[Reader-list] the latest stupidity of arundhati roy - comparing her utterances on kashmir with those of nehru
geeta seshu
geetaseshu at gmail.com
Mon Nov 29 22:17:02 IST 2010
:-) now, this is more like it...only, would callow youth be a better
description?
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Gargi Sen <sen.gargi at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Aditya,
> That was a very nice mail indeed. Thank you. I appreciate your wit and play
> on my organisation, magic lantern. I really wish you would continue more on
> this vein. It makes engagement such a pleasure.
> Only, I fail to understand what gave you the idea that I was silent on
> Arundhati Roy’s speech? Not on the Sarai list but on many fora I have
> expressed my complete endorsement to her speech, in fact all her speeches,
> whether on Kashmir or on the Maoists. I am a deep admirer of Ms. Roy’s
> position, philosophy and writing. Although that doesn’t quite take me to
> the
> dark ages. Or the middle ages either, which, though, age has certainly
> brought me to. And in the middle ages Aditya, nothing is more tiresome than
> the noise made by witless youth. So thank you for giving me a glimpse into
> your other self. I seriously appreciate it.
> Do keep this tone of the conversation going Aditya. And maybe one day you
> will ‘see through’ the tone of the court and perhaps even engage for real.
> Warmly,
> Gargi
>
>
>
> From: Aditya Raj Kaul <kauladityaraj at gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:33:13 +0530
> To: sarai list <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] the latest stupidity of arundhati roy -
> comparing
> her utterances on kashmir with those of nehru
>
> Quite interesting to see people here maintaining silence on the provocative
> and seditious speech by fiction-writer Arundhati Roy at the Delhi seminar.
> They still tend to live in the dark ages. Hope a lantern helps such people
> with some light or perhaps a sudden magic. The Court has already set the
> tone. Perhaps, now the 'real' engagement will begin. Let the mediocre
> people
> live in peace, finally. On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:26 PM, geeta seshu
> <geetaseshu at gmail.com> wrote: > I do agree with Gargi Sen. The level of
> debate is truly pathetic. As > someone > who reads discussions/ debates
> (but
> rarely intervenes), I used to get some > insights into differing points of
> view. Please make an effort to bring it > back to a more intelligent, even
> if combative, level. > > Geeta > > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:18 AM,
> Gargi Sen <sen.gargi at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks Sudhha for one more
> considered reply. Now if only the raving and > > frothing people on the
> Sarai list would send considered replies, even as > > they rave and froth,
> which, incidentally I don¹t mind, I think the level > of > > the discourse
> would rise considerably. Unfortunately, instead, all they > > seem > > to
> be
> posting in the way of arguments are a series of slurs, insults and > >
> name-calling. Unfortunately, even the name-calling is left at such a > >
> tedious > > and mediocre level that one despairs. > > Where is the wit, the
> arguments crafted with diligence, the play of > words, > > all that that
> lead to the joys of engagement? > > The colloquial Hindi proverb that an
> intelligent enemy is more desirable > > than a mediocre friend is put to
> rest on the Sarai list. > > I hope though not forever. > > Gargi > > > > >
> >
> > > From: Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net> > > Date: Mon, 29 Nov
> 2010 07:35:34 +0530 > > To: Aalok Aima <aalok.aima at yahoo.com> > > Cc:
> sarai
> list <reader-list at sarai.net> > > Subject: Re: [Reader-list] the latest
> stupidity of arundhati roy - > > comparing > > her utterances on kashmir
> with those of nehru > > > > Dear Mr. Aima, I am writing this in response to
> your criticism of > Arundhati > > Roy's recent statement published in the
> Hindu. You say, "the directive > of > > "Metropolitan Magistrate Navita
> Kumari Bagha" asks delhi police to > "lodge > > an FIR under relevant
> provisions of the Indian Penal Code" against some > > named persons (which
> includes arundhati roy) for their speeches made in > > the > > seminar on
> 21/10/2010 ........ it does not say anything about 'waging > war > >
> against the state' The Times of India, seems to have reported otherwise > >
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Delhi-court-calls-for-FIR- > >
