Jeene do aur jeeyo…

“Can you come and make peace?” read the subject line of the email by a Chowkie. It referred to a certain board.

“Is anyone looking for peace?” was my immediate response. I went on to write: “…the fact that now no one has started ilogs and petitions and discussions on bans/filtering proves that except for a few no one is really concerned. At that time they had a ’target’ in me. I have not seen the new X board at all. I am sorry I cannot come in now because I am still on hiatus…trust me the fights are not worth it when the ’opponents’ are worthless.”

This ilog has been prompted by the fact that…

1. Some people assume I am working from behind the scenes.
Answer: Gosh, why would that happen? I just don’t have the energy or personality for that. Besides, anyone with half an eye and a quarter of a brain can see that there is no evidence of my editorial touch (hammer or chisel depends on whether you are just a log of wood or have the potential of being a piece of sculpture).

2. Some people believe I left Chowk in the lurch.
Answer: Since when has Chowk been in existence? 1997. Before I came in, for a very long time there was no ‘editor’ and there never was a chief editor, anyway. If any record needs to be set straight, then it is this: Chowk staff was aware at every stage of the pre-hiatus, during and post. Let me make it clear once again that since the 1st of June 2006 AD, I am not to be given credit for or take responsibility for what has transpired here.

3. Some people are making tall claims of having hounded me out.
Answer: The roosters can crow all they like, but I have taken enough criticism here and elsewhere from far more honourable critics than to scurry away from the chicken-feed being dished out of their regurgitating palates.

I don’t need to lurk. Like anyone else, I can visit, interact and write as and when I wish. That I don’t have the time or, of late, the desire is another matter. The invitation to restart my column ‘Fly in the soup’ (to stop it was MY editorial decision) has been reiterated several times. There are decisions to be taken…

Right now it is to say that the hiatus is over. I have decided not to keep things in flux, therefore I am giving up the post of Chief Editor with immediate effect. I do not want insinuations about my role, and I do not identify with what is happening here anymore. This is the truth and that is what you will always get from me. I have always ticked people off and said that they have no business to be in a place they have no respect for. Today a featured writer calls Chowk “garbage”.

I had wanted out completely even then, but it was Chowk Staff’s idea that I think it over because they had no intention of getting someone else. In all this time I have stayed away and offered no feedback because it would amount to unfair intrusion.

And unlike some people who did everything to sabotage the smooth working of the website only because they were “cut-up” by my being appointed CE (I might state here that NOBODY was even considered for the post and Chowk was not bound to keep them in the loop…but they could not get back at an organisation, so they hit out at me and it had nothing to do with my capability because I have a professional background – I am not a visitor to the flea market posing calling myself an antique dealer), I can and do maintain a dignified distance.

They started their games right during my first editorial itself. That should tell you where they came from – Nowhere.

Chowk is aware of every little thing as this space was used, and unfortunately continues to. What Chowk staff does about it down the road will be a revelation.

I would like to address a few things here that have come in the piece penned to celebrate their ninth anniversary and in the interactions:

From the article:

“we have for the first time discovered that Chowk has enemies. Whereas in the past we would get a lot of nasty emails and threats, now we get concerted attacks and spin, even lies.”

As one who got closely involved with Chowk, but who has been in the business of writing/dissemination of opinion much longer than you, let me tell you something: I never call anyone my enemy because I think they have to work hard to acquire that ‘status’, come up to my level.

And one does not keep the ‘enemies’ around…you know more about more, more than anyone else because you have the server with you. Use it.

They unashamedly used Chowk and vigilance had to be called for when other important work was waiting to be done.

“As operators of Chowk we are also noticing that our responsibilities have both increased and changed. What is demanded of us today goes beyond publishing articles and moderating discussions. Today, there are many voices out there that reach out and ask us to speak “As Chowk” on issues that concern the people of the sub-continent. So far we have consciously avoided editorialization but do wonder if that is soon to become our responsibility too.”

Excuse me…what do you think was being done since November 10? I was asked to take over as CE for precisely this reason, for months before it actually happened, for you know that I wasn’t a case of ‘aasman se tapka”. The first two editorials were to set the tone of why this was being done. I did ‘humanise’ the edits because that is the way I felt best to connect to a motley group of people.

‘A Voice’ was precisely that.

Here’s wishing that Chowk lives long and well without compromise.
- - -

It is time to list what I really did. The humble are often the most arrogant people, so all I will say is that it feels good to know there are some who have acknowledged me in the Anniversary piece. I bloody well deserve it!

There are people on board who are complimenting me for bringing ‘discipline’ – I just pushed the envelope where the guidelines were concerned; I added two additional provisos: no tangential discussions and attempts to take over the board and if you accuse anyone of plagiarism or anything terribly derogatory, please provide concrete evidence.

