[Reader-list] Azadi: The Only Way ­ Report from a Turbulent Few Hours in Delhi

[Pawan Durani]

Awaiting a 3000 + Lines explanation from Mr Sengupta

On 10/22/10, SJabbar <sonia.jabbar at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Shuddha,
>
> I've read with interest your report on the meeting at the LTG and am amazed
> that you have aligned yourself with and have so wholeheartedly endorsed the
> reactionary politics of SAS Geelani.  Whatever he may have said for the
> benefit of audiences in New Delhi he has always advocated Kashmir's
> accession to Pakistan based on the 2-nation theory.  He has made this
> unambiguously clear in his book on the Kashmir issue: 'Nava-e-Hurriyat'.  He
> has reiterated this position as late as Sept 25 in an interview to Seema
> Mustafa of News X where he clearly states the independence option is not
> viable. He has never described the Kashmiri movement as a political struggle
> but a jihad and had in 1992 even written to the Afghan Mujahideen to save
> Kashmir from 'Hindu India.'
>
> And what of the votaries of independence and their assassination by the
> Hizb, the armed wing of the Jamat e-Isami of which Geelani was a member
> until his expulsion in 2003? What is SAS Geelani's position on that?  If he
> has ever condemned it I should be grateful if someone were to send me a
> reference.
>
> That a man who has all his life scorned the notion of an independent Kashmir
> should now detail the character and complexion of such a state including its
> attitude to the sale and consumption of alcohol is truly funny, that he
> should quote Gandhi, even funnier (he was one of the first to castigate
> Yasin Malik's Gandhian methods of fasting as 'un-Islamic'.)  That he should
> call for the return of the Pandits without once condemning their killings or
> the killings of Communists and National Conference workers in Kashmir is
> like Advani speaking about the prosperity of Muslims in Gujarat.
>
> You say Syed Ali Shah says "explicitly" he is not against dialogue, but you
> don't stop to question the placing of preconditions to a dialogue. Geelani
> has scorned talks with Delhi for years.  He has abused those who have talked
> to N Delhi as traitors.  The HM has assassinated those who dared to talk to
> N Delhi, whether it was Moulvi Farooq, Qazi Nissar, and even its own senior
> commanders like Abdul Majid Dar (they didn't even spare his wife Dr.
> Shameema who was shot at and grievously injured several years after her
> husband's murder.)
>
> Who places preconditions and then says let's have unconditional talks?  What
> would you say if New Delhi were to say, we will only speak to SASG if he
> stops describing Kashmir as disputed territory or for that matter we will
> not speak to Hurriyat (M) and JKLF until they give up their stand on
> independent Kashmir?  All of us would think New Delhi as being supremely
> unreasonable to expect a negotiation to begin by insisting the other party
> give up its core premise.
>
> And what is Geelani's FIRST precondition? That India accept that J&K is
> disputed territory. For India to accept that (esp. On SASG's goading) would
> mean, in diplomatese, to forgo its position on the Simla Agreement and all
> other agreements reached with Pakistan post 1972 and return to 1948 and the
> 'dispute' that was framed in the UN Resolutions, meaning, tossing the ball
> back into the UN and set itself up to arbitration from the international
> community.  Why should it do that when both parties to the dispute agreed to
> settle the issue bilaterally?  SAS Geelani knows that well enough and is
> content having tossed his 5 points into the arena and say, well I never said
> I wouldn't talk.
>
> Best
> sj
>
>
> On 22/10/10 3:51 AM, "Shuddhabrata Sengupta" <shuddha at sarai.net> wrote:
>
>> (Apologies for Cross Posting on Kafila.org)
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> I was present and
>> speaking a few hours ago at a meeting titled
> ŒAzadi: The Only Way¹ on the
>> situation in Jammu and Kashmir,
> organized by the Committee for the Release
>> of Political Prisoners at
> the Little Theatre Group in Delhi yesterday (21st
>> October). I was not
> present from the beginning of the meeting as I was
>> traveling from
> another city, but can vouch for what occurred from around
>> 4:30 pm
> till the time that the meeting wound up, well after 8:00 pm in the
>>
> evening.
