[WSF-Discuss] [arkitectindia] Fwd: [chhattisgarh-net] Romanticising Violence: A View from Pakistan [1 Attachment]

Sukla Sen sukla.sen at gmail.com
Thu Apr 29 13:02:25 CDT 2010


Dear Meher,

I had been away.
Got back only today.

Evidently, my idea was not to sing hallelujah to Indian variety of
"democratic capitalism".
The idea was to point out the monstrous baggage that the twentieth century
capitalism carries. And the dire need to shed that baggage.

As regards China, and the monstrous baggage, the precise comment is as
under:

Monstrous orders came up in the name of "Socialism". Killing millions and
sending innumerable people to the Gulags. The short-lived Kampuchea is just
the most remembered illustration.
During the Great Leap Forward (1958-61), in China, an estimated 30 million
people perished - extra deaths - unrecoginised and unmourned.
No one as much squeaked.
Years after, foreign demographers would decipher that.
Apologists are busy contesting the precise figure.
Forget about the deaths - however enormous the scale.
Just think of no one in China squeaked!
What a monstrous order!

Obviously, the emphasis is not on the scale of deaths, however
mind-boggling, but the fact that no one squeaked!
That exemplifies the monstrosities of the order.
And surely relevant, from my point of view, in determination of
"desirability".

As regards the feasibility part: "No precedence of success [of armed
"revolution"], in “democracies”."
That can hardly be casually dismissed as a mere accident of history.
One must ask oneself "why" and "how"?
An ostrich like attitude is hardly going to help.
As regards the Maoists, the last time they had captured power anywhere in
the world is in Kampuchea, back in the 70s.

Hence, the Conclusion (not quite in alignment with Ayan Rand!):

*Alternatives*: We are to hunt for based on our experiences.
*The term, "Socialism for the Twenty-First Century", which at least
implicitly acknowledges the huge problems with the twentieth century
version, as it actually obtained, deserves wide and serious attention.*
It is no exclusive preserve of Michael Lebowitz or whoever.
Nor it should remain restricted to Latin America.
And various concerns – ecology, gender, race/caste, culture, nuclear
holocaust etc. have to be integrated with the goal and also the path ahead.
The looming ecological doom demands utmost attention.
And, of course, *the central dream as captured in the Communist Manifesto,
in socialism "free development of each is the condition for the free
development of all', has got to be the guiding principle.*
*No readymade, off-the-shelf available, model is out there to be emulated.
Have to be worked out as we struggle ahead.*


That's in the way of a serious quest for "possible futures", just not
treading the (repeatedly failed) beaten path.
It's perhaps Einstein, not Ayan Rand, who had defined insanity as doing the
same experiment over and over again and expecting a different result!

