[governance] Nomination of Parminder

Thu Jan 9 05:07:25 EST 2014

This canard has been going on for too long now... It has been mentioned 
on this list at least 4-5 times since Bali, and each time in a highly 
unrestrained language, with quick backups by 3-4 people, most of who 
were even not at the meeting... My response has been not to react. It is 
not easy to do so, to let public allegations regarding one's behaviour 
go un-responded. But one of course knows what is the game of the 
instigators - I will respond, and then there can a free for all for them 
to say more, and all the while it is 'my behaviour' being judged and 
spoken of.. And we all know that this is just one link in a long chain 
of witch hunting by these few people who, unfortunately, want to play 
their politics by other means.

But I know that David Conrad's email comes with real concern about 
knowing facts, because in all the discussions I have had with him he has 
this almost extra ordinary penchant for facts... Therefore I as well may 
state the facts. The following are the facts of the 'incident' Suresh/ 
Tim/ Avri speak of...

    At the meeting, in Bali, there was a comment made by someone which I
    thought was highly personal and inappropriate, and I got up saying
    that one cannot be told such a thing, and begin to go out of the
    room. Now that part is not the issue under consideration. Neither am
    I raising it for consideration. Stuff happens. What is under
    consideration is my interaction with Avri. As I walked past Avri who
    was sitting on the floor, she said, of course, well-meaning-ly, in
    order to deter me from walking out - "this is something 'the person'
    could have said to anyone"... To which I turned back towards Avri
    and said "would you , Avri, have stayed in the room if this had been
    said to you". And of course when one says "would you" one's finger
    is out and pointed towards the person -- I know no way from where I
    come to say that sentence without holding a finger which goes with
    the expression "would you avri"...  And my utterance was the highest
    call to ones reason and sense of justice - Would you in the same
    circumstances do differently! I would consider such to be the
    highest respect one can give to another while dealing with a
    difference of opinion. (Especially in a situation when I was myself
    upset and walking out.) My utterance being posited as the
    justification of why I had to walk out. How is this a threat!

    Avri responded by saying "Dont you wag your frecking finger at me". 
    (i do not know the meaning of this word - frecking -but I think it
    may be a kind of a bad word. Doesnt matter. I admit, this may not
    precisely be the word she said but a similar sounding word). And I
    walked away. (Immediately afterwards I came back to the room and
    rejoined the meeting.) This is what happened vis a vis the incident
    that has so insistently been propped up .

At this stage I think I need justice vis a vis the kinds of campaigns 
that are nowadays regularly run on this list. There are more forthright 
ways to do ones politics than that, in this decidedly political space. I 
suggest that 3-4 senior most civil society persons who were present when 
this incident took place be formed into a committee and give a decision 
on this matter - both about what actually happened in terms of the 
contented interaction between Avri and me, and what has been made of it 
it since on public lists and the implications of that for my political 
work, and perhaps also my personal standing (about which I care 
relatively less). I can think of Ian, Carlos, Deirdre and Michael as the 
senior most people who were there at that meeting, and I am happy to 
accept the judgement by a committee of them...

parminder

On Thursday 09 January 2014 07:08 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>
>
> On 08-Jan-14 20:08, David Conrad wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:24 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
>>> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>> -1
>>>
>>> In the light of what transpired in Bali, I have to agree with Suresh!
>>
>> For those of us who didn't have the fortune to be in Bali, this is a 
>> bit cryptic.  Could someone describe or point to "what transpired"?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -drc
>>
>
> Sure.  The short version.
>
> Parminder was verbally aggressive with several people during the meeting.
> Some walked out.
> I objected.
>
> He was then physically aggressive/threatening towards me
> (no contact, but i felt physically threatened).
> More people walked out, including me.
>
> The meeting continued, I heard.
>
> After the meeting, I appealed to the co-coordinators of the IGC to do 
> something about this.
>
> The appeal was never formally responded to, though I did get some 
> updates on ongoing discussions.
>
> In the meantime, while I still lurk on this list, for the most part I 
> decided to avoid participation until such time as my appeal was ruled on.
>
> avri
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140109/b5cbb09b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t