--- maheep thapar <maheepthapar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Theres nothing wrong about the lond and heavy worded
> letters Gita. You definitely are showing the picture
> that many may not want to even discuss.
> I hope you are getting some results.
> Did you attend the WSF?
WSF. didn't 'attend'. went to protest that rights
event - before WSF started, for debate afterwards.
results. oh yes, aplenty. except from the fraternity.
picture. here's an excerpt from something i'm writing
for a talk. funny capture of dis-connect, i think.
---
I work as planner to Civil Society Groups engaging
synergistically and exclusively on securing
entitlements under planning law and, as corollary,
against illegal development that jeopardizes these.
These CBOs, NGOs and businesses do not feature in the
discourse and have 'no control over its decisions
affecting them', their lawful position
notwithstanding. The planned development discourse is
entirely dominated by a consortium of Civil Society
groups and individuals synergistically advocating
'alternatives' (in the endowment paradigm, unlawful
and repugnant to planners). I do sometimes get calls
from Young Employees in [these other] NGOs (YEN),
often on recommendation of some reputed Architect /
Planner Academic (APA). The conversation goes somewhat
like the following one about hawkers:
YEN: Madam we know you do not talk to NGOs but APA
said you are really concerned about hawkers and so
would talk to us.
Me: You are hawker?
YEN: No, but we are concerned about hawkers and can
help you.
Me: But I am not hawker.
YEN: But you are concerned
Me: But I don't need help to feel concerned.
YEN: But we are concerned and you must help us.
Me: You need help to keep feeling concerned?
YEN: No, help about hawkers.
Me: But you are not hawker.
YEN: APA said you help them.
Me: APA does not know my work. I know APA is not
hawker. Is APA concerned?
YEN: We should all help.
Me: Help who ? those wanting to feel concerned or
hawkers?
YEN: Hawkers.
Me: Sure. I provide planner services to hawkers and
others aggrieved by unplanned hawking. You have my
number, give it to anyone who needs planner services.
Tell me what services you and APA provide and your
numbers and I'll do likewise. Okay?
YEN: No! Experts must talk to NGOs.
Me: Who said so? Your NGO? Or APA?
YEN: APA talks to NGOs.
Me: Good. Then NGOs can talk to APA. Okay?
YEN: But you are the planner.
Me: That I am. So?
YEN: NGOs need to talk to planners.
Me: Ah! What made them think so now?
YEN: Hawkers you work for speak highly of you.
Me: Ah! So NGOs feel need to talk to anyone hawkers I
work with speak highly of?
YEN: No! Your paper 'Hawking Hawkers' on the web is
very good.
Me: Thank you, have you read it?
YEN: Yes.
Me: If the rest of your NGO can read, ask them to read
it. Else read it to them. Consider that talking.
YEN: You can write a paper for our book.
Me: The handbook your NGO just published for or on
behalf of all citizens boasts of basis in early
morning thoughts of its proprietors-cum-scholars. I'd
rather publish with less presumptuous and more serious
publishing houses, professional journals, public
media, etc, since I am modest professional.
YEN: This time we have decided to involve experts.
Me: Very magnanimous, I am sure. Maybe APA would like
to be involved. I could suggest a few other APAs like
him, if you are looking outside the circle of friends
of proprietors-cum-scholars.
YEN: But professionals like you must talk to NGOs.
Me: Professionals must talk to clients, peers and
students. And I don't trust funded and/or socialite
NGOs and believe government should talk to experts as
well as to hawkers without their mediation.
YEN: But we are also concerned and want to help
hawkers.
Me: Do let me know if I am obstructing the ooze in any
way and I will surely step aside.
YEN: But it is your responsibility that those wanting
to do something should do it right.
Me: Oye, how? You are not my toddlers that I have to
mind you don't hurt yourself or do damage. If
anything, it is your responsibility to mind you don't
hurt my clients or me. How about stopping hurting us
first ? for confidence-building for further talks?
YEN: Madam, I am only a young employee here. Can I
meet you in personal capacity?
Me: Sweetie, as young employee you can transfer this
call to a proprietor-cum-scholar uncle or auntie ?
they should anyway have had the courtesy to call up an
expert themselves ? or you can hang up and forget this
conversation or you can call again after you have
thought up one good reason why I should talk with your
NGO. In personal capacity, I'd be very happy to talk
to you if you call again after you have figured out
why you are doing what you are doing or, failing that,
quit getting paid to do it and still feel concerned
about hawkers. Okay?
YEN: Yes madam, I will call.
I've had such conversations about housing, livelihood,
education, environment, heritage, etc ? issues on
which (marginalized in discourse) Civil Society groups
I am planner to are engaging from an entitlements
perspective and dominant Civil Society groups that
callers represent are engaging in the endowment
paradigm. The 'overtures' are typically made after
months of 'conflict' and with no intent to dialogue
about fundamental positions. To me they smack of the
'paid-to-please' co-option attitude of irresponsible
donors, corporates and politicians towards experts,
with two significant differences. One, while the
latter view professional space as a whorehouse,
dominant Civil Society would rather have it for free
in camaraderie. Two, while donors, corporates and
politicians cannot freely demand that experts flirt
with their fanciful ideas that disregard and downsize
citizens' settled entitlements, as proxy for The
People Civil Society can divert expertise to butterfly
chasing on post-modernist meadows.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
> Theres nothing wrong about the lond and heavy worded
> letters Gita. You definitely are showing the picture
> that many may not want to even discuss.
> I hope you are getting some results.
> Did you attend the WSF?
WSF. didn't 'attend'. went to protest that rights
event - before WSF started, for debate afterwards.
results. oh yes, aplenty. except from the fraternity.
picture. here's an excerpt from something i'm writing
for a talk. funny capture of dis-connect, i think.
---
I work as planner to Civil Society Groups engaging
synergistically and exclusively on securing
entitlements under planning law and, as corollary,
against illegal development that jeopardizes these.
These CBOs, NGOs and businesses do not feature in the
discourse and have 'no control over its decisions
affecting them', their lawful position
notwithstanding. The planned development discourse is
entirely dominated by a consortium of Civil Society
groups and individuals synergistically advocating
'alternatives' (in the endowment paradigm, unlawful
and repugnant to planners). I do sometimes get calls
from Young Employees in [these other] NGOs (YEN),
often on recommendation of some reputed Architect /
Planner Academic (APA). The conversation goes somewhat
like the following one about hawkers:
YEN: Madam we know you do not talk to NGOs but APA
said you are really concerned about hawkers and so
would talk to us.
Me: You are hawker?
YEN: No, but we are concerned about hawkers and can
help you.
Me: But I am not hawker.
YEN: But you are concerned
Me: But I don't need help to feel concerned.
YEN: But we are concerned and you must help us.
Me: You need help to keep feeling concerned?
YEN: No, help about hawkers.
Me: But you are not hawker.
YEN: APA said you help them.
Me: APA does not know my work. I know APA is not
hawker. Is APA concerned?
YEN: We should all help.
Me: Help who ? those wanting to feel concerned or
hawkers?
YEN: Hawkers.
Me: Sure. I provide planner services to hawkers and
others aggrieved by unplanned hawking. You have my
number, give it to anyone who needs planner services.
Tell me what services you and APA provide and your
numbers and I'll do likewise. Okay?
YEN: No! Experts must talk to NGOs.
Me: Who said so? Your NGO? Or APA?
YEN: APA talks to NGOs.
Me: Good. Then NGOs can talk to APA. Okay?
YEN: But you are the planner.
Me: That I am. So?
YEN: NGOs need to talk to planners.
Me: Ah! What made them think so now?
YEN: Hawkers you work for speak highly of you.
Me: Ah! So NGOs feel need to talk to anyone hawkers I
work with speak highly of?
YEN: No! Your paper 'Hawking Hawkers' on the web is
very good.
Me: Thank you, have you read it?
YEN: Yes.
Me: If the rest of your NGO can read, ask them to read
it. Else read it to them. Consider that talking.
YEN: You can write a paper for our book.
Me: The handbook your NGO just published for or on
behalf of all citizens boasts of basis in early
morning thoughts of its proprietors-cum-scholars. I'd
rather publish with less presumptuous and more serious
publishing houses, professional journals, public
media, etc, since I am modest professional.
YEN: This time we have decided to involve experts.
Me: Very magnanimous, I am sure. Maybe APA would like
to be involved. I could suggest a few other APAs like
him, if you are looking outside the circle of friends
of proprietors-cum-scholars.
YEN: But professionals like you must talk to NGOs.
Me: Professionals must talk to clients, peers and
students. And I don't trust funded and/or socialite
NGOs and believe government should talk to experts as
well as to hawkers without their mediation.
YEN: But we are also concerned and want to help
hawkers.
Me: Do let me know if I am obstructing the ooze in any
way and I will surely step aside.
YEN: But it is your responsibility that those wanting
to do something should do it right.
Me: Oye, how? You are not my toddlers that I have to
mind you don't hurt yourself or do damage. If
anything, it is your responsibility to mind you don't
hurt my clients or me. How about stopping hurting us
first ? for confidence-building for further talks?
YEN: Madam, I am only a young employee here. Can I
meet you in personal capacity?
Me: Sweetie, as young employee you can transfer this
call to a proprietor-cum-scholar uncle or auntie ?
they should anyway have had the courtesy to call up an
expert themselves ? or you can hang up and forget this
conversation or you can call again after you have
thought up one good reason why I should talk with your
NGO. In personal capacity, I'd be very happy to talk
to you if you call again after you have figured out
why you are doing what you are doing or, failing that,
quit getting paid to do it and still feel concerned
about hawkers. Okay?
YEN: Yes madam, I will call.
I've had such conversations about housing, livelihood,
education, environment, heritage, etc ? issues on
which (marginalized in discourse) Civil Society groups
I am planner to are engaging from an entitlements
perspective and dominant Civil Society groups that
callers represent are engaging in the endowment
paradigm. The 'overtures' are typically made after
months of 'conflict' and with no intent to dialogue
about fundamental positions. To me they smack of the
'paid-to-please' co-option attitude of irresponsible
donors, corporates and politicians towards experts,
with two significant differences. One, while the
latter view professional space as a whorehouse,
dominant Civil Society would rather have it for free
in camaraderie. Two, while donors, corporates and
politicians cannot freely demand that experts flirt
with their fanciful ideas that disregard and downsize
citizens' settled entitlements, as proxy for The
People Civil Society can divert expertise to butterfly
chasing on post-modernist meadows.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/