Sorry! Read "bedrocks" as "bedrock".
Sukla On 22/03/2015, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Peter Waterman, > > Thanks for responding. > > I've a slightly different take. > > Xenophobic nationalism, cloaked as "anti-colonialism" / > "anti-imperialism", is of course a bedrocks underlying the arguments > put forward by this section of feminists. > > But while the Modi regime is ideologically rooted in xenophobia, > though only selectively - no problem with inviting foreign capital > with open hands but criticism by a foreigner (if s/he is no Barack > Obama) is a strict "no-no"; *these feminists are only making > instrumental use of this element* in which, to my mind, is essentially > a turf war. They just won't tolerate any encroacher. > > Sukla > > On 22/03/2015, peter waterman <[email protected]> wrote: >> The giveaway, Sukla Sen, seems to me to lie here: >> >> 'It was on March 3, an online site carried an article by Kavita >> Krishnan, a leading Indian feminist, wherein she, inter alia, opined: >> I have tried to convey that while we in India are in fact engaged in >> confronting the violence and discrimination against women here, it >> does not help for people in other countries to imagine that such >> brutality is India's "cultural" problem; that India's "backwardness", >> etc...' >> >> She, at least, seems to be primarily concerned with India's image here. >> Yet >> the film (which I have not seen) is part of a global campaign, in which >> rape culture and sexual aggression - usually in the film-maker's own >> country - is the subject of exposure. >> >> I would have thought that, contrary to her argument, the film will >> strengthen solidarity with the victims/survivors of sexual assault in >> India, and with campaigners like the author. >> >> Best, >> >> PeterW > >> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 'India's Daughter' >>> Hostile Responses from the State and a Section of Indian >>> Feminists >>> >>> Sukla Sen >>> >>> It was on March 3 last, the Union I&B Ministry "issued an advisory >>> preventing the documentary from being aired keeping in mind the >>> implications of the programme." (See: >>> < >>> http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/IB-Ministry-Stops-BBC-Documentary-on-Nirbhaya-Rapist-From-Being-Aired/2015/03/03/article2696363.ece >>> >.) >>> The same day, at 9:57 AM, it had been reported: "Delhi Police obtains >>> restrain orders barring media from broadcasting and publishing the >>> interview of December 16 gang-rape convict: Police." (See: >>> <https://twitter.com/pti_news/status/572818103131750401>.) >>> Quite in tandem, it was on March 5, Indian parliament discusses the >>> film, and its scheduled airing on March 8 - the International Women's >>> Day, "with women MPs registering strong protest even as home minister >>> Rajnath Singh promised that the film will not be telecast in India. " >>> (See: < >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2979766/Gang-rape-documentary-sparks-uproar-Parliament-Home-Minister-vows-NOT-aired-India.html >>> >.) >>> "The home minister [further] said the government would investigate why >>> and how the permission was given to British broadcaster the BBC to >>> make the documentary with one of the four rapists who are on death >>> row. " (See: ibid.) >>> >>> It was on March 3, an online site carried an article by Kavita >>> Krishnan, a leading Indian feminist, wherein she, inter alia, opined: >>> I have tried to convey that while we in India are in fact engaged in >>> confronting the violence and discrimination against women here, it >>> does not help for people in other countries to imagine that such >>> brutality is India's "cultural" problem; that India's "backwardness" >>> is the problem; or that gender violence is "worse out there in India". >>> She also added: >>> Mukesh Singh's and Sharma's words are instances of rape culture - rape >>> culture that is widespread, in India and all over the globe. But the >>> stories that focus on Singh's and Sharma's interviews are framed to >>> take away from that realisation. Instead, the responses they invoke >>> are about how these men are brutes, animals, vile beasts and so on. >>> And, further: >>> Mukesh Singh's and Sharma's words are instances of rape culture - rape >>> culture that is widespread, in India and all over the globe. But the >>> stories that focus on Singh's and Sharma's interviews are framed to >>> take away from that realisation. Instead, the responses they invoke >>> are about how these men are brutes, animals, vile beasts and so on. >>> (See: < >>> http://www.dailyo.in/politics/kavita-krishnan-nirbhaya-december-16-indias-daughter-leslee-udwin-mukesh-singh-bbc/story/1/2347.html >>> >.) >>> The same day, on her FB page she writes: >>> I like others will wait to watch the film before commenting on it. But >>> since a very high voltage campaign has taken shape around it, and it's >>> shaping our response to rape and rape culture, I would like to put on >>> record .... >>> (See: >>> <https://www.facebook.com/kavita.krishnan/posts/10205641738624330>.) >>> >>> And, on March 5, eight prominent feminists, including Indira Jaising, >>> Kavita Krishnan and Vrinda Grover, apparently at the initiative of