> against-Roy-Geelani/articleshow/7002100.cms The Times of India quotes the >
> > Metropolitan Magistrate, Navita Kumari Bagha as saying - "The Delhi >
> police > > is hereby directed to lodge an FIR under relevant provisions of
> the > Indian > > Penal Code and file a report in this regard on January 6,
> 2011, the next > > date of hearing,'' metropolitan magistrate Navita
> Kumari
> Bagha said, > > pointing out that the court has to step in since even
> after
> an offence > was > > disclosed, the police failed to register an FIR. The
> sections include > > those > > relating to sedition, waging war against
> the
> state of the IPC and a > > section > > of Unlawful Activities Prevention
> Act (UAPA)." If you read any other > > paper's reports on the matter, you
> will see exactly the same language. > > Which in itself is not surprising,
> as the complainant has sought remedy > > under those precise sections,
> including the one pertaining to 'waging > war > > against the state' and
> so, the Magistrate, in instructing the Police to > > look into the filing
> of the FIR, has to instruct the police to file > their > > report with
> reference to these specific sections. So, when Arundhati Roy > > refers to
> the court asking the police to file an FIR for 'waging war > > against the
> state' against her and others (including, incidentally, me) > > she > > is
> not trifling by any means. What she has said in her statement > >
> faithfully > > mirrors the reports that have appeared in the press. I
> suspect, that > > rather > > than her, it is you who seems not to have
> read
> the reports with care. > Now, > > as for your contention, that Nehru
> changed
> his position on the need for > a > > plebiscite to ascertain the will of
> the people of Jaamu and Kashmir > > following the ratification of the
> accession to the state of Jammu and > > Kashmir to the Union of India by
> the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and > > Kashmir. This, unfortunately, is
> simply not true. I had published a > posting > > on this list on the matter
> of 23 statements made by Jawaharlal Nehru on > > the > > matter of
> ascertaining the will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir on > the > > 25th
> of August, 2008. The link to the posting is as follows - > >
> http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/2008-August/014098.html I > >
> don't > > want to reproduce the contents of this posting in its entirety,
> because > > much of the matter is already contained in Arundhati Roy's
> statement to > > the > > Hindu. But since you have produced the magic date
> of the 15th of > February, > > 1954, as a threshold, let me just reproduce
> two statements made by > > Jawaharlal Nehru AFTER this date. In a statement
> in the Rajya Sabha > > (Chamber > > of States) of the Indian Parliament,
> Nehru says on the 18th of May, 1954 > - > > ³But so far as the Government
> of
> India are concerned, every assurance > and > > international commitment in
> regard to Kashmir stands.² 'Every assurance > and > > International
> commitment' includes the commitment to hold a plebiscite, > as > >
> mandated
> by several United Nations resolutions. If, Nehru believed that > > the > >
> ratification of the Maharaja's of J & K's accession to India by the > >
> Constituent Assembly of J & K was the same thing as an expression of the >
> > popular will vis- a-vis the question of the integration of J&K into the >
> > Indian Union, then, he would not have needed to state that >
> "international > > commitments in regard to Kashmir stand". The
> international commitments, > > which can have been nothing other than the
> holding of the plebiscite > under > > international auspieces, could have
> been said to be 'standing' if, and > > only > > if, they had not yet been
> seen to have borne fruit. Clearly, here, Nehru > > on > > the 18th of May
> 1954 still sees the plebiscite as a possibility. > Further, > > On 31st of
> March, 1955, (which as you will notice, is a full year and > five > >
> weeks
> after the 15th of Februrary, 1954), Nehru, in a statement in the > >
> Indian
> parliament, says - ³Kashmir is not a thing to be bandied about > >
> between
> India and Pakistan but it has a soul of its own and an > > individuality
> of
> its own. Nothing can be done without the goodwill and > > consent of the
> people of Kashmir.² First of all, Nehru makes a > > distinction here
> between
> the wills of the entities he calls India, > > Pakistan > > and Kashmir.
> Which means that he does not conflate the will of the > entity > > he
> calls
> India, with the entity he calls Kashmir. Kashmir, in his eyes, > > (these
> are his words, not mine) is seized of a will and individuality of > > its
> own, distinct from India, and Pakistan. Next, Nehru says, "Nothing > CAN >
> > be done without the goodwill and consent of the people of Kashmir". Had
> > > Nehru said - "Nothing HAS BEEN DONE without the goodwill and consent
> of
> > > the > > people of Kashmir", your contention, that Nehru treated the
> ratification > > of > > the Maharaja's accession by the Constitutent
> Assembly of Jammu and > > Kashmir > > as the final word on the matter,
> would have had some weight, because > then > > we would be arguing about
> whether or not the decision of the constituent > > assembly of J & K
> actually represented the 'goodwill and consent' of the > > people of
> Kashmir. But Nehru did not say what you wish he had said. His > >
> statement
> clearly implies that he believed that as of 31st of March, > 1955 > > a >
> >
> year and a month after the J&K Constitutent Assembly's so called > >
> 'ratification' that the "goodwill and consent" of the people of J&K was >
> >
> yet > > to be ascertained. So, following from this, as far as Nehru is >
> concerned, > > it is very difficult logically to assert that he believed
> that the > > Constituent Assembly of J&K's ratification amount to anything
> closely > > resembling the final statement of the "goodwill and consent"
> of
> the > people > > of J&K. Incidentally, this quotation, from 1955, was
> included in > Arundhati > > Roy's statement in the Hindu. I suppose, in
> your
> haste to indulge in the > > popular pastime of attacking people who say
> things that are not > > comfortable > > for Indian Jingoism, you had
> overlooked the fact that March 1955 comes a > > year and a bit, AFTER,
> February 1954. Mr. Aima, Your contention that > Nehru > > changed his
> public
> stance on the question of a plebiscite post February > > 1954 is not borne
> out by these two quotations. You say - "this is where > > arundhati roy
> reveals her stupidity and how little she knows about > > kashmir". I
> wonder who looks more stupid now, you, or Arundhati Roy. > best > > Shuddha
> On 28-Nov-10, at 3:57 PM, Aalok Aima wrote: > ARUNDHATI ROY : "My > >
> reaction to today's court order directing the > Delhi Police to file an >
> >
> FIR > > against me for waging war against the > state" > > has the court
> asked > the > > police to file an FIR against arundhati roy > for 'waging
> war against > the > > state' or is arundhati trifling with > facts? > >
> the
> directive of > > "Metropolitan Magistrate Navita Kumari Bagha" asks >
> delhi
> police to > > "lodge > > an FIR under relevant provisions of the > Indian
> Penal Code" against > some > > named persons (which includes > arundhati
> roy) for their speeches made > in > > the seminar on > 21/10/2010
> ........
> it does not say anything about > > 'waging war > against the state' > > it
> is another thing that arundhati > > roy's utterance could be > interpreted
> as 'waging war against the state' > > > > > as she did in an earlier
> statement, arundhati seems to find > > > unacceptable that someone should
> seek prosecution against her or > that > a > > court of law should be
> approached with the complaint that > delhi police > > have not taken
> cognisance of the 'anti-india speeches' > by arundhati > > (amongst
> others)
> > > so arundhati roy issues yet one more statement > (quoted > > below from
> > 'the hindu') > > she seeks to compare her statements on > > kashmir with
> those of nehru > on kashmir and suggests that delhi police > > "should
> posthumously file > a charge against Jawaharlal Nehru too" > > > > (her >
> >
> statement, giving quotes of nehru on kashmir, is a > regurgitation of >
> what > > has since long been put forward as arguments > by the
> secessionist
> and > > secession supporting propaganda > machines ...... geelani also
> used
> the > > quotes just a few days back) > > this is where arundhati roy
> reveals
> her > > stupidity and how little > she knows about kashmir > > in
> comparing
> her > > utterances with those of nehru, arundhati roy > gives us a list of
> 13 > > quotes attributed to nehru (and 1 of krishna > menon) > > what
> arundhati > > roy overlooks, in her stupidity, is that the > position of
> goi (and of > > nehru as pm) treating the accession of j&k > to india as
> confirmedly > final > > (in what goi considers as fulfilling > it's part
> of
> the un resolution on > > kashmir) is on the basis of the > ratification of
> j&k's accession to > india > > by the constituent > assembly of j&k on
> 15/02/1954 > > the nehru > > statements > > nos 1 to 12, that she quotes,
> pre-date that > ratification date of > > 15/02/1954 and are from a period
> when the > status of j&k with respect > to > > india was subjected to a
> lot
> of > questioning (including the un > > resolution) > > and nehru
> acknowledged > that as is reflected in his statements > > > after > > the
> 15/02/1954 ratification by the j&k constituent assembly, > goi > treated >
> > the accession of j&K to india as being unquestionable > and nehru did >
> not > > make any statement that carried the vein of the > statements 1 to
> 12 > > quoted > > by arundhati > > arundhati roy is being stupid in
> comparing her own > > statements on > kashmir with those of nehru prior to
> 15/02/1954 and on > > that > > basis > self-righteously suggesting that if
> she is to be prosecuted then > > > > > nehru (posthumously) should also be
> prosected > > ........... aalok aima > > > > > > > >
> http://www.hindu.com/2010/11/28/stories/2010112862661200.htm > > They > >
> can > > file a charge posthumously against Jawaharlal Nehru too: >
> Arundhati Roy > > > > > Arundhati Roy > > My reaction to today's court
> order
> directing the > Delhi > > Police to > file an FIR against me for waging
> war
> against the state: > > Perhaps > they should posthumously file a charge
> against Jawaharlal > Nehru > > > too. Here is what he said about Kashmir: >
> > 1. In his telegram to the > > Prime Minister of Pakistan, the Indian >
> Prime Minister Pandit > Jawaharlal > > Nehru said, ³I should like to make
> >
> it clear that the question of > aiding > > Kashmir in this emergency is >
> not designed in any way to influence the > > state to accede to India. >
> Our view which we have repeatedly made > public > > is that the question >
> of accession in any disputed territory or state > > must > > be decided in
> > accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this > > > > view.²
> (Telegram 402 Primin-2227 dated 27th October, 1947 to PM of > > > Pakistan
> repeating telegram addressed to PM of UK). > > 2. In other > > telegram > >
> to the PM of Pakistan, Pandit Nehru said, > ³Kashmir's accession to >
> India
> > > was accepted by us at the request of > the Maharaja's government and
> the > > most numerously representative > popular organization in the state
> which > > is > > predominantly Muslim. > Even then it was accepted on
> condition that as > > soon > > as law and > order had been restored, the
> people of Kashmir would decide > > the > question of accession. It is open
> to them to accede to either > > > Dominion then.² (Telegram No. 255 dated
> 31 October, 1947). > > Accession > > issue > > 3. In his broadcast to the
> nation over All India Radio on 2nd > > > > November, 1947, Pandit Nehru
> said, ³We are anxious not to finalise > > > anything in a moment of crisis
> and without the fullest opportunity > to > be > > given to the people of
> Kashmir to have their say. It is for > them > > ultimately to decide
> ------
> And let me make it clear that it > has been > > our > > policy that where
> there is a dispute about the > accession of a state to > > either
> Dominion,
> the accession must be made > by the people of that > state. > > It is in
> accordance with this policy > that we have added a proviso to > the > >
> Instrument of Accession of > Kashmir.² > > 4. In another broadcast to >
> the
> > > nation on 3rd November, 1947, Pandit > Nehru said, ³We have declared >
> that > > the fate of Kashmir is > ultimately to be decided by the people.
