From: iview-AT-technologist.com
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:31:47 -0800
Subject: Re: **Bride burning and dowry death conference at Harvard**


I must agree with Meg.  I feel that any conference organizer is already
in a position to include or exclude based on personal, social, political
interests, biases, and hidden agendas as well as in a position to decide
what is "relevant."  

Being in such a position is exploitative by its very nature.  That the
conference is being held at Harvard, a venerable and prestigious
university further obfuscates political favors exchanged whether among
academics, politicians, or big business.

By the by, this Himendra Thakur has *incorporated* "International
Society Against Dowry & Bride-Burning in India, Inc.," USA ???  What
kind of corporate tax right-offs and corporate coat-tail privs is he
riding in the name of this "cause"???  Is his corporation privately
owned or can we look at his financials???  Enquiring minds would like to
know!!!

-Manjusree



Meg Henson Scales wrote:
> 
> Dear Enrica-
> 
> At 04:49 PM 11/9/98 +0100, you wrote:
> 
> >Should I feel that I am somehow excluded since
> >I am not Indian and I deal with an Indian problem?:)
> 
> then Partha wrote:
> 
> > Of course, non-Indians (specially whites) are always welcome by most
> > Indians, as you know. Regardless of their political affiliation. This is
> > not a racist comment against whites. This is an observation about the
> > so-called mainstream Indian immigrants.
> 
> then YOU wrote:
> 
> >The point is: how is useful to invite a certain person. This is true for
> >every conference organized by anybody. There are always people who >are
> invited because their names are more "relevant" than other names.  >Or
> because they can reciprocate the favor.  Regardless how much >he/she is
> good, informed, or is black or white.
> 
> I find your dismissal of race and class disturbing- particularly with your
> involvement in cultures clearly outside of your "own".  Leaving wide
> spectrums of people and opinion OUT of the conversation, is one way tyrants
> remain "contemporary", and so-called discourse, becomes irrelevant.  You
> shouldn't dismiss it, if YOU are informed.  I  think that calling Partha
> "naive" is a byproduct of the privilege you enjoy; and being able to
> "reciprocate the favor" is a function of your respective privilege.
> Let's not lord it over others, when whiteness and class status have
> empowered one "over" those one claims to "help".
> 
> Meg

I must agree with Meg.  I feel that any conference organizer is already
in a position to include or exclude based on personal, social, political
interests, biases, and hidden agendas as well as in a position to decide
what is "relevant."  Being in such a position is exploitative by its
very nature.  That the conference is being held at Harvard, a venerable
and prestigious university further obfuscates political favors exchanged
whether among academics, politicians, or big business.

By the by, this Himendra Thakur has *incorporated* "International
Society Against Dowry & Bride-Burning in India, Inc.," USA ???  What
kind of corporate tax right-offs and corporate coat-tail privs is he
enjoying in the name of this "cause"???  Is his corporation privately
owned or can we look at his financials???  Enquiring minds would like to
know!!!

-Manjusree