>
> The meeting took place in the packed to capacity auditorium of the
>>
> Little Theatre Group on Copernicus Marg at the heart of New Delhi.
> Several
>> speakers, including the poet Varavara Rao, Prof. Mihir
> Bhattacharya, Sugata
>> Bhadra, Gursharan Singh, G.N.Saibaba, Professor
> Sheikh Showkat Hussain of
>> Srinagar University, the journalist Najeeb
> Mubaraki, a repesentative of the
>> Naga Peoples Movement for Human
> Rights and Justice, the writer Arundhati Roy
>> and myself spoke at the
> meeting. (I may be missing out some names, for which
>> I apologize, but
> I was not present for a part of the meeting, at the very
>> beginning)
> The climax of the meeting was a very substantive and significant
>>
> speech by Syed Ali Shah Geelani of the Hurriyat Conference (G), which
> spelt
>> out the vision of liberation (Azaadi) and Justice that Syed Ali
> Shah Geelani
>> held out before the assembled public, of which I will
> write in detail later
>> in this text.
>
> The artist known as ŒInder Salim¹ originally from Kashmir,
>> currently
> living in Delhi, made an intervention by inviting the assembled
>>
> people to take (with him) the stance of a masked stone pelter for a
> brief,
>> silent moment. Students from the Jawaharlal Nehru University
> sang a song,
>> ŒTu Zinda Hai to Zindagi Ki Jeet Mein Yakeen Kar¹
> invoking the delights of
>> life and liberation. In conclusion, the
> meeting adopted a resolution, which
>> was read, on behalf of the
> Committee for the Release of Political Prisoners,
>> by Mihir Bhattacharya.
>
> The atmosphere, for the several hours that I was
>> present, was
> absolutely electric. The vast majority of the audience was warm
>> and
> appreciative of all the speakers. They were patient and respectful ­
>>
> and despite grave provocation from a section that identified
> themselves as
>> ŒIndian patriots¹ and partisans of the ŒKashmir as
> indivisible part of
>> India¹ position -  that repeatedly tried to
> interrupt the meeting and heckle
>> speakers, and on one occasion even
> tried to throw an object at the dias ­
>> did not stoop to be provoked
> by these pathetic attempts at disruption of a
>> peaceful gathering.
>
> No provocative, secterian or hateful slogans were raised
>> by the
> majority of the people present. The only provocative posturing that I
>>
> witnessed was undertaken by the self-declared Indian patriots, who
> were not
>> stopped from having their say, but were requested simply not
> to disrupt the
>> proceedings.
>
> When their behaviour crossed the limits of public decency, they
>> were
> escorted out of the premises by representatives of the Delhi Police.
>>
> The Delhi Police, to their credit, did not act against the majority
> of the
>> audience, simply because the majority of the audience
> conducted themselves
>> in a completely civil and democratic manner.
>
> There was no attempt made at
>> intimidation of any kind. Professor SAR
> Geelani, who was conducting the
>> proceedings on behalf of the
> organizers ­ Committee for the Release of
>> Political Prisoners
> (CRPP) , repeatedly asked the people obstructing the
>> speakers to
> conduct themselves in a cultured and dignified manner. His pleas
>> were
> disregarded by the section of the crowd that let its ŒIndian
>>
> patriotism¹ get the better of its civilisation. When things got a
> little
>> too hot on occasion, the majority of the audience present
> simply drowned the
>> rude remarks and indignant posturing of the small
> minority of self styled
>> Indian patriots and champions of the ŒKashmir
> as indivisible part of India¹
>> position ­ in wave after wave of
> cheerful but firm hand clapping.
>
> While
>> there as enthusiastic cheering and sloganeering from the
> majority of the
>> young men and women assembled at the gathering, there
> was no attempt while I
>> was present to give the slogans a religious or
> secterian colour. When Syed
>> Ali Shah Geelani said that the people of
> India and Kashmir are tied together
>> by the bonds of insaaniyat
> (humanity), when he quoted Gandhi, or spoke of
>> the necessity of
> conducting a non-violent struggle that was devoid of
>> hatred, or even
> when he said that he wished to see India rise as a great
>> power in the
> world, but as a power that felt no need to oppress others, he
>> was
> wholeheartedly and sincerely applauded, by the majority of people
>>
> present in the auditorium, regardless of whether or not they were
>>
> Kashmiri.
