Bureau of Asian Research), January 2010.

[12]http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=115282715164932&ref=search&sid=100000903926148.964712540..1

[13] http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1383468305#!/profile.php?id=1383468305&v=wall

[14]http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth/browse_thread/thread/d9c6220d869a0cc5/f48d96c7a196bad5?lnk=raot&pli=1

[15] Praveen Swami, ‘For a review of counter-insurgency doctrine’,
(The Hindu: http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article395529.ece),
April 13, 2010.



On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Shuddhabrata Sengupta
<shuddha at sarai.net> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> This one (a text by the Jamia Teachers Solidarity Association) goes
> out to all the members of the Praveen Swami Fan Club on this list.
> Food, I hope, for thought, for all concerned.
>
> regards
>
> Shuddha
>
> Praveen Swami’s not so fabulous fables
> Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association
>
> 26th April 2010
>
>
> If there is one infallible indicator of what the top Indian
> Intelligence agencies are thinking or cooking up, it is this: Praveen
> Swami’s articles. Each time the security establishment wishes to push
> a certain angle to this bomb blast or that, Swami’s articles appear
> magically, faithfully reflecting the Intelligence reports. After the
> Batla House ‘encounter’, he launched a tirade against all those who
> were questioning the police account of the shootout labeling them all
> ‘Alices in wonderland’.  He went so far as to identify ‘precisely’
> how Inspector Sharma was shot by claiming that "abdomen wound was
> inflicted with [Atif] Amin's weapon and the shoulder hit, by Mohammad
> Sajid".
>
> And no sir, Swami’s conclusion was not based on post mortem reports
> of the killed, fire arm examination report or ballistic report but on
> this innocent fact: “the investigators believe that…”  He certainly
> brings in a whole new meaning to ‘investigative journalism’. Swami
> however felt no need to pen an article when the postmortem reports of
> Atif and Sajid revealed that they had been shot from close range and
> that neither of them sustained gunshot wounds in the frontal region
> of the body—an impossibility in the case of a genuine encounter. Was
> it because the police and the Home Ministry chose to remain quite
> after the revelations—hoping that the storm would quietly blow over.?
>
> Flip Flops on German Bakery Blasts
> And meanwhile there was the German Bakery blast in Pune. Writing less
> than a week after the blasts, Swami hinted at the possible
> involvement of the Hindutva groups, namely Abhinav Bharat (“Hindutva
> Terror Probe Haunts Pune Investigation”, 19th February 2010). Indeed,
> this was mood in the ATS (though this was no deterrent to the large
> scale illegal detention and brutal interrogation often at private
> premises, of scores of Muslim youth in Pune.) Even the following
> week, the Home Department officials were not ruling out the
> possibility of the involvement of the Right wing Hindutva groups. But
> that was February. By March, political impatience at the probe taking
> such a turn was palpable. Responding to a riled Shiv Sena in the
> legislative assembly, the Maharashtra Home Minister, R.R. Patil
> thundered: “I will inquire if Raghuvanshi really indicated to the
> media about involvement of Hindu organisations in the Pune blast and
> if he did, action will be taken (against him)." As if on cue, two
> days later, Rakesh Maria was installed as the new ATS chief. This was
> of course only after a few months when Vinita Kamte, widow of the
> slain ATS officer Ashok Kamte, made serious allegations casting
> aspersions on Maria’s role in responding to the then ATS chief Hemant
> Karkare’s call for reinforcements during 26/11.
>
> CCTV Footage:
> Since its start, the probe had little to go on by way of leads except
> for the CCTV footage. While the Pune police commissioned experts to
> draw sketches of the suspects based on this footage, ATS dismissed
> this exercise as “anything but useful”, as their source, the CCTV
> footage, was itself grainy. (Siasat, April 12). Where does Swami
> stand on this? He wrote in his 19th February piece: “All that
> investigators have by way of suspects are three men recorded holding
> brief meetings before the blast by a poor-quality closed-circuit
> television camera. From the videotape, it is unclear if the men had
> anything to do with the attack.”
> Exactly a month later, Swami conveniently develops an amnesia about
