[Reader-list] How someone "well connected" got RIK screening Cancelled

Kshmendra Kaul kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 27 17:22:05 IST 2007

Dear Rahul
  A great posting by you. It is well articulated and argued and makes it's points effectively.
  The part which you were hesitant about (for it's clarity) was for me an excellent summary:
  "You guys may have risen above the concept of nation religion etc, but nation itself, by definition, cant rise above the definition of itself."
  In my opinion, anyone who thinks/believes otherwise is living in a "la la land" confined to their own 'la la mind".
  The societal evolution of humans has brought us to the point where there are Nation States. The Nations might re-organise themselves or redraw boundaries by common consent or by force and new Nation(s) might emerge, but some or the other sort of Nation(s) is the end result.
  That is how the world is today. Will this change? Maybe it will in the future but nothing foreseeable. Certainly a few 'la la landers' wishing it were so will not bring about a change. These hypocrites enjoy all the benefits and freedoms only because a defined Nation makes them available. Yet they want to be seen as "global citizens of a la la land" with "freedoms" that might strike at the very entity (Nation) that protects/ensures their "freedoms" to start with. 
  The 'la la landers' should be rounded up (another role-playing scenario) and dropped on an unclaimed and uninhabited (by humans) island. They will themselves reinvent the wheel. Perhaps they will start by evaluating the possibilities of their physical freedom after surveying what predator animals are resident. Then they will further define allowable
  freedoms after taking into account the predators amongst themselves. They will make Laws. They will set boundaries (literal and figurative) to be respected and regulate "freedoms". They will make a Constitution to serve them as a "Vision/Mission" statement and from it derive Laws. They will make a Nation.
   A cliche sometimes best emphasises a point, as in "one person's freedom ends where another person's begins". 
  There is no unbridled freedom. Even the freedom to think is regulated (psychiatric-drugging intervention for disturbed behaviour or strictures over subliminal messaging are just two simple examples)
  There is only one entity that respects no "freedoms". No it is not any God or Prabhu or Allah or whatever. Only the forces of Nature. Nature respects no boundaries.
  Kshmendra Kaul

Rahul Asthana <rahul_capri at yahoo.com> wrote:
  Jeebesh,Shuddha or any other champion of freedom of
I really want to understand where you guys are coming
from and I think it is very necessary for the people
of the country that we get at the bottom of
this,because you guys reflect the opinion of a lot of
people in the media.
A nation is defined by certain underlying
principles.Those principles are not that are subject
to amendment by legislation.So,for example,Iran is an
Islamic democracy.Its the underlying principle of the
state and even if 99% want to be secular,there is no
process in the framework by which Iran can become
secular,unless of course,there is a civil war and some
bloodshed, in which case,anything is possible.
India is a secular democracy.To anyone who wants to
create a Hindu/Muslim/Christian nation;does not have a
constitutional way to accomplish this.Violence of
course is always a recourse.The principle of
immutability of borders is one of the principles which
is inherent to the existence of every nation
state.India is no exception.As far as I know,no nation
gives a constitutional process to redraw its borders.
So,the only course followers of such an intention have
is violence,terrorism etc.
So,the facts of the case are this,Amitabh Kak made a
movie enabling the ideology which is against the basic
underlying principles of the nation.It was banned.I
do not see your problem with this.Now of course,the
fact that the movie did enable that ideology or
not,can be argued.but not that it shouldnt be banned.
You guys may have risen above the concept of nation
religion etc, but nation itself,by definition,cant
rise above the definition of itself.
(I think this is a simple statement,dont know why it
comes out so convoluted;perhaps my English is not good
So to ask the nation to allow freedom of expression on
ideologies which go against its underlying principles
and which if enabled,can only lead to violence and
strife,is like asking a primary school to use "We dont
need no education" as its morning prayer.
To further illustrate my point,I think Amitabh Kak's
background or financier is irrelevant here.So is the
traumatic roleplaying that Jeebesh was subjected to.If
a group of old ladies in a village in Kerala suddenly
decide that they want a separate country and start
distributing pamphlets,I would support confiscating
the pamphlets and giving them adequate
punishment.Freedom of Expression my foot!
Jeebesh/Shuddha,lets try to convince each other.I
believe its very important.
Hoping to hear from you