>
> Yesterday¹s meeting needs to be seen in the context of a momentum
>> of
> different events, which have included public meetings at Jantar
> Mantar,
>> meetings in the Jawaharlal Nehru Universtiy and Delhi
> University, film
>> screenings and talks, independently organized
> exhibitions on the history of
>> Jammu and Kashmir in educational
> institutions, photographic exhibitions on
>> the situation in Kashmir
> today that have taken place recently at the India
>> Habitat Centre,
> while Kashmir has reeled under the brutality of the
>> occupation that
> has resulted in a hundred and eleven deaths of unarmed or
>> stone
> pelting people, including children and teenagers. The momentum of
>>
> this process, which recognizes the urgency of the situation in
> Kashmir,
>> needs to be taken to its logical conclusion, until the world
> and the
>> international community sits up and takes notice of the true
> nature of the
>> hold of the Indian state on Kashmir and its people.We
> need many more such
>> meetings and gatherings in Delhi, and indeed in
> every large city in
>> India.
>
> It must be maintained so that even a Barack Hussein Obama, scheduled
>>
> to visit New Delhi in November, is compelled to recognize the fact
> that the
>> conduct of the Indian state in Kashmir, based as it is on
> brutal violence
>> and intimidation, based as it is on a disregard of
> every norm of the conduct
>> of civilized governance is unacceptable to
> the world. You simply cannot
>> claim to be the world¹s largest
> democracy and preside over the deaths of
>> 70,000 people in twenty
> years. You cannot claim to be judged as a democracy
>> and have laws
> like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. You cannot claim to
>> be a
> democracy and have your police and paramilitaries beat children to
>>
> death openly on the streets, or rape and kill young women with
> impunity. A
>> state that does so is an oppressive, immoral, occupying
> power, and needs to
>> be resisted by every right thinking person in the
> world. The Indian state¹s
>> record in Kashmir over the past several
> decades is not only an oppression
>> visited on the people of Kashmir,
> it is an insult to the United Nations, to
>> the world community, and to
> every principle of justice, fairness and
>> democracy. It is an insult
> to all the peace loving and freedom loving
>> citizens of India that do
> not wish to see oppression carried out in their
>> name.
>
> This is the message that needs to go out, and is going out, not only
>>
> from the streets of Sringar, Baramulla and Kupwara, but also from
>>
> gatherings, such as yesterdays, from the heart of Delhi, the capital
> of
>> India. We, who are the friends of liberty and justice in India,
> need to
>> stand besides our Kashmiri brothers and sisters and say to
> the world that we
>> do not accept the lies put out by the Indian state
> and its apologists on
>> Kashmir. That is the true significance and
> import of the process in which
>> yesterday¹s meeting plays an important
> part. This process will not stop
>> until the world takes notice. The
> United Nations, and the broad democratic
>> currents as well as the
> political leaderships of Europe, the Americas, and
>> of every
> significant power in the world needs to know that hundreds of
>> people,
> young and old, intellectuals, writers, activists, lawyers, teachers
>>
> and others, Indians and Kashmiris can stand united, in Delhi, at the
> heart
>> of the Indian Republic¹s capital, in refusing to accept the
> continued
>> occupation of Jammu and Kashmir, by India and by Pakistan.
> That they believe
>> that it is only the people of Jammu and Kashmir who
> must decide for
>> themselves their own future destiny, peacefully, in a
> climate free of
>> coercion and intimidation.
>
> As Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Sheikh Showkat
>> Hussain said, all that
> they are asking for is the right to self
>> determination, promised by
> India, before the Untied Nations, to be freely
>> enacted through a
> plebiscite, in conditions of peace and liberty, without
>> the presence
> of armed force, for the inhabitants of every part of the
>> undivided
> state of Jammu and Kashmir ­ regardless of whether the results of
>>
> that plebiscite are in favour of India, Pakistan or an independent,
> united,
>> Jammu and Kashmir that can live in peace with all its
> neighbours in South
>> Asia.