I would like to respond to SR’s post (#58) in detail:

“Chowk has survived nine years not because of its core constituency but in spite of it. This ‘core constituency’ is fickle and ever changing.”

This is what evolution is about. The dynamic cannot remain static.

“There has been nothing constant or consistent about Chowk save its founders’ commitment (or should I say “stubbornness” instead).”

If you start something, then unless you are a fruitcake you have got to keep at it. This is what unflinching idealism is about.

“They entertain lofty ideas about Chowk’s future but are constrained by the limitations of time and energy. The spirit is willing but the flesh gets weak.”

Take the example of world leaders, or people who have made a difference to thought processes, ideologies, society or to even a small group of ‘devotees’. It is possible to see lofty ideas through.

“It is the story of every altruistic mom and pop all volunteer enterprise. The bacon has to be brought home, the dog needs to be walked and the baby’s nappies have to be changed.”

Even corporate heads are lauded when they take time out to do different things. Most urban families have to bear this brunt, and they do.

And how much time do you think I spent? Everyday I gave at least 10-12 hours; I stayed up really late because of the time zone difference; I was particular about which column goes when so I have waited for the column to be sent; I have wooed ‘opposing’ writers (yet I was called partisan!); and, no, there was no editorial help at all. All the sections, articles were sifted through, edited and posted by me. Good, bad or ugly, I did it alone.

“Until there is a self-generation component to it that affords commercial viability for the whole enterprise and thus professional editorial services are made feasible, things will stay more or less the same.”

However, idealism can co-exist with commercial viability as Infosys has shown us. To not be commercial was Chowk’s choice. And what exactly is meant by ‘professional editorial services’? I worked in an honorary capacity and, if I may say so myself, I did it with extreme professionalism.

Chowk did not have a format, it did not have a schedule for columns and sections – I brought in those, hoping to make it an online magazine. Before June 1st I sent the exact scheduling to Chowk staff – whether to follow it and follow up with the writers or not was their choice.

I realise it does not make a whit of a difference. I see people openly say that they are here for ‘time pass’, to pick bones and be thorns in flesh. Except for the discerning few who can tell a Stilton from supermarket cheese slices, most prefer to smell a rat.

“The “Farzana experiment” could have worked much better if it was done differently. But I can say this only with hindsight. She gave her heart and soul but got bogged down because she personalized her role too far too fast.”

When you ‘take’ Farzana, it must be realised she comes with a history of extreme animosity towards her here. Others personalized everything. Had I got bogged down, you would not have had the variety of articles as per schedule. Work did not stop, and it was not haphazard. Yes, I took it upon myself to be held responsible for acts of commission and omission and had I not done so I would have fallen short in my own eyes.

“She should have remained anonymous at first (“Chowk Staff”) and thoroughly cleaned up the muck that clogs the plumbing before coming out of the closet so to speak. That approach might have stood a chance.”

If Chowk wanted anonymity, there were several nice, amenable people around. They wanted a face and voice to represent Chowk and according to them that was me. As Editor my work was to select, prune, commission, give briefs for articles and introduce sections; it was not to clean up. But that is what I had to get involved in when the muck started clogging even the main articles. I would not accept writers being abused and their boards being treated like lamp-posts. As a writer not once had I asked for anyone to be banned, but I know how it feels. That was my strength…call it personalising, if you will. (Unfortunately, the same writers who routinely wrote to me complaining about abusive posts now tell me they do not even interact on their articles…what can I say?)

“What Chowk is, or has become, is because of how it evolved. Only an evolutionary process (“artificial selection” perhaps) guided by a “hidden hand” could have worked to undo some of the ills that have snuck into the fabric of this cyber crossroads.”

It has been nine years. It was always the hidden hand. Did it work? Since June 1st, I seriously thought I would see people become more civil (at least the group that had a personal grudge against me and had infiltrated Chowk under various garbs). I am afraid, what I (and many can) see is not worth mentioning. And they have re-infiltrated.

[She tried to be a revolutionary instead and got burnt out by the entrenched resistance.]

I tried to be true to myself and what I and Chowk staff felt was right. I haven’t got burnt out, and my primary reason for opting out was the couple of projects I am working on (one of which I had implied in my last article.) But the ‘entrenched resistance’ reveals a lot about the kind of people who under the recourse of anonymity manage to get away with intellectual and emotional murder.

“Chowk didn’t need a Trotsky. It needed a Stalin. Let’s hope the next editor (whenever s/he reincarnates) is not a Gorbachev.”

Let’s hope s/he is not Russian, for sure!