the >>> first-named, wrote a rather longish letter (see: >>> < >>> http://feministsindia.com/activists-discuss-concerns-over-indias-daughter/ >>> >) >>> to the NDTV Chief urging him not to air the film on 8th March as >>> originally scheduled: "we write this letter to seek a postponement of >>> the telecast, till the appeal and all other legal processes and >>> proceedings relating to the 16 December 2012 gang rape and murder case >>> have concluded.". >>> Given the fact that the Union Ministry of I&B had already issued an >>> advisory and the Delhi Police had obtained a restraint order against >>> airing the film from a lower court, as noted above, this appeared to >>> be in a way superfluous. >>> Be that as it may, some of the the points made out by the letter were as >>> under. >>> 1. The film infringes upon and compromises the rights of both the rape >>> victim and the accused men. It vitiates the judicial process. 2. >>> "Further the film makes a disturbing and direct incitement to violence >>> [against potential rape victims]." Also: "This film gives >>> disproportionate attention and significance to hate speech against >>> women and here lie our deep concerns." The film " gives a platform to >>> canvas misogynist views and hate speech." 3. The film has a pronounced >>> class (and also racial?) bias. >>> So, while the demand for "postponement of the telecast, till the >>> appeal and all other legal processes and proceedings relating to the >>> 16 December 2012 gang rape and murder case have concluded" is >>> essentially based on the legal argument that the airing of it would >>> vitiate the judicial process, the letter goes well beyond and opts to >>> decry the film, inter alia, for being prejudicial to the interests of >>> the "accused" and, all at the same time, for inciting violence and >>> hatred against the potential rape victims - women. >>> It is specifically in that context, a tweet by one of these three, on >>> March 5 itself, becomes highly relevant: "Rapist Lynched After BBC >>> Rape Documentary >>> Aired @sarahdevin http://voc.tv/1w87moo This is wht we fought 2 >>> resist 1/n." (Look up: 'Kavita Krishnan @kavita_krishnan ยท Mar 5' at >>> <https://twitter.com/kavita_krishnan>.) >>> And a detailed examination of the sequence of events leading to the >>> savage (racist) lynching in Dimapur clearly shows that the claim that >>> the BBC film had triggered the ghastly murder was just a canard. >>> (See: < >>> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/india-unity/conversations/topics/55665 >>> > >>> and < >>> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/india-unity/conversations/topics/55684 >>> >.) >>> And it is pretty much interesting to note that here the (main) ground >>> for objection against the film is cited as the fight to resist >>> (likely, or possible?) lynching of the rape accused. Not the narrow >>> technical-legal justification! >>> It is, of course, quite another matter that the long letter issued the >>> very same day talked of incitement of violence against the potential >>> rape victims, not the accused. >>> And, this what Vrinda Grover, another prominent Supreme Court lawyer, >>> posted on her FB page, the very same day: "I hold that the film should >>> not be telecast till all legal proceedings have concluded. Also the >>> film amplifies hate speech agianst (sic) women; misogyny and incites >>> violence." (See: >>> <https://www.facebook.com/vrinda.grover.56/posts/10153086132561358?fref=nf >>> >.) >>> (For evident reasons, this (weird) line of argument, identifying the >>> subject documentary as the trigger for the lynching in Dimapur, was >>> not understandably pursued much further.) >>> >>> In this context, also relevant are the two signed articles by Indira >>> Jaising. >>> The first one, 'Documentary Violates The Law, Does Nothing For >>> 'Awareness'', (see: >>> < >>> http://www.huffingtonpost.in/indira-jaising-/documentary-violates-the-_b_6862010.html >>> >), >>> posted on March 14, goes on to harp on the legal arguments, just not >>> only against airing the film but also the very process of ts making. >>> It goes on to assert: "And how do we know that the convict Mukesh is >>> telling the truth? ***How do we know that he is not performing for the >>> benefit of the filmmaker or a larger audience on a predetermined >>> script*** [emphasis added]? There is no way of knowing, which is why >>> the interview with the convict is legally, and morally wrong." And, >>> does not stop at that. It does pointedly tell, in so many words, that >>> the film's claim of raising "awareness" about rape and misogynist >>> attitude of Indian males is all bunkum: "Some believe the film should >>> be shown to children. For what? Presumably to raise awareness and >>> prevent violence against women. ***It will do no such thing*** >>> [emphasis added]. It contains no conceptual understanding within which >>> to comprehend rape as an act of power within a patriarchal society." >>> And, the longish harangue also includes: "Is this film part of that >>> protest culture? Does it strengthen the rule of law, which in turn >>> will end impunity for rape? Far from it.." Also: "The film trivialises >>> the enormity of rape. It presents the rapist's point of view as a >>> rationalisation." And, on and on. >>> The second one, 'Crossing an ethical line: India's Daughter comes in >>> the way of a fair trial for Nirbhaya convicts', datelined March 19 >>> (see: < >>> http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/crossing-an-ethical-line-indias-daughter-comes-in-the-way-of-a-fair-trial-for-nirbhaya-convicts/ >>> >), >>> quite interestingly, as the caption suggests, pretty visibly shifts >>> its weight. Here it is focused almost exclusively on the legality >>> issue. Not only that, it no longer talks of the film allegedly >>> promoting misogyny etc. It rather restricts itself to voicing concerns >>> for the rights of the accused. And, consequently, the need to restrict >>> "freedom of expression". >>> >>> These so very tangled arguments cannot but raise the suspicion the >>> real reason for opposing the film is rather something else other than >>> the publicly stated ones. >>> >>> Here, it would be rather unfair, if one does not mention that there >>> were as well quite a few contrarian feminist voices out there. Here is >>> a sample, not intended to be an exhaustive list: AIDWA statement, >>> dated March 5th (see: >>> <https://www.facebook.com/AIDWA/posts/779935928758615>); 'Face the >>> truth', dated March 6th, by Brinda Karat (see: >>> <http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/face-the-truth/>); >>> 'India's Daughter: since the Delhi rape things have got worse', ated >>> March 6th, by Jayati Ghosh (see: >>> < >>> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/06/indias-daughter-delhi-rape >>> >); >>> 'Inside the minds of rapists', dated March 8th, by Flavia Agnes (see: >>> <http://www.asianage.com/columnists/inside-minds-rapists-043>). If the >>> first three in this list are connected with the CPI(M), the last one >>> is not. >>> (Two reviews of the ongoing controversy are particularly informative: >>> < >>> http://www.thethumbprintmag.com/indias-daughter-debate-a-struggle-over-gender-censorship-and-colonialism-toby-miller/ >>> > >>> and < >>> http://www.hopemonkey.org/pitch/7-must-read-articles-indias-daughter-controversy >>> >.) >>> >>> The question that keeps coming back to one's mind is why a section of >>> the Indian feminists is so very hellbent on running down the film and >>> doing their utmost to have it gagged even at the risk of being seen to >>> be on the same side as with the incumbent regime, a prospect which >>> they evidently don't relish - just refer to the point 14 of the joint >>> letter and Vrinda Grover's FB post in particular, and to be fair, >>> which goes against the very grains of their respective public careers. >>> There is no easy answer. >>> To be fair, the legal argument that airing of the film while the court >>> case is on amounts to contempt of court as it may prejudice the >>> judges, this way or that way, is, on the face of it, a quite sound >>> legal argument. And, the Delhi High Court has, in fact, (already) >>> endorsed this line (see: >>> < >>> http://ibnlive.in.com/news/delhi-hc-refuses-to-lift-ban-on-nirbhaya-documentary-indias-daughter/533472-3.html >>> >). >>> But there is an obvious catch here, though not too visible to >>> untrained eyes. The catch is that in India in the past on several >>> occasions high pitched public campaigns - press conferences, newspaper >>> articles, TV debates, public meetings, online and offline petitions, >>> street demonstrations etc. - were conducted to influence the judicial >>> verdict. None from those who're now indulging in legal nitpicking are >>> known to have objected. A few of them, in all probability did even >>> take part. (In fact, the public campaign to get the film gagged, while >>> the Delhi High Court was examining the gag order, itself, by the same >>> token, appears to amount to contempt of court!) >>> So, coming back to the issue, the most plausible answer is perhaps a >>> sense of insecurity, a threat perception, the fear of loss of one's >>> exclusive territory to a rank "outsider". >>> The implicit message underlying the shrill campaign appears to be: >>> "Keep off the grass! Trespassing is strictly prohibited!" >>> That's, given the gravity and the salience of the issue concerned, is >>> profoundly unfortunate. >>> >>> -- >>> Peace Is Doable >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ** WSFDiscuss is an open and unmoderated forum for the exchange of >>> information and views on the experience, practise, and theory of the >>> World >>> Social Forum at any level (local, national, regional, and global) and on >>> related social and political movements and issues. Join in !** >>> _______________________________________________ >>> WSFDiscuss mailing list >>> POST to LIST : Send email to [email protected] >>> SUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to >>> [email protected] >>> UNSUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to >>> [email protected] >>> LIST ARCHIVES: >>> http://openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net/ >>> LIST INFORMATION: >>> http://openspaceforum.net/mailman/listinfo/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net >>> >> > > > -- > Peace Is Doable > -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