>
> There was a great diversity of statements and styles  present in
>>
> abundant splendour at yesterday¹s meeting. There was no way by which
> the
>> meeting could be reduced or simplified a single monotonous
> statement. Yes,
>> all the panelists, spoke unambiguously about the
> necessity for ending the
>> military occupation by the Indian state in
> Kashmir. This does not mean that
>> their statements and sentiments were
> a manufactured and processed
>> uniformity. The people on the panel may
> have significant political and
>> philosophical differences amongst
> themselves, they may even think
>> differently about what ŒAzaadi¹ might
> mean, but this was a sign, not of the
>> weakness, but of the strength
> and vitality of yesterday¹s
>> gathering.
>
> ŒAzaadi¹ if and when it comes, will not be the parting gift of an
>>
> exhausted colonial power, it will be the harvest of the fruits of the
>>
> imaginations and intelligences of millions of people, of their
> debates and
>> their conversations.
>
> What was extremely heart warming was the fact that each
>> speaker spoke
> of the fact that the voices of the people of Kashmir are no
>> longer
> alone and isolated, that there is a chorus of voices in different
>>
> parts of South Asia that echo and endorese their desire for
> liberation from
>> a brutal militarized occupation. From my notes of the
> time that I was there,
>> I recall that the writer Arundhati Roy, while
> endorsing the demand of Azaadi
>> for Kashmir, reminded the audience of
> the need for the people of Kashmir not
>> to be selective about justice
> and injustice, that they must find methods to
>> forge webs of
> solidarity with all the suffering and oppressed peoples of
>> India. She
> was heckled and rudely interrupted by a small group of Indian
>>
> nationalists in the audience, who repeatedly raised the situation of
>>
> Kashmiri Pandits, Arundhati Roy, when she was able to resume
> speaking,
>> spoke unambiguously about the fact that she considered the
> situation of
>> Kashmiri Pandits to be a tragedy. She was echoed in this
> sentiment later by
>> Syed Ali Shah Geelani who said that he personally
> stands guarantee for the
>> safety and security of all minorities,
> Hindu, Sikh, Buddhists, Christians
>> and others in a future free
> Kashmir. He implored the Pandits to return to
>> Kashmir, and said, that
> they are an integral part of Kashmiri society. He
>> spoke of the need
> for ensuring that a free Kashmir was a just Kashmir, and
>> that justice
> meant that the freedom, safety and security of all minorities,
>> of
> their property, their places of worship, their freedom of conscience
> be
>> given the utmost importance. He reminded the assembled people that
>>
> throughout these turbulent months, the people of Kashmir have
> continued to
>> be hospitable to Hindu pilgrims, have set up
> ŒLangars¹ (Kitchens) for them,
>> and have cared for them when they have
> fallen sick, despite being at the
>> receiving end of the violence of
> the Indian state.
>
> I spoke briefly, about
>> the fact that I was proud that so many of us
> had gathered in my city, Delhi,
>> putting aside the abstraction of our
> politically determined, state given
>> construct of citizenship, and
> standing, here, now, on the grounds of a
>> concrete human solidarity
> with the people of Kashmir. I spoke of the fact
>> that there are
> significant voices, even in the mainstream media who have
>> been
> compelled to recognize the urgency of the situation in Kashmir, by
>>
> the sheer determination of the youth of Kashmir to get the news of
> what is
>> happening in Kashmir out to the world. I spoke of the role
> played by
>> facebook sites like ŒAalaw¹ and blogs, and the fact that
> the people of India
>> and the world can no longer be kept in the dark
> by a pliant media, as
>> happened in 1989-90. I spoke of the ways in
> which the viral circulation of
>> leaked videos of the humiliation of
> Kashmiri youth on facebook pages and
>> online fora have successfully
> shown us what the reality of Kashmir is today.
>> I urged media
> professionals in the mainstream media to introspect and
>> reflect on
> the role that they may be compelled, against their own
>> professional
> ehtics, to play in the pyschological and propaganda war that
>> the
> Indian state is currently conducting. I spoke of my sense of shame
> and
>> remorse at the evasive and dissimulating role played by sections
> of the
>> mainstream media in India while reporting (or not reporting)
> atrocities that
>> make even the images from Abu Gharaib pale in
> comparison.
