[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: SRH reorganization

I am rather disappointed at the level of discourse that has taken place over
the SRH reorganization proposal so far. Instead of focussing the merits or
otherwise of the reorganization proposal itself, all discussion has hitherto
centered upon who the reorganization proponents are. 

The proponents of reorganization are regular contributors who have a legitimate
interest in the functioning of SRH. Readers of SRH may remember that I have had
fairly extended debates with more than one of them, in the past, usually
disagreeing with them on several issues. However, I believe in addressing each
issue according to its own merits, and not according to who brings up the
issue. In other words, understand and talk about the message, rather than
finding
fault with the messengers. 

Time and again, this discussion keeps coming back to soc.religion.vaishnava. I 
was a proponent of SRV, even though I am not strictly a Vaishnava, any more or
less than I am a Saiva or Sakta. As such, I think it is necessary to set the
record straight on a number of issues. 

1. The present SRH reorganization proposal is not "revenge" for Ajay's position
on SRV. Even though Ajay's own behavior during the SRV creation stage was
less than acceptable. Firstly, Ajay did not say anything of consequence when
the RFD for SRV was issued. He waited till the CFV came out, and people were
already voting on SRV, with a proposal to change the name to SRHV. I have no
idea what he thought he was accomplishing by that. The reasons for not
including
the word hindu in SRV had been discussed ad nauseum during the RFD stage
itself,
and nothing Ajay said or did later could have changed that. If Ajay felt
strongly about the inclusion of the word hindu in the proposal for SRV, he
should have detailed his views during the RFD stage more forcefully. As a 
moderator of an existing group, he of all people should have known that he 
could not effect a change in a newsgroup's name once the CFV was out. His
actions only lead me to suspect that all Ajay was interested then was in the
defeat of SRV. Furthermore, Ajay did not dissociate himself from Jai Maharaj's
postings of edited CFV's, which implied that Jai had Ajay's backing. 

2. Jai Maharaj's claims about illegal creation of SRV and the non-independence
of the vote-taker Jan Isley are baseless. Maybe Jai Maharaj needs a course in
newsgroup creation and reorganization. Understandably, his ego has also taken a
massive beating by the fact that Jan Isley could cancel a message that he
posted. After all, Jai Maharaj was warned by Jan Isley that his messages would
be cancelled if he continued to post edited CFV's, but he chose to disregard
the
warning. He is also probably deeply chagrined that his inane cross-postings are
summarily rejected by the SRV auto-moderator. 

3. If SRH reorganization were purely revenge against Ajay's stand on SRV, why
did the proponents ask Ajay to be a moderator even post-reorganization? The
proposal is after all only a call to reorganize SRH, and not one to remove Ajay
from moderatorship. It is certainly not "Ajay hatao". The "conspiracy theory"
seems like a deliberate tactic to deflect attention from the merits of the
proposal itself. Maybe that explains why Ajay Shah has still not responded to
the compromise plan put forth by Mani Varadarajan. Contrary to what some may
think, it looks like a real compromise to me. Initially, when he was asked
to be one of the moderators of the reorganized group, Ajay refused. Thereby
implying that he did not want to be involved with the newsgroup if it did get
reorganized. It was this attitude of his that forced the proponents to exclude
his name from the list of moderators in the RFD. Even after all this, Mani
posted his compromise plan on the public domain, effectively asking Ajay to 
take on a few more moderators, and creating the unmoderated talk.* group. Mani
could have just kept quiet, letting the RFD take its own course, and letting 
the outcome of the Usenet vote decide the issue. Ajay has not responded to 
this yet. The ball is in his court. It is clear that he does not want to 
return it. 

4. In my opinion, Ajay, as the moderator of the existing SRH, could have
handled
the whole reorganization issue better. The proponents of this reorganization 
have been fair enough in discussing it with him before posting the RFD. As
such,
he knew in advance that the proposal for reorganization was going to be 
discussed in public, and that his performance as a moderator would be
evaluated.
I, for one, do feel that the delays in approving posts have substantially
decreased now, after the RFD came out. Prior to the RFD, I have had personal
experience of checking up on SRH, and not finding a single article for a whole
week. And then, all of a sudden, one fine day some 20+ articles would appear. 
All this has changed since the RFD came out. 