--- Kshmendra Kaul wrote:

> Jeebesh
> The pain in your words is touching. The pathos in
> your questions will move the coldest of hearts. 
> Aahhhhhh! no one left to argue with and convince.
> Alas! this deep fear and inability to live with
> disagreements. Woe on this desire of people to
> satiate their rage. Curse those trying to restrain
> our intellectual lives.
> Jeebesh your traumas need attention. Let's do some
> role-playing with you as the protagonist.
> It was a small world, a village of sorts where
> everyone knew everyone else. Close cousins were
> called "my brother" and "my sister", other than
> parents and grandparents, every adult was an "uncle"
> or "aunt".
> In it lived Jeebesh. In the last of his teens or
> maybe just past them but really a child as most
> young men were in those seemingly but largely
> uncorrupted surroundings. For long years (some say
> since many a centuries from the past) they retained
> the innocence of Trust and Hope. 
> SK also lived there or at least today he claims
> to. SK is Jeebesh's "cousin". Everyone in your own
> age group was a "cousin" if you could not trace out
> some other close relationship.
> 18 years back an Exodus of Jeebesh's people took
> place. Everyone knew everyone else.
> Jeebesh knows they had not known enough. The
> terrain had parted and lake-seas receded, the
> volcanoes had gone quiet. No one had recognised the
> signs of upheavals that were to come. 
> For Jeebesh today, memories of those times are a
> whirling blur of images and sounds. They would drive
> him mad if he could afford to lose his sanity:
> - Jeebesh's sister was picked up and raped and
> left abandoned.
> - Another sister was raped and killed after that. 
> - Another sister was raped and killed but they
> mutilated her breasts.
> - Jeebesh's mother was not spared either.
> - Jeebesh remembers his father hanging dead on a
> tree
> - He remembers the corpses of young and old and of
> male and female riddled with bullets
> - Most of all he remembers the fear in the eyes of
> those around him.
> - He remembers the loudspeakers blaring hate
> messages from places meant for worship.
> - He remembers his own fears reflected in the eyes
> of those around him.
> Inspite of that "Trauma List", for 16 years after
> those days, Jeebesh tried to put his life together
> in new surroundings. He whined every now and then, 
> he sobbed in the loneliness of alien lands. He met
> up with tiny groups to recount happy memories and
> sing songs of his Lost Land, if they could.
> Not many in the New Land seemed to acknowledge
> that Jeebesh existed. Jeebesh led a quiet existence.
> Jeebesh's existence had been quietened. 
> In the 17th year of the Exodus, Jeebesh's "cousin"
> SK made a film. Jeebesh got to know about it.
> SK's film eulogised those responsible for
> Jeebesh's 'Trauma List". Self confessed perpetrators
> of some cases and supporters of other murderers and
> rapists. SK's film celebrated them and their call
> for "Aazadi". 
> SK forgot that in the seeking of "Hurriyat"
> (Freedom) lay their merry-go-round of barbarianism
> that was Jeebesh's whirling blur of images and
> sounds from his "Trauma List".
> Will Jeebesh try to have the screening of SK's
> film stopped? What will Jeebesh's decision be? 
> Kshmendra Kaul
> Jeebesh Bagchi wrote:
> On 25-Aug-07, at 8:14 AM, rashneek kher wrote:
> > We
> > filed a complaint and since Sanjay Kak is breaking
> the law of the 
> > land by
> > screening a movie which does not have necessary
> censor certificate, 
> > the
> > Police did the rest.
> >
> Did this move satisfy the rage in you?
> Can testimonies of suffering justify these kinds of
> invitation to 
> policing of our intellectual lives?
> Isn't taking recourse to punitive action an ally of
> our deep fear to 
> live life with disagreements?
> If police is brought in to intervene, will there be
> people left to 
> argue with and convince?
> best
> jeebesh
> _________________________________________
> 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:
> ---------------------------------
> Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! -
> their life, your story.
> Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. 
> _________________________________________
> 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:

Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search 
that gives answers, not web links. 

Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. 

More information about the reader-list mailing list