>
> I am ashamed to
>> say, that despite my respectful plea to the media to
> play a responsible role
>> in their reportage of Kashmir related
> matters, major channels like Times Now
>> and NDTV once again let the
> truth down in their reports on the days events.
>> NDTV saw it fit to
> simply report
>
> an incident of Œshoe throwing at SAS
>> Geelani¹. A shoe (or some other
> indeterminate object) was indeed thrown, but
>> not at Geelani. It
> landed on a bottle of water in front of another speaker,
>> while he was
> speaking. So let¹s at least set that record straight. Arnab
>> Goswami
> of Times Now, while conducting what he likes to call a Œdebate; on
>>
> the programme called ŒNews Hour¹ (neither News, nor just an Hour)
>>
> repeatedly uttered hysterical untruths, such as the presumption that
> ŒNo
>> State permits the advocacy of secession and self determination¹
> and that a
>> meeting such as the one I participated in yesterday, were
> it to take place,
>> say, in the United States, would immediately lead
> to all speakers present
>> (including, presumably, myself) in being
> imprisoned on charges of sedition.
>> I have to inform my readers here,
> that on both counts, Arnab Goswami is
>> wrong. Seriously wrong. Either
> he is a misinformed idiot. Or he knows that
>> he is wrong, and is lying
> to his public through his teeth. We can choose to
>> be generous about
> how he would interpret his motives, and assume he is
>> simply a fool.
>
> Goswami, consequently demanded to know why we were not
>> immediately
> imprisoned under section 124 of the Indian penal code. Arnab
>> Goswami
> needs to be reminded, that in United States law, the provisions of
>>
> the Sedition Act are applicable only in times when the country is in
> a
>> declared state of war. And therefore his analogy does not apply, as
> I am not
>> aware that the Indian republic is currently in a declared
> state of war, as
>> per international law, (unless Arnab Goswami has
> lost his marbles to the
>> extent that he confuses the shadow boxing
> that he does on television with a
>> war declared by a state under
> international law). That, furthermore, the
>> provisions of the US
> Sedition Law have been declared substantially void by
>> the US Supreme
> Court ruling in the Brandenberg vs. Ohio (1969) judgement,
>> and of
> course, by the US Supreme court guaranteeing the primacy of free
>>
> speech, including Œseditious¹ speech, including the burning of the
> United
>> States flag, under the provisions of the first amendment to
> the US
>> constitution.
>
> There have been repeated attempts made to pass a law that would
>> make
> Œflag burning¹ an offence under US Law. Fortunately, (for liberty and
>>
> free speech) as of now, these attempts have not come to pass, and
>>
> currently, under US Law it is perfectly legal to advocate self-
>>
> determination and secwssion, if done peacefully, even to the extent
> of
>> burning or destroying or descerating symbols of state authority
> like the
>> national flag. Furthermore several constiutions, such as the
> constitutions
>> of Canada, Ethipopia, Austria and France, implicitly or
> explicitly, provide
>> for a legal expression of right to self
> determination, provided it is
>> exercised in a peaceful and democratic
> manner, as part of the freedom of
>> expression principle.
>
> But the point that needs to be made is larger than
>> whether or not
> Arnab Goswami is a fool and a charlatan. Yesterday¹s meeting
>> was a
> historic opportunity for his channel, and indeed for all of the
>>
> Indian mainstream media, to report and take cognizance of the fact
> that
>> there is a significant section of Indian public opinion that is
> actually in
>> favour of ŒAzaadi¹ in Kashmir. I am not suggesting that
> this section
>> constitutes an overwhelming majority at present (that
> might change) but,
>> that it does exist, and that it presents, cogent,
> precise arguments, that
>> cannot be dismissed, (as is being done by
> Times Now and its ilk) by invoking
>> the spectre of Œterrorism¹. There
> is hardly any Œterrorism¹ in Kashmir today
>> (if we don¹t count the
> Indian state and its terror) . The 111 people who
>> have died in the
> past months, have not died at the hands of non-state
>> insurgents, they
> have died, unarmed, facing the bullets of the Indian state.
