Sharing info about the film and discussion through the net

[KP Sasi]

  Sharing information about the screening and panel discussion with the film Fabricated from 14th to 16th on thumanhe net. Webinar on 16th at 5 pm. Those interested can register.

https://countercurrents.org/2020/08/screening-of-the-documentary-fabricated-by-k-p-sasi/  

[KP Sasi]

Thanks for the response. From all these definitions it is too clear that the Indian State and the Hindutva forces are the biggest terrorist outfits in this country. Thanks.

On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 3:48 AM Mohanan K P <mohan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sharing the handout on Terrorists and Armed Freedom Struggle that we esed for a web workshop on Aug 1 and 2  that I think would be of interest to many of you. 

Mohanan

On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 3:43 AM Mohanan K P <mohan...@gmail.com> wrote:

is there a way to watch the film before the webinar?

[KP Sasi]

Definition 5: `Criminal acts against State' and `Creation of a state of terror' are two different entities. The definition is too vague.  The usage of `criminal acts against state' is more an excuse of the State to exercise its creation of fear over people. You can have criminal acts against a representative of the State. That doesn't mean criminal act against the entire State.  You can have criminal acts against nations like Vietnam war, Iraq war or any other American invasions. That is also not just a criminal act against a State. It is against the people confined to a boundary called a `nation'. But the `creation of a state of terror' is just the act of what Modi Government is trying to do now. Just look at the number of intellectuals who are imprisoned under draconian laws in India today. The draconian law called  UAPA itself is a criminal act of the State on its own people.

On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 3:58 AM Mohanan K P <mohan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not ALL the definitions. Given definition 5, it follows that Stalin, Hitler, Mossolini.... couldn't have been terrorists. No State can be a terrorist under definition 5. Why do you think UN changed def 4' (1994) to def 5 (2006)?

[KP Sasi]

The film is already being screened on the net. Please check the poster and register. It is also there on the You Tube.

On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 3:43 AM Mohanan K P <mohan...@gmail.com> wrote:

is there a way to watch the film before the webinar?

On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 3:31 AM KP Sasi <kpsa...@gmail.com> wrote:

[KP Sasi]

Well, the academic language can be vague on its own terms. The language of politics has to have at least a `pretension of accountability to people' . And that is not seen in today's Governance. And one is also offered a limited space to say: `that is not real academics' or `that is not real politics'. It is just a matter of choice. But when it comes to a notion of social justice, the human beings are survivalists. At one stage or the other, people will have clarity and precise notions on social justice. How do you explain the collapse of the greatest empires throughout history. A person like Hitler who could mesmorise millions had to end up in a debate whether the teeth of his corpse belonged to Hitler or not.

On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:50 AM Mohanan K P <mohan...@gmail.com> wrote:

"The definition is too vague."

That is exactly the difference between 

a) academic language (as it ought to be, not necessarily the way it is practiced), and 

b) the language of politics seeping into state controlled 'law', as well as bureaucracy. 

The language of (b) ensures the prohibition of what the decision makers do not want while allowing for what they want. The confounding of the individuals who control the state and the abstract entity called the state is deliberate: it allows for punishing, in the name of the glorified entity called 'nation',  those who speak up against the individuals , which in effect is the group of rulers. So, of those who are ruled make the rulers afraid, that counts as terrorism. But if a US ruler makes Saddam Hussain afraid or assassinates Saddam Hussain, that is not terrorism under definition 5.  

 

As an educator, my goal is to educate the young  such that they have the capacity to think with clarity and precision, see through the fancy words of the 'authorities' (authorities = parents, teachers, 'experts', leaders, ...) and to doubt and question themselves as well as the authorities. (see the Socratic Oath of educators at  http://confluence.ias.ac.in/tag/socratic-oath/  )  Democracy in the real sense (which is the same as anarchy (absence of rulers)) is not possible without true education. Schooling that provides degrees and certificates without educating the mind is what the  Corporation-State-OrganisedReligion triad wants, and what we need to fight against if the human species needs to survive. 

[KP Sasi]

Dear Fr. Ajaya Singh,

Please inform friends in Kandhamal.

On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 6:23 AM Mohanan K P <mohan...@gmail.com> wrote:

1) 2ou haven't yet said where we can watch the film.

2) "Well, the academic language can be vague on its own terms. " 

The issue is not the practice of academic language, but the norms of academic language.  There was a time in human history where slavery was not against the norm. It is, now, even though it is in practice not yet abolished.  The same way, it is true that in actual practice, academics often use vague and ambiguous words (in many cases deliberately vague and ambiguous), and quite often they use meaningless words, the norms of academic inquiry demand clarity and precision. In contrast, ambiguity is a virtue in poetic language (e.g. William Empson's Seven Types of Ambiguity.) 

In those domains of academic inquiry that I practice, every academic term must be defined in such a way that one can draw out the logical consequences of the definition. The value attached to clear and precise definitions is part of my own teaching. For instance, if you define triangles as 

three vertices joined together with straight line segments

the answer to the question "Do straight angled triangles exist?" is yes. If, on the other hand, we define triangles as 

three nonlinear vertices joined together with straight line segments

the answer to the same question is no.

If we define parallel lines as 

a pair of equidistant straight lines, 

the answer to the question "Do straight lines exist on spherical surfaces?" is no. But if we define parallel lines as 

a pair of lines through which another line perpendicular to both can be drawn, 

the answer to the same question is yes,

 

Aristotle and Galileo define the concepts of force and inertia differently. As a result, Aristotle's theory of motion fails to make correct predictions while Galileo's theory succeeds where Aristotle's theory fails.

If we define the concept of God as the ultimate spaceless timeless reality,  even Richard Dawkins would agree that God as defined by that definition exists. Conversely, if we define God as an omnnipotent (omniscient, omnipresent, perfectly moral) entity, we can prove, using reductio ad absurdum argument, that God does not exist. Under one definition, soul exists, under another, it doesn't. 

Under one definition of democracy,  there obviously is democracy in India and US. Under another, there is very little democracy in US or India, in contrast to the earlier monarchy in Bhutan which was far more democratic, 

In the handout on terrorism and freedom struggle, we were trying to illustrate the same intellectual hygiene of definitions to domains in which that hygiene is not respected.