> Abhinav Bharat and even about the poor quality of CCTV footage. What
> was earlier ‘unclear” and hazy has in one month segued into solid
> shape: in the form of top Indian Mujahideen (IM) operative Mohammad
> Zarar Siddi Bawa ie., Yasin Bhatkal. Suddenly imparted with
> enlightenment, Swami writes dramatically of how a closed circuit
> television camera ... “recorded evidence that Bawa had returned to
> India—just minutes before an improvised explosive device ripped
> through the popular restaurant killing seventeen people and injuring
> at least sixty.” The poor quality (by Swami’s own admission) and
> useless (by the ATS’s admission) visual evidence has morphed into
> precious footage of Bhatkal, “the fair, slight young man with a wispy
> beard” … “dressed in a loose-fitting blue shirt, a rucksack slung
> over his back.”
>
> Clearly, Swami’s changing perceptions about the CCTV footage is in
> accord with the shifting attitude of the ATS itself. The ATS began by
> keeping the option of probing Abhinav Bharat open; developed cold
> feet, preferred to lapse into the usual Lashkar-IM litany,
> ‘rediscovered’ hitherto worthless footage and resurrected the IM. In
> an unequivocal reference to the manner in which innocent Muslim
> youths were arrested earlier by the ATS in its pre-Karkare days, a
> senior officer of the Pune Police admitted that  “There have been
> some arrests in the Pune blast incident just as in the case of the
> 2006 Malegaon explosions. But we would never know whether those
> arrested were actually the men who triggered the blasts.” (Siasat,
> April 12, 2010). Rumours that the probe might be handed over the
> National Investigative Agency must have also pressured the
> Maharashtra ATS to show ‘results’—and viola, within two weeks of
> taking over, Maria submitted a preliminary report to the state
> government identifying the hand of Bhatkal and IM in the blasts. This
> was of course promptly and proudly relayed by R.R. Patil to the
> legislative assembly (surely to the relief also of the Shiv Sena
> legislators). Is it a coincidence that the Pune Police Commissioner
> has been transferred, ostensibly for the rising crime graph a couple
> of days ago? It seems improbable that the running battle between the
> Pune police and the ATS—whose current chief Maria had thrown a
> tantrum following Vinita Kamte’s accusation, demanding the support of
> the state Home Ministry—had no role to play in this.
>
> The Bangalore Blasts:
> When two crude bombs went off outside the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium
> ahead of the match between Mumbai Indians and Royal Challengers
> Bangalore on 17th April, the Karnataka Home Minister V.S. Acharya
> announced that the state Police were investigating the alleged
> involvement of the cricket betting lobby. He forcefully denied any
> link with the earlier blasts in the city in 2008.
>
> But Yasin Bhatkal seems to have preoccupied Swami’s mind on 19th
> April for he evokes him again in connection with the stadium blasts
> (“Stadium Blasts herald new IM offensive”). Citing the ever
> cooperative ‘investigators, he says that the ‘similarity in design’
> and the manner in which some bombs failed to explode are a sure
> indicator of the IM hand. Beyond this, he has nothing to link
> Bangalore bombs to Bhatkal. But good stories can always compensate
> for lack of facts. His piece, “To Bangalore with Hate” on 21st April
> (which has charming subtitles such as Jihad at ginger Plantation”),
> is no less crude then the two bombs at the stadium. Swami here
> details the biographies of SIMI activists in South India, making the
> link, ever so cleverly, between SIMI—and yes, IM—and the stadium
> blasts, without providing any evidence of their actual linkage. Life
> stories of these men are proof enough, he assumes.
>
> It is quite clear that Mr. Swami has provided a (sometimes
> entertaining) dramatized version of the charge sheets files by the
> various police departments across the country. While it may make for
> a good script, we do hope that Mr. Swami understand what charge
> sheets are: a list of charges or allegations, which the police has
> still the burden to prove in a court of law--not irrefutable or
> established truth. Perhaps, Mr Swami fancies himself a literary
> genius who believes in narratives acquiring their own lives. In which
> case, he has manufactured a large corpus of mediocre short stories.
>
> Released by JTSA (www.teacherssolidarity.org)
>
>
> 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: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>