sa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sudheer Apte) (02/21/90)
FORMAL CALL FOR DISCUSSION: talk.politics.south-asia
What is talk.politics.south-asia?
Talk.politics.south-asia is a proposed newsgroup. There is a need to
discuss political history and events in the south asian region,
primarily in the Indian sub-continent. This newsgroup,
talk.politics.south-asia, will be for articles concerning political
developments and views concerning countries in the region.
Note: The term Sub-continent is used below to refer to the Indian
sub-continent. This includes Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal,
Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Also, "s.c.i." means soc.culture.indian,
where political opinions are currently aired.
Why a Separate Newsgroup?
Part of the idea is to reduce political postings on s.c.i., which
generate much of the heat on that group, The other is to create a
suitable forum for open discussions on sensitive but important topics.
The talk groups are traditionally unmoderated and of a free nature,
so unpopular postings are less likely to be flamed there just because
they are unpopular (I wish!). That is, nobody will be able to say,
"that's a sensitive topic, so it's best to avoid it" on
talk.politics.south-asia (unless it falls outside the charter---see
below). Also, the word "indian" in s.c.i.'s name have sometimes been
used to suppress postings by other nationals than Indian. This cannot
happen with the neutral name "south-asia."
What Kinds of Articles?
The following are expected to be posted on talk.politics.south-asia.
1) News of recent developments which may lead to political discussion.
(News items are still welcome on s.c.i., too, if not commented).
2) Discussions of ancient, medieval, and especially modern history
of events in the Sub-continent having political ramifications or
motives.
3) Discussions of ancient, medieval, and especially modern history of
events outside the Sub-continent having political ramifications in
the Sub-continent.
4) Commentary on international affairs, where at least one of the
nations is in the Sub-continent.
What Should Not Be Posted?
These kinds of postings are discouraged on talk.politics.south-asia:
1) Personal flames, as usual. These should be done by e-mail, if at
all.
2) Religion-bashing (political criticism of religious groups
excluded).
...{harvard, uunet}!andrew.cmu.edu!sa1z
sa1z%andrew@CMCCVB.BITNETsa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sudheer Apte) (02/21/90)
Kent Paul Dolan <xanthian@ads.com> writes: > Why Nepal but not Tibet? Have you consigned a once free people to > perpetual servitude? I sympathize with the Tibetans, and of course they would be welcome on such a group; listing Tibet with de facto nations, though, is making a strong political statement at the outset! But I see your point---the current charter excludes discussions on Tibetan affairs vis a vis China. If there's enough demand we could expand the charter to include such discussions. Is this a good idea, people? Sudheer. ---------------- ...{harvard, uunet}!andrew.cmu.edu!sa1z sa1z%andrew@CMCCVB.BITNET
dheeraj@saryu.cs.umd.edu (Dheeraj Sanghi) (02/21/90)
In article <EZsU=jG00WB9ATUno8@andrew.cmu.edu> sa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sudheer Apte) writes: >FORMAL CALL FOR DISCUSSION: talk.politics.south-asia >Why a Separate Newsgroup? > >Also, the word "indian" in s.c.i.'s name have sometimes been >used to suppress postings by other nationals than Indian. This cannot >happen with the neutral name "south-asia." How about the name soc.culture.saarc or talk.politics.saarc. Saarc is South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, whose members are Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Maldives. This would be on the same lines as s.c.asean. In fact, I would suggest we have two newsgroups s.c.saarc and t.p.saarc. We can remove s.c.indian and s.c.sri-lanka and also not create s.c.pakistan. This way, we can take care of problem of too much politics in the s.c.i as well as not discourage non-Indian issues in s.c.i (for there will be no s.c.i). -dheeraj -- Dheeraj Sanghi (h):301-794-6247 (o):301-454-1516 Internet: dheeraj@cs.umd.edu UUCP: uunet!mimsy!dheeraj 1991 is the VISIT INDIA year
sa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sudheer Apte) (02/22/90)
dheeraj@saryu.cs.umