[New-imc] (no subject)

[boud]

Dear new-imc people, IMC Bombay/Mumbai people,
   There seems to be some confusion, my apologies if it's my 
fault,
but i'll do my best to respond to shekhar's and sanjay's 
comments.

shekhar wrote:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2002-
July/003849.html

> I want to respond personally, after some distress at reading 
the 
> flurry of e-mails from Boud Roukema. Given that IndyMedia is 
such a 
> new concept in our circles, and that Boud's voice is one of 
the few 
> which comes from the global IMC circles and is authoritative, 
I am 

You can see plenty of other voices at
http://newimc.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org

My own voice is only "authoritative" to the extent that it is 
consistent
with those other voices: non-hierarchy, consensus are key 
aspects of
indymedia.

> worried at the impression generated. I do not believe, or at 
least I 
> had no idea, that we would be submitted to such a ruthless, 
> intrusive, and unfair questioning. Boud's postings reflect to 
me the 
> quotations of a bureaucrat inspecting our papers, silently 
hackling 
> at our lack of knowledge of the rules, but soothing us by 
saying it 
> will all work out.

i wonder if some of the confusion is because IMC Bombay/Mumbai is
trying to go through the process much more quickly than other 
new IMCs.
i have been trying to help you go through at the fast pace that 
you
want, and this naturally means that there a large number of 
things to
think through, and this may give the impression of my questions 
being
"ruthless".  

However, "intrusive" is maybe that having radically transparent 
organising is a new experience for you. This is true for 
everyone.

As for "unfair", i had nothing to do with establishing the Unity 
criteria
and the Membership criteria. If the IMC network is unfair, you're
welcome to criticise constructively and help improve the new-imc 
process.

There also seemed to be misunderstanding, that Bombay people 
didn't 
realise that the new-imc list archive is totally public:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2002-July/

> I'm never one for silencing criticism or asking penetrating 
> questions. But this is ridiculous, and goes completely against 
the 
> spirit of openness, transparency, and enthusiasm in our 
meetings and 

i don't understand how asking questions goes against openness and
transparency.

i *do* understand that asking questions may dampen enthusiasm. 
It's
a bit like a romantic relationship. Bollywood says that you just 
fall
in love and you don't need to think about concrete things about 
whether
you really want to live together practically in an egalitarian 
relationship.
The reality is that sooner or later, you need to start working 
through
serious - unromantic - issues.

This issue has been debated somewhat at new-imc, and it's clear
that we do not want to discourage new IMCs by too much 
bureaucracy,
but at the same time, they need to work through serious 
organising
issues sooner or later. 

As i have said, the only serious *organising* issue which seems 
(or
seemed as of a week ago) missing from IMC Mumbai was the 
editorial
policy.

Now, in the minutes of the recent meeting:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-mumbai/2002-
July/000089.html
it's clear that an initial editorial policy has been decided on.

However, there is the fundamental question of grassroots 
involvement.
As i tried to make clear, it's not my decision, but this 
- grassroots involvement in coordinating tasks - is one
of the key things which makes Indymedia what it is.

> other encounters around building the IMC. Boud recommends 
> decentralising, but then prescribes to us a minute-by-minute 
> presentation we should make to students. He counsels 
sensitivity on 

This is because you seemed to suggest you would give hierarchical
seminars rather than non-hierarchical discussions. i'm confused 
about
how it is possible to explain about indymedia using hierarchical 
techniques, it seems self-defeating.

> caste and class issues, saying he believes our intentions but 
advises 
> us on how to go about recruiting people on the street. I find 
this 

Well, you claimed it was "unrealistic" and "failed" when other 
groups
tried. 

: been coming to meetings).  Most NGOs or groups of educated
: middle-class political organisers have spent decades 
attempting this
: kind of dialogue with lower caste and tribal communities, and 
have
: failed. While we no doubt want to raise concerns of these 
groups, to
: expect them to participate in the IMC at the outset, when the 
English
: language is a major barrier, as is access to the Internet, is
: unrealistic.

If IMC Bombay would take "decades" and "fail", doesn't it make 
sense
that i try to make concrete suggestions which could take 
days/weeks
rather than decades?

How else is it possible to respond other than by concrete
suggestions? If i responded with vague ideological statements, 
then the
conversation would risk going round and round in circles about 
ideology.

> extremely condescending. Our "application" has been divided 
and 
> annotated like the way a municipal official scrutinises a 
building 
> plan. I feel like I'm in a Kafka novel!

The difference is that i have no hierarchical power.

i certainly cannot slow down your setting up the web site, i 
cannot slow
down you organising meetings, i cannot slow down any of your 
communications
with any indymedia mailing list.
 
It is sufficient that you read the documents at:
http://newimc.indymedia.org

and i would certainly *not* be offended if you found someone 
else at 
new-imc to help you through the process. jay is offline at the 
moment,
but there are plenty of other people, e.g. maybe dri or gaba 
from south
america might want to take over from me. 


> I want everyone on the list, both from Bombay and from other 
IMCs 
> worldwide, to please respond and comment on what direction we 
should 
> take in our dialogue with Boud's concerns. They are legitimate 
and 
> rigorous, but there is a time for questioning which comes in 
the 
> weeks and months ahead. Please everyone tell us how you feel.

i think that everyone at new-imc would be encouraged if more 
people
from Bombay speak up, especially about the concern about 
grassroots
involvement of 30% of the population.



sanjay wrote:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2002-
July/003851.html

> I appreciate comments and suggestions on getting more people 
involved, =
> but telling us how exactly to do something is unnacceptable. 
We have =
> reiterated that we do understand the importance of getting 
dalits and =
> adivasis involved and said we will go about the issue 
creatively and =
> tactfully, and I hoped the network would trust us in this . 
Things are =

Well, i only saw this before in a private email from you, and if 
it's
clear that people at IMC Bombay/Mumbai do agree to get dalits 
and adivasis
involved, including in decision-making and organising issues, 
there should
be no problem. 

However, as i quoted above, shekhar seems to feel that even 
after decades
by NGOs, efforts to do this failed. This is worrying to me.

If there were some points of view of other Bombay people saying 
how they
plan to do this, it might make new-imc people - and others in 
the network -
feel more comfortable.


> not as easy as Boud makes them out to be, and there are lots 
of factors =
> involved, and again, if there isn't the trust that we will 
function and =
> endeavour to do this as best as we can, there is really no 
point in us =
> even endeavouring to be a part of the network. I, for one, do 
not wish =
> to be part of a network which is constantly telling us what to 
do and =
> how to do it. To me, that is not the purpose of the IMC.

This seems to be a misunderstanding from my communication style -
 sorry.
All i have tried to do is to explain what many others from 
around the
IMC network have already agreed upon are necessary things for 
organising
an IMC.

My "telling you how to do it" is only meant to be responses when 
someone seems 
to say that something cannot be done - at least where shekhar 
seemed to
say that including dalits/adivasis is "unrealistic", and where 
he seemed
to be confused about IMCs being only internet and only English 
based.

 
> >"Instead, what it would do would be to send a clear message, 
both
> >during presentations in "mass media" courses and in other
> >"middle-class" outreach efforts, and to other IMCs, new and 
old,
> >around the world, that we really want to have media *by* the
> >grassroots, not just *for* the grassroots, and that we want to
> >encourage each other strongly to make just that little bit 
extra
> >effort to cross these psychological barriers."
> 
> Make an example of us, by showing how strongly you'll can 
enforce your =
> rules? Is this what the IMC is about?

i'm not sure i understand this. IMCs are supposed to be *by* the
grassroots, not *for* the grassroots. This is fundamental to 
indymedia.

It's not a question of enforcing rules. It's a question of being 
sure
that we are talking about more or less 
the same idea when we talk about indymedia.
 
> >"To avoid any worries about hypocrisy (let's not avoid this 
issue!),
> >IMC Mumbai/Bombay people would be quite welcome to - gently, 
but
> >firmly - put similar pressure on people from any rich country 
IMC - or
> >2nd world region (e.g. IMC PL which will hopefully come 
through to
> >new-imc over the next few months) to get grassroots people 
really
> >involved and into decision-making. IMHO, the positive effect 
of having
> >people from India say to rich/2nd world IMC people "Hey, why 
not put
> >in that little bit of extra effort to get *your* grassroots 
people =
> > really
> >involved?" might be even more convincing than just having 
well-wishing
> >bourgeois westerners ;) say this to each other..."
> 
> 
> I am sorry, but I for one, have no intention of playing 
policeman and =
> making sure other IMC's function the way they should or 
anything like =
> that. As I understand it, the IMC is a network of like-minded 
people to =
> provide support, encouragement and help, not to watch over 
eachother and =
> enforce rules on eachother. One of the main reasons for me 
wanting to be =
> a part of the IMC was the fact that it is a network of 
autonomous =
> collectives, and NOT co-enforcing groups of people.

It's not about enforcement, it's about explaining and 
communicating.
 
> >"Having a delay would also remind people that Indymedia is 
supposed to
> >be really radical, not just one more activist web site."
> 
> I dont know what this statement is supposed to mean, but if 
Indymedia is =
> so exclusionist about its "radicalness", I think that defeats 
the =
> purpose of itself. And the whole concept of using this delay 
to make an =
> example and "remind people" sounds awfully authoritarian to me.
 
Communication in the absence of power relationships is not 
authoritarian.

You and shekhar have now started the habit of copying your 
emails directly
to new-imc, to make sure that they are heard. This is just one 
example of
how i do *not* have any hierarchical power over IMC Bombay.

 
> I love the IMC concept - I love it BECAUSE it is anti-
authoritarian, =
> non-hierachical and all inclusive. If our collective is 
constantly going =
> to face this sort of inspection to make sure we're doing 
things =
> "properly", I for one, would not want to be part of the 
network. Again, =
> I do not speak for the group, and perhaps I am over-reacting, 
but I know =
> I am not able to function when there is someone acting in a 
position of =
> authority and telling me what to do and how to do it, and 
laying down =
> consequences if I dont get that done. I may be wrong, but I 
see boud's =
> email as attempting to do exactly that with the group.

i don't see any consequences which i have threatened. i said 
that i feel
uncomfortable proposing IMC Bombay to the new-imc list until 
other new-imc
people have said how they feel about the issue.

The effect of a delay in formal approval is not going to delay 
setting up
your web site, it is not going to delay you organising meetings, 
etc.

And anyone other than me can take over the process. i have
no "ownership" over handling IMC Bombay at new-imc.
 
> In our last IMC Bombay meeting, we discussed this very issue - 
the IMC, =
> being non-hierachical, and non-authoritarian, and yet having 
this =
> seemingly authoritarian process of application and filling up 
of forms, =
> etc. I defended the whole concept saying that the whole new-
imc process =
> was more to provide support to new-imc's, helping, encouraging 
and being =
> a support, and its purpose was not to legislate or enforce, 
for that is =

"Non-hierarchy does not mean no rules, it means no rulers."

Some people who call themselves anarchists keep saying that they 
oppose 
"the state". OK, the state is generally violent and too 
bureaucratic.

But how are we going to have a non-hierarchical society if it 
has no
structures at all? Like it or not, i think that non-hierarchical 
society
will even, in some sense, have a legal system. It will be 
different to the
present legal systems, because there will not be threats like 
prison or
violence.

But there needs to be some way of having structures which 
coordinate.

> how I understood it then. After boud's email, unfortunately, I 
cannot =
> say the same, and I see the purpose of the new-imc process 
being to =
> enforce a set of laws onto us, and something like this easily 
translates =
> itself into a continuing process of making sure that 
we're "doing things =
> right." If this is the kind of attitude we have to face in our 
setting =
> up and running, for me at least, it would create an atmosphere 
where I =
> would be thinking twice about every aspect of our functioning, 
projects, =
> and running of the website, constantly thinking if the global 
IMC =
> network would "approve", and this is not the kind of 
atmosphere I think =
> we should function in.

Well, all other new IMCs have gone through this. If you can 
think of another
way of setting up new IMCs which leads to groups which are 
consistent with
what other IMCs feel is right - and which don't end up having 
pathological
problems like the IMC France had, great! 


> I hope we can overcome these issues and work together, for I 
have great =
> faith in the power of the Indymedia network and its ability to 
bring =
> about real change in society. Looking forward to a response,

Well, i am going off-line for a week, so i won't be able to 
follow the
discussions on this.

i feel there is still some inconsistency on a major issue - 
grassroots 
involvement - between what you and shekhar have said, and it did 
seem
like shekhar tried to avoid the issue by focussing on "boud" 
instead
of on plans for grassroots involvement in organising and 
decision-making.

If other people from the 40+ members of imc-mumbai could make 
comments
(either on imc-mumbai, where new-imc people
 can read the archive, or on new-imc,
or both), that would help everyone understand each other better.

i think possibly the easiest thing to convince you that new-imc 
is not
an authoritarian group would be for someone else at new-imc to 
take
over. of course, there is noone "senior" over me at new-imc. 
there is noone "junior" under me, either!

any volunteers at new-imc? maybe dri? gaba?

solidarity
boud




-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kraków, Sopot, Zakopane, Hel - miasto na lato :-)
Zaprasza sieć wakacyjnych serwisów informacyjnych < http://naszemiasto.pl >