In my opinion, Ajay could have solved this issue far more amicably, by agreeing
to be a moderator for the reorganized group, even though he was personally
opposed to such reorganization. That would have given him a certain dignity
in the eyes of all readers. Now, I am left with the suspicion that the same 
Ajay who always talks of Hindu unity would have such unity only on his own 
terms and nobody else's. Suffice it to say that under such intransigence, no
real unity is ever possible. When he refused to be a moderator for the
reorganized group, maybe Ajay was confident that the voting would turn out in
favor of status quo. In other words, he was willing to risk the future of SRH 
to the outcome of a Usenet vote. His continued silence on the compromise
proposal indicates that he is still willing to go ahead with it. He cannot find
fault with the reorganization proponents later on, if the outcome of the vote
turns out in favor of reorganization. 

5. I am most surprised and disappointed at Vidhyanath Rao's comments in the 
course of this RFD. During the creation of SRV, Sue Breish said something
about the ethnicity of Hindus, and that though she was a vaishnava, she did
not feel that she was a Hindu. This offended Vidhyanath, and he very properly
said so in response to her. Sue Breish later clarified that she meant nothing
racist or pejorative in her comments. Even if you don't accept the
clarification, it is but charitable to give her the benefit of the doubt. On 
the other hand, Vidhyanath seems to be holding that opinion of hers against 
everybody who was involved in creating SRV and by extension against all the 
proponents of SRH reorganization. 

I am also not convinced by Vidhyanath's comments about Anshuman Pandey, a
proposed moderator. Fine, Anshuman's postings in the past have not succeeded in
inspiring a confidence in his abilities in Vidhyanath's mind. May I ask who has
inspired such confidence? Certainly not Ajay Shah. To my knowledge, the only
postings that Ajay himself ever sent to alt.hindu were things like excerpts 
from books by Sitaram Goel or Ram Swarup. Still, a number of us voted for Ajay
as a moderator when SRH was created. The only advantage Ajay seems to enjoy
in this regard is chronology. What exactly are the objections to the other
proposed moderators? 

6. In and by itself, the move to have a team of moderators makes a lot of
sense. That way, if one person is busy with more important work, or has to
make an emergency trip somewhere, the other(s) will continue to function. 
What safeguards does SRH have for such contingencies right now? Nil. Does
Ajay envisage appointing an alternative moderator if he has an emergency 
at home or at work that prevents him from doing his moderatorship work? Or
does he envisage asking the SRH readership to elect one in his absence? What
does he lose right now, in agreeing to take over more people and forming
a team of moderators? Power and privilege? What are his specific objections to
one or more of Srini Pichumani, Raghu Seshadri, Anshuman Pandey and Srinivas
Kandala as proposed moderators? 

7. Finally, don't judge this issue by the names of the proponents. Sooner or
later, the question of the accoutability of the SRH moderator to his readers
was bound to be asked. Personally, I am not convinced by the argument that this
is vendetta by vaishnavas against Ajay Shah. However, even if you think that it
is, I see something fishy in the refusal to discuss the merits of the RFD 
independent of its proponents. The proponents have no special status in the 
newsgroup later in its life. I was a proponent of SRV, but as a contributor to
it, I have to abide by the same regulations that were agreed upon in the 
charter of the newsgroup. I have no power or privilege, as a proponent, over
others who were not proponents. The same holds true for the SRH reorganization
proponents also. 

I see no great harm to "Hindu unity" if SRH gets reorganized after the vote. 
I am sure that even if SRH gets reorganized, Ajay Shah and his friends will
continue to contribute, because of their well-known concern for Hindu unity. 
In the event that the vote is for status quo, I am sure the proponents will
also continue to contribute, as they have been doing before. All of this is
in the event that we do go in for a vote, which we are increasingly nearer to. 
If Ajay responds to the compromise proposal and agrees to have more moderators,
the voting may be unnecessary. SRH will be more dynamic and Ajay will have
some assistance in his duties as moderator. I request him to take up the offer
seriously and come to a compromise amicably, in the interests of unity. 

Regards,

S. Vidyasankar
Follow-Ups:
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.