 Sukla


On 25 April 2010 12:18, meher engineer <mengineer2003 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>  [Attachment(s) <#1283787f14defbf9_TopText> from meher engineer included
> below]
>
> *Dear Sukla,*
>
> *
> *
>
> *Any comments by me in what follows are in parentheses and begin with
> "ME".
> *
>
> *
> *
>
> *The article: “**Towards A New World: Via Maoist Insurgency?” in your
> email has a part that compares the armed and peaceful ways to  social
> change. The part contains the sentence, “That’s precisely why Indian Freedom
> Struggle occupies a special place in modern human history”, in parenthesis.
> I write this in reply to that sentence.  *
>
> * *
>
> *To see how special anything - not just armed revolution - is we need to
> see its fruits. Bitter and sweet. Chomsky did that, for at least as many 20
> th century social change movements as there are in your article, in
> “Counting the bodies”, and specifically for India and China by citing a
> comparison that Amartya Sen first made in his Tanco memorial Lecture. Here
> is what Chomsky wrote.   *
>
> * *
>
> *‘*Like others, Ryan (ME: Alan Ryan is someone who reviewed “The Black
> Book of Communisim” in  a New York Times Book Review; Chomsky describes
> him as “a distinguished academic scholar and social democratic commentator”)
> reasonably selects as Exhibit A of the criminal indictment the Chinese
> famines of 1958-61, with a death toll of 25-40 million, he reports, a
> sizeable chunk of the 100 million corpses the "recording angels" (ME: A
> “recording angel” is Ryan’s assessment of the piety and purity of “The Black
> Book’s” author) attribute to "Communism" (whatever that is, but let us use
> the conventional term). The terrible atrocity fully merits the harsh
> condemnation it has received for many years, renewed here. It is,
> furthermore, proper to attribute the famine to Communism. That conclusion
> was established most authoritatively in the work of economist Amartya Sen,
> whose comparison of the Chinese famine to the record of democratic India
> received particular attention when he won the Nobel Prize a few years ago.
> Writing in the early 1980s, Sen observed that India had suffered no such
> famine. He attributed the India-China difference to India's "political
> system of adversarial journalism and opposition," while in contrast, China's
> totalitarian regime suffered from "misinformation" that undercut a serious
> response, and there was "little political pressure" from opposition groups
> and an informed public (Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen, *Hunger and Public
> Action*, 1989; they estimate deaths at 16.5 to 29.5 million).
>
> The example stands as a dramatic "criminal indictment" of totalitarian
> Communism, exactly as Ryan writes. But before closing the book on the
> indictment we might want to turn to the other half of Sen's India-China
> comparison, which somehow never seems to surface despite the emphasis Sen
> placed on it. He observes that India and China had "similarities that were
> quite striking" when development planning began 50 years ago, including
> death rates. "But there is little doubt that as far as morbidity, mortality
> and longevity are concerned, China has a large and decisive lead over India"
> (in education and other social indicators as well). He estimates the excess
> of mortality in India over China to be close to 4 million a year: "India
> seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years
> than China put there in its years of shame," 1958-1961 (Dreze and Sen).
>
> In both cases, the outcomes have to do with the "ideological
> predispositions" of the political systems: for China, relatively equitable
> distribution of medical resources, including rural health services, and
> public distribution of food, all lacking in India. This was before 1979,
> when "the downward trend in mortality [in China] has been at least halted,
> and possibly reversed," thanks to the market reforms instituted that year.’
>
> That ends what I want to say in reply to yr email.
>
> But, since I suspect that you have either nor read Chomsky’s article, or
> have read it and forgotten it, I will quote the next few paras from it
> because India and China, and Russia and Kampuchea and Peru and all the other
> armed revolution places you refer to do not add up to the world as it is
> today, let alone to the world as it has been from, say 1492 onwards.
>
> ‘Overcoming amnesia, suppose we now apply the methodology of the *Black
> Book* and its reviewers to the full story, not just the doctrinally
> acceptable half. We therefore conclude that in India the democratic
> capitalist "experiment" since 1947 has caused more deaths than in the entire
> history of the "colossal, wholly failed...experiment" of Communism
> everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, tens of millions
> more since, in India alone. The "criminal indictment" of the "democratic
> capitalist experiment" becomes harsher still if we turn to its effects after
> the fall of Communism: millions of corpses in Russia, to take one case, as
> Russia followed the confident prescription of the World Bank that "Countries
> that liberalise rapidly and extensively turn around more quickly [than those
> that do not]," returning to something like what it had been before World War
> I, a picture familiar throughout the "third world." But "you can't make an