>> The
> movement for Azaadi in Kashmir has left the culture of the gun and
> the
>> grenade behind. It fights today without weapons, armed only with
> courage. If
>> there is a terrorist in Kashmir today, he wears the
> uniform of the forces of
>> the Indian state, and carries the weapons
> supplied by the arsenal of the
>> Indian state. To discount the voices
> that rise in dissent against this
>> reality as Œterrorist sympathizers¹
> as Arnab Goswami has done on his channel
>> is to insult reality.
>
> Syed Ali Shah Geelani spoke of the bonds of insaaniyat
>> that tie the
> peoples of Kashmir and India yesterday. I heard him say this. I
>> was
> barely five feet away from him. I heard him speak of his regard and
>>
> respect for the minorities in Jammu and Kashmir. I do not agree with
> much
>> of what Geelani Saheb represents politically, or ideologically,
> but I have
>> no hesitation in saying that what he said yesterday, was
> surprising for its
>> gentleness, for its consideration, for its
> moderation, even for its
>> liberality and open heartedness. This should
> have been big news. That Syed
>> Ali Shah Geelani said that he wants to
> see a strong and resurgent India. I
>> heard him say this. And was this
> reported by anyone? NO. Was it reported
>> that he was cheered when he
> said this ? NO. Was it reported that no one had
>> any thing angry to
> say against the struggling peoples of India?  NO. Was it
>> reported
> that SAS Geelani expilicity said that he is NOT against dialogue,
>>
> provided that the five point formula put forward by him (none of
> whose
>> provisions ­ 1. acceptance of the disputed nature of the
> territory of Jammu
>> and Kashmir, 2. repeal of AFSPA and other black
> laws, 3. release of
>> political detenues and prisoners, 4. withdrawal
> of the disproportionate
>> presence of the armed forces and 5.
> punishment to those gulty of taking life
>> in the past few months ­
> require the government of India to think Œoutside¹
>> the framework of
> the Indian Constitution) are accepted as the basis of the
>> dialogue? NO.
>
> Don¹t you think that it makes BIG news that the tallest
>> separatist
> leader in Jammu and Kashmir actually, in a moderate voice, spells
>>
> out, in Delhi, the fundamental basis of a considered dialogue with
> the
>> Indian state, while offering it a chance to do so on bases that
> are
>> absolutely reasonable and sound, and honourable to all concerned?
> Do you not
>> think that a responsible media organization would consider
> this a scoop, a
>> major news stor?  But that is not what happened.
>
> Instead, Times Now, (and I
>> am waiting for the morning newspapers to
> see how far this muck has spread)
>> chose to focus on the deliberately
> staged disruption of a handful of agent
>> provocateurs, our familiar
> posse of self styled patriotic champions of the
>> continued occupation
> of Kashmir, who posed for the camera, hyperventilated,
>> and occupied,
> perhaps no more than five percent of the attention of several
>> patient
> hours. If you saw the news reports on Times Now¹s ŒNEWSHOUR¹
>>
> programme, you would have thought that all of what happened was their
>>
> presence as a Œprotest¹ against the meeting. As someone who was
> present
>> through much of this, I am totally, utterly aghast that a lie
> of such
>> magnificient proportions could be dished out with such ease.
> I am aghast
>> that Aditya Raj Kaul who was one of the panel invited by
> Arnab Goswami to
>> the Times Now Newshour show could lie with a
> straight face by saying that
>> there was no attempt made to Œdisrupt¹
> the meeting by those who were there
>> to represent his point of view.
>
> Someday, I hope that all of these people, the
>> Arnab Goswamis of the
> world, find reason to repent for continuing to keep
>> the people of
> India and Kashmir in the dark. They had better think hard,
>> because
> the day when they will have cause to repent, is not far. Azaadi will
>>
> come to Kashmir, and with it, a glimmer of Azaadi will be the share
> of
>> those people in India who stood by their Kashmiri friends, in
> their darkest
>> hour.Going by what I witnessed yesterday, there will be
> many such people, so
>> Arnab Goswami and his ilk had better start
> practicing how to say sorry,
>> several hundred times a
>> day.
>
>
>
> best,
>
>
>
> Shuddha
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Shudd
>> habrata Sengupta
>
>
> _________________________________________
> 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/>