> That > > pledge we have given > not only to the people of Kashmir and to
> the > world. > > We will not and > cannot back out of it.² > > 5. In his
> letter No. 368 > > Primin dated 21 November, 1947 addressed > to the PM of
> Pakistan, Pandit > > Nehru said, ³I have repeatedly stated > that as soon
> as peace and order > > have been established, Kashmir > should decide of
> accession by > Plebiscite > > or referendum under > international auspices
> such as those of United > > Nations.² > > U.N. supervision > > 6.In his
> statement in the Indian > > Constituent Assembly on 25th > November, 1947,
> Pandit Nehru said, ³In > > order > > to establish our bona > fide, we have
> suggested that when the people are > > given the chance > to decide their
> future, this should be done under the > > supervision > of an impartial
> tribunal such as the United Nations > > Organisation. > The issue in
> Kashmir is whether violence and naked force > > should > decide the future
> or the will of the people.² > > 7.In his > > statement in the Indian
> Constituent Assembly on 5th March, > 1948, > Pandit > > Nehru said, ³Even
> at the moment of accession, we went > out of our way > to > > make a
> unilateral declaration that we would abide > by the will of the > > people
> of Kashmir as declared in a plebiscite or > referendum. We > insisted > >
> further that the Government of Kashmir must > immediately become a >
> popular > > government. We have adhered to that > position throughout and
> we are > > prepared to have a Plebiscite with > every protection of fair
> voting and > > to > > abide by the decision of the > people of Kashmir.² >
> > Referendum or > > plebiscite > > 8.In his press-conference in London on
> 16th January, 1951, > > as > > > reported by the daily ŒStatesman' on 18th
> January, 1951, Pandit > > Nehru > > stated, ³India has repeatedly offered
> to work with the United > Nations > > reasonable safeguards to enable the
> people of Kashmir to > express their > > will and is always ready to do
> so.
> We have always > right from the > > beginning accepted the idea of the
> Kashmir people > deciding their fate > by > > referendum or plebiscite. In
> fact, this was > our proposal long before > the > > United Nations came
> into the picture. > Ultimately the final decision of > > the settlement,
> which must come, > has first of all to be made basically > > by > > the
> people of Kashmir and > secondly, as between Pakistan and India > >
> directly. Of course it must > be remembered that we (India and Pakistan) >
> > have reached a great > deal of agreement already. What I mean is that >
> many > > basic features > have been thrashed out. We all agreed that it is
> the > > people of > Kashmir who must decide for themselves about > their
> future > > externally or internally. It is an obvious fact that > even
> without our > > agreement no country is going to hold on to > Kashmir
> against the will > of > > the Kashmiris.² > > 9.In his report to All Indian
> Congress Committee on > 6th > > July, 1951 > as published in the
> Statesman,
> New Delhi on 9th July, 1951, > > Pandit > Nehru said, ³Kashmir has been
> wrongly looked upon as a prize > for > > > India or Pakistan. People seem
> to
> forget that Kashmir is not a > > > commodity for sale or to be bartered.
> It
> has an individual > existence > and > > its people must be the final
> arbiters of their > future. It is here > today > > that a struggle is
> bearing fruit, not in > the battlefield but in the > > minds > > of men.²
> >
> > 10.In a letter dated 11th September, 1951, to the U.N. > > >
> representative, Pandit Nehru wrote, ³The Government of India not > only >
> >
> reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of > the > >
> continuing accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India > shall >
> be > > decided through the democratic method of a free and > impartial >
> plebiscite > > under the auspices of the United Nations but > is anxious
> that the > > conditions necessary for such a plebiscite > should be
> created
> as > quickly > > as possible.² > > Word of honour > > 11.As reported by
> Amrita Bazar > > Patrika, > > Calcutta, on 2nd January, > 1952, while
> replying to Dr. Mookerji's > > question > > in the Indian > Legislature as
> to what the Congress Government going to > do > > about > one third of
> territory still held by Pakistan, Pandit Nehru > said, > > > ³is not the
> property of either India or Pakistan. It belongs to the > > > Kashmiri
> people. When Kashmir acceded to India, we made it clear to > > the > >
> leaders of the Kashmiri people that we would ultimately abide > by the > >
> verdict of their Plebiscite. If they tell us to walk out, I > would have >
> > no > > hesitation in quitting. We have taken the issue to > United
> Nations and > > given our word of honour for a peaceful > solution. As a
> great nation we > > cannot go back on it. We have left > the question for
> final solution to > > the > > people of Kashmir and we are > determined to
> abide by their decision.² > > > > > 12.In his statement in the Indian
> Parliament on 7th August, 1952, > > Pandit > > Nehru said, ³Let me say
> clearly that we accept the basic > proposition > > that > > the future of
> Kashmir is going to be decided > finally by the goodwill > and > >
> pleasure
> of her people. The goodwill > and pleasure of this Parliament > is > > of
> no importance in this matter, > not because this Parliament does not > >
> have the strength to decide > the question of Kashmir but because any >
> kind > > of imposition would be > against the principles that this
> Parliament > > holds. > > Kashmir is very > close to our minds and hearts
> and if by some decree or > > adverse > fortune, ceases to be a part of
> India, it will be a wrench and > a > > > pain and torment for us. If,
> however, the people of Kashmir do not > > > wish > > to remain with us,
> let
> them go by all means. We will not keep > them > > against their will,
> however painful it may be to us. I want to > stress > > that it is only
> the
> people of Kashmir who can decide the > future of > > Kashmir. It is not
> that we have > merely said that to the United Nations > > and to the
> people
> of > Kashmir, it is our conviction and one that is > borne > > out by the
> > policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but > > everywhere. >
> Though these five years have meant a lot of trouble and > > expense and >
> in spite of all we have done, we would willingly leave if > it > > was >
> made clear to us that the people of Kashmir wanted us to go. > > > However
> sad we may feel about leaving we are not going to stay > against > > the
> wishes of the people. We are not going to impose > ourselves on them > >
> on
> > > the point of the bayonet.² > > Kashmir's soul > > 13.In his statement
> in
> > > the > > Lok Sabha on 31st March, 1955 as > published in Hindustan
> Times
> New > Delhi > > on Ist April, 1955, Pandit > Nehru said, ³Kashmir is
> perhaps the most > > difficult of all these > problems between India and
> Pakistan. We should > > also remember that > Kashmir is not a thing to be
> bandied between India > > and > > Pakistan but > it has a soul of its own
> and an individuality of its own. > > Nothing > can be done without the
> goodwill and consent of the people of > > > > Kashmir.² > > 14.In his
> statement in the Security Council while taking > part > > in > debate on
> Kashmir in the 765th meeting of the Security Council on > > > > 24th
> January, 1957, the Indian representative Mr. Krishna Menon > said, > > ³So
> > > far as we are concerned, there is not one word in the > statements
> that
> > I > > have made in this council which can be > interpreted to mean that
> we > will > > not honour international > obligations. I want to say for
> the
> purpose of > > the record that there > is nothing that has been said on
> behalf of the > > Government of India > which in the slightest degree
> indicates that the > > Government of > India or the Union of India will
> dishonour any > > international > obligations it has undertaken.² > > > >
> >
> > _________________________________________ > 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/> 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/> > > >
> _________________________________________ > 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/> > -- Aditya Raj Kaul
> India Editor The Indian, Australia <http://www.theindian.net.au/> Blog:
> http://activistsdiary.blogspot.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: <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/>
>
More information about the reader-list
mailing list