> omelette without broken eggs," as Stalin would have said. The indictment
> becomes far harsher if we consider these vast areas that remained under
> Western tutelage, yielding a truly "colossal" record of skeletons and
> "absolutely futile, pointless and inexplicable suffering" (Ryan). The
> indictment takes on further force when we add to the account the countries
> devastated by the direct assaults of Western power, and its clients, during
> the same years.’
> Can I add that you might consider being a little less harsh towards our
> possible futures, in so far as those futures are about changing our many
> unacceptable "presents", by not foreclosing on plans of action that have not
> worked in the past just because they did not so "No" to violence. Doing so
> makes Non-violence a matter of faith, something that even the Buddha ruled
> out.
>
> regards,
>
> meher
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Sukla Sen <sukla.sen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Done.
>> Along with an earlier note of mine, predating Arundhati Roy's subject
>> piece dealing with the issue at centre.
>> And two links providing some comments on Roy's article.
>>
>> Sukla
>>
>> I. <
>> http://kafila.org/2010/04/10/getting-indian-democracy-right-rohini-hensman/
>> >
>> II. <
>> http://radicalsocialist.in/index.php/articles/national-situation/164-three-responses-to-arundhati-roy
>> >.
>>
>>
>> http://www.facebook.com/sukla.sen?v=app_2347471856&ref=profile#!/note.php?note_id=318738120436<http://www.facebook.com/sukla.sen?v=app_2347471856&ref=profile#%21/note.php?note_id=318738120436>
>>
>>
>> <http://www.facebook.com/sukla.sen?v=app_2347471856&ref=profile#%21/note.php?note_id=318738120436>
>>  Towards A New World: Via Maoist Insurgency?
>>
>>  Monday, 26 October 2009
>>
>> [The following is a short note to evoke informed discussions.]
>>
>> *First thing first.*
>> *Nowhere in the world, till today, armed revolution has succeeded in any
>> "functioning democracy".* Whatever the inadequacies or grave problems
>> with such orders.
>> That's very important.
>> The only apparent exception that one could point at is the first
>> "Socialist Revolution" in Russia, back in 1917.
>> In February, Tsar was deposed and "democracy" established. In the
>> following October (November), the Revolution took place overrunning the
>> "democratic" order.
>> But then, one could very well argue, the October Revolution was in its
>> essence a sort of briefly interrupted continuation of the closely preceding
>> February Revolution. Under the conditions of tremendous flux - the WWI and
>> at the end the failed Kornilov Revolt, a counterrevolutionary armed
>> venture.
>> In any case, if at all, that's the only, repeat only, exception.
>>
>> *Armed revolutions have, however, been more of a rule than exception in
>> colonised countries, countries under autocratic/dictatorial/monarchic/apartheid
>> rules.*
>> (That’s precisely why Indian Freedom Struggle occupies a special place in
>> modern human history.)
>>
>> But even there, the legitimisation of "violence" and brutalities as the
>> method for conflict resolution and putting an end to an unjust, and quite
>> grossly at that, order did leave its stamp on the new order to emerge,
>> pretty often.
>> *Kampuchea is a much talked of rather recent illustration.*
>>
>> *As regards the fate of Maoist insurgencies worldwide in the recent
>> decades*, we had three major hubs, other than India: Peru, Nepal,
>> Philippines.
>>
>> *In Peru*, the Shining Path, known for its brutalities, with its supreme
>> leader Guzman captured in 1992 and stood wiped out by 2000.
>> In Philippines, the insurgencies have very significantly declined.
>>
>> *In Nepal*, after some initial spectacular success, Maoist insurgency
>> faced a sort of stalemate. At the same time, there was (unarmed) mass
>> upsurge – Jan Andolan II - in the valley, from where the Maoists had
>> withdrawn quite some time back, against the monarchical rule. King Gyanendra
>> had to abdicate under the massive impact of civil disobedience on April 24
>> 2006. The Maoists initially rejected it and publicly derided the Seven Party
>> Alliance and the civil society organisations for accepting that (ref.:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4942378.stm). In three days’ time,
>> however, they reversed the stand (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi
>> /south_asia/4949066.stm). Declared a unilateral truce and then forswore
>> insurgency to enter into an understanding with the Seven Party Alliance and
>> join the "democratic" mainstream.
>> For that the Indian Maoists have sharply derided them. So much so that the
>> Gen. Secy. of the CPI(Maoists), Ganapathy, has in a very recent interview
>> has issued a call to the Nepali Maoists to revolt against their party
>> leadership. Nothing less.
>> Quote
>> It is heartening to hear that a section of the leadership of the UCPN(M)
>> has begun to struggle against the revisionist positions taken by Comrade
>> Prachanda and others. Given the great revolutionary traditions of the
>> UCPN(M), we hope that the inner-party struggle will repudiate the right
>> opportunist line pursued by its leadership, give up revisionist stands and
>> practices, and apply minds creatively to the concrete conditions of Nepal.
>> Unquote
>> (See: http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/revo
>> lution-in-india-interview-with-cpi-maoist-leader-ganapathi/. Also see:
>> 'Open Letter to Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist): From the
>> Communist Party of India (Maoist)' at <http://www.bannedthought.n
>> et/India/CPI-Maoist-Docs/index.htm>.)
>>
>> *In India, the Maoist insurgencies are restricted to the most backward
>> regions*: inhabited mostly by appallingly poor adivasis, typically in
>> mountainous and/or forested terrains.
>> In the eastern and central regions.
>> These insurgencies, thereby, have strong ethnic dimensions.
>> Nothing in the metros, cities and towns. Not even in most of the villages.
>>
>> *In the recent years, particularly in Latin America, militant, but
>> essentially unarmed, mass mobilisations have brought about significant
>> shifts in regimes and their policies in a number of countries without
>> actually breaching the limits of "democracy".*
>> The processes are of course on. Not without ups and downs. Far from any
>> definitive closure.
>>
>> *Even in India, myriad struggles are on, on myriad issues*. Ranging from
>> gender to caste, from land rights to ecology.
>> Struggles against the anti-people SEZ, fired up by the spectacular success
>> of the militant - but essentially unarmed - struggle of Nandigram have made
>> a very significant impact on state policies.
>> *A comparison between Nandigram and Lalgarh could be highly instructive.*
>> If Nandigram caused the SEZ juggernaut to significantly slow down its
>> pace; Lalgrah has gone to radically raise the pitch of clamour for the
>> Operation Green Hunt.
>>
>> *As regards the path/goal*, we’ll also have to look into three
>> parameters:
>> Feasibility of the path.
>> Desirability of the goal.
>> (Possible) Alternatives as regards path and goal..
>>
>> *Feasibility*: No precedence of success, in “democracies”.
>>
>> *Desirability*: Monstrous orders came up in the name of "Socialism".
>> Killing millions and sending innumerable people to the Gulags. The
>> short-lived Kampuchea is just the most remembered illustration.
>> During the Great Leap Forward (1958-61), in China, an estimated 30 million
>> people perished - extra deaths - unrecoginised and unmourned.
>> No one as much squeaked.
>> Years after, foreign demographers would decipher that.
>> Apologists are busy contesting the precise figure.
>> Forget about the deaths - however enormous the scale.
>> Just think of no one in China squeaked!
>> What a monstrous order!
>>
>> *Alternatives*: We are to hunt for based on our experiences.
>> *The term, "Socialism for the Twenty-First Century", which at least
>> implicitly acknowledges the huge problems with the twentieth century
>> version, as it actually obtained, deserves wide and serious attention.*
>> It is no exclusive preserve of Michael Lebowitz or whoever.
>> Nor it should remain restricted to Latin America.
>> And various concerns – ecology, gender, race/caste, culture, nuclear
>> holocaust etc. have to be integrated with the goal and also the path ahead.
>> The looming ecological doom demands utmost attention.
>> And, of course, *the central dream as captured in the Communist
>> Manifesto, in socialism "free development of each is the condition for the
>> free development of all', has got to be the guiding principle.*
>> *No readymade, off-the-shelf available, model is out there to be
>> emulated. Have to be worked out as we struggle ahead.*
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Sanjeev Mahajan <veejnasnajaham at gmail.com>
>> Date: 23 April 2010 10:11
>> Subject: Re: [chhattisgarh-net] Romanticising Violence: A View from
>> Pakistan
>> To: sukla.sen at gmail.com
>>
>>
>> Dear Sukla,
>> I hope you will post my response to all the lists where you posted the
>> original article. I don't have access to these lists except for cgnet.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sanjeev
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Sanjeev Mahajan <
>> veejnasnajaham at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> To reiterate for the nth time, I wish people would actually address the
>>> contents of the article that Arundhati Roy wrote, not simply indulge in name
>>> calling and misrepresentation of her views. For one, she did not write an
>>> article in 'favor of the Maoists'. She wanted to understand what the Maoist
>>> movement is all about, and hear their story from their own perspective.
>>> Understanding the movement is not the same as extolling it, unless one
>>> agrees with George Bush's 'wisdom'. It is also quite interesting that none
>>> of these folks who are ever ready to pontificate have actually read the
>>> article. If they had actually read the article, they would not be trucking
>>> in silly cliches about Maoists. When she refers to Maoists as Gandhians with
>>> guns, Roy is specifically talking about their abhorrence for waste and
>>> consumption. Here is the relevant paragraph
>>>
>>> "*As far as consumption goes, it's more Gandhian than any Gandhian, and
>>> has a lighter carbon footprint than any climate change evangelist. But for
>>> now, it even has Gandhian approach to sabotage; before a police vehicle is
>>> burnt, for example, it is stripped down and every part cannibalized. The
>>> steering wheel is straightened out and made into a bharmaar, the rexine
>>> upholstery stripped and used for ammunition pouches, the battery for solar
>>> charging.*
>>>
>>> Most of the article is given over to such malicious or inadvertent
>>> misrepresentation of her views. Is it all the author got from reading the
>>> article(if he indeed did read it) that Roy thinks that 'rebels are
>>> essentially good people.'? He also says that Roy questions the legitimacy of
>>> a state to declare war against its own people. I presume he disagrees, and
>>> thinks that it is legitimate for a state to declare war against its own
>>> people. He then says that Roy holds state policies responsible for the
>>> creation of Maoists. But it is not just Roy who believes that. Indeed
>>> state's own Planning Commission wrote a position paper which argued
>>> essentially the same point.
>>>
>>> As for "show trials", here is the relevant paragraph from Roy's article.
>>> I will let the readers decide if the Maoists (or at least the ones Roy met)
>>> are as trigger happy as the media love to portray them.
>>>
>>> *I asked what happened to the seven people who were captured. "The area
>>> committee called a jan adalat. Four thousand people attended it. They
>>> listened to the whole story. Two of the SPOs were sentenced to death. Five
>>> were warned and let off. The people decided. Even with informers-which is
>>> becoming a huge problem nowadays-people listen to the case, the stories, the
>>> confessions and say, 'Iska hum risk nahin le sakte(We're not prepared to
>>> take risk of trusting this person)', or 'Iska hum risk lenge(We are prepared
>>> to take the risk of trusting this person)', or about informers who are
>>> killed. Never about many who are let off. So everybody thinks it is some
>>> bloodthirsty procedure in which everybody is killed. It's not about revenge.
>>> It's about survival and saving lives... Of course, there are problems, we've
>>> made terrible mistakes, we have even killed wrong people in our ambushes
>>> thinking they were policemen, but it is not the way it's portrayed in the
>>> media.
>>>
>>> *It is possible that aspects of this testimony are self-serving, but at
>>> least it is a useful antidote to the corporate media's shrill and hysterical
>>> portrayal of the 'very violent, and very brutal' Maoist movement.
>>>
>>> Sanjeev
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Sukla Sen <sukla.sen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://tribune.com.pk/story/8182/romanticising-violence/
>>>>
>>>> Romanticising violence
>>>> By Tazeen Javed
>>>>
>>>> April 22, 2010
>>>>
>>>> Ever since Arundhati Roy published her long article recently in favour
>>>> of
>>>> what the Indian government calls Maoist rebels, the Indian media and
>>>> blogosphere has quite unanimously denounced Roy, labelling her naive
>>>> admiration for the Maoists a proclivity towards left-wing utopianism.
>>>>
>>>> Roy enraged a lot of Indians when she called very violent Maoists
>>>> Gandhians
>>>> with arms adherents of the philosophy of non violence consider this
>>>> sacrilegious. Just like Arundhati Roy, Pakistan has Imran Khan who
>>>> supports
>>>> the Taliban and is critical of army operations in Swat and Fata. Like
>>>> Roy,
>>>> Khan also believes that it is the circumstances that have turned
>>>> peace-loving tribals into warring security threats.
>>>>
>>>> If you hear their arguments, they are almost identical. They both
>>>> question
>>>> the legitimacy of a state to declare war against its own citizens, they
>>>> both
>>>> think the state policies are responsible for the creation of the Taliban
>>>> and
>>>> Maoists in their respective countries, and they both think that rebels
>>>> are
>>>> essentially good people.
>>>>
>>>> The modus operandi of the Taliban and the Maoists are similar. Both are
>>>> brutal and only believe in their own version of justice. Both conduct
>>>> show
>>>> trials and execute whomever they deem guilty. Both use explosive devices
>>>> against government officials, police, army and common people. Both try
>>>> to
>>>> control the supply lines in their respective areas.
>>>>
>>>> Both recruit under-age boys, at times by force, and brainwash them into
>>>> carrying out operations. The situation in both the insurgency inflicted
>>>> areas is similar. People on both sides of the border have legitimate
>>>> grievances  62 years into independence, their rights like access to
>>>> water
>>>> and sewerage have been neglected by successive governments.
>>>>
>>>> The parallels dont just end here. If President Zaradri calls the Taliban
>>>>
>>>> the biggest security threat then Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
>>>> has
>>>> called the Maoist threat the gravest national security crisis India
>>>> faces.
>>>> The Taliban in Pakistan and Maoists in India are lucky to find
>>>> supporters in
>>>> Khan and Roy.
>>>>
>>>> If Imran Khan is a firebrand speaker who can get college kids to support
>>>> his
>>>> cause, then Roys reputation as a prize winning writer and activist lends
>>>>
>>>> credo to the Maoist cause. If he speaks at left- wing forums in England
>>>> and
>>>> regales them with tales of government atrocities against the Taliban,
>>>> Roy
>>>> portrays a romantic image of the Maoists fighting the big bad government
>>>> and
>>>> capitalism.
>>>>
>>>> Imran Khan won the world cup for Pakistan in 1992 and Arundhati Roy won
>>>> her
>>>> Booker prize in 1997. They may truly believe in the cause of the Maoists
>>>> and
>>>> the Taliban or perhaps they always root for the underdog, but one must
>>>> keep
>>>> in mind that it can also be a case of keeping the adulation of people
>>>> alive
>>>> through taking up causes against the government.
>>>>
>>>> Even though we live in times when non-state actors are considered
>>>> responsible for most of the chaos and terrorism, being anti state is
>>>> still
>>>> considered cool. If you hear the arguments presented by Roy and Khan,
>>>> everything is either black or white but in politics and more so in power
>>>> politics, things are almost always grey.
>>>>
>>>> The state has failed to address the issues of its people but even then,
>>>> only
>>>> the state has the legitimacy to change it. Romanticising violence may
>>>> win
>>>> Arundhati Roy and Imran Khan popularity, but it can never provide a long
>>>> lasting solution for peace.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> --
>> Peace Is Doable
>>
>
>
>
> --
> meher engineer
>
>  __._,_.___
>
> Attachment(s) from meher engineer
>
> 1 of 1 File(s)
>   CountingTheBodies.htm<http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/8951350/1744587647/name/CountingTheBodies%2Ehtm>
>    Reply to sender<mengineer2003 at gmail.com?subject=Re:+%5Barkitectindia%5D+Fwd:+%5Bchhattisgarh-net%5D+Romanticising+Violence:+A+%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0+View+from+Pakistan>| Reply
> to group<arkitectindia at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re:+%5Barkitectindia%5D+Fwd:+%5Bchhattisgarh-net%5D+Romanticising+Violence:+A+%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0+View+from+Pakistan>| Reply
> via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arkitectindia/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwMDgzY2RxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzg5NTEzNTAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MDg1BG1zZ0lkAzc1MDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMjcyMjQxOTY4?act=reply&messageNum=7508>| Start
> a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arkitectindia/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaWpianA3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzg5NTEzNTAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MDg1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTI3MjI0MTk2OA-->
> Messages in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arkitectindia/message/7488;_ylc=X3oDMTM0Zzg5YXRoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzg5NTEzNTAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MDg1BG1zZ0lkAzc1MDgEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMjcyMjQxOTY4BHRwY0lkAzc0ODg->(
> 2)
>  Recent Activity:
>
>    - New Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arkitectindia/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZHZjZzhtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzg5NTEzNTAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MDg1BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNzIyNDE5Njg-?o=6>
>    33
>
>  Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arkitectindia;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbGE4Z3BtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzg5NTEzNTAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MDg1BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTI3MjI0MTk2OA-->
>  MARKETPLACE
>
> Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get
> the Yahoo! Toolbar now.<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15oknp1j7/M=493064.13983314.13965207.13298430/D=groups/S=1705064085:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1272249169/L=3e3f829e-50cb-11df-a934-1fbdeddea3d0/B=9Gb1HWKImlw-/J=1272241969742358/K=bMh26pOW5giR94BP6C_RcA/A=6060255/R=0/SIG=1194m4keh/*http://us.toolbar.yahoo.com/?.cpdl=grpj>
>   ------------------------------
>
> Welcome to Mom Connection! Share stories, news and more with moms like you.<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15os4aof7/M=493064.13814537.13965224.10835568/D=groups/S=1705064085:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1272249169/L=3e3f829e-50cb-11df-a934-1fbdeddea3d0/B=9Wb1HWKImlw-/J=1272241969742358/K=bMh26pOW5giR94BP6C_RcA/A=6042764/R=0/SIG=11jbo19n3/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/momconnection>
>  ------------------------------
>
> Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new
> interests.<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15ofr1pig/M=493064.14012770.13963757.13298430/D=groups/S=1705064085:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1272249169/L=3e3f829e-50cb-11df-a934-1fbdeddea3d0/B=9mb1HWKImlw-/J=1272241969742358/K=bMh26pOW5giR94BP6C_RcA/A=6015306/R=0/SIG=11vlkvigg/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/hobbiesandactivitieszone/>
>   [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkODllZGYzBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzg5NTEzNTAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MDg1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjcyMjQxOTY4>
> Switch to: Text-Only<arkitectindia-traditional at yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>,
> Daily Digest<arkitectindia-digest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>•
> Unsubscribe<arkitectindia-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>• Terms
> of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>    .
>
> __,_._,___
>



-- 
Peace Is Doable
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net/attachments/20100429/d91f759e/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the WorldSocialForum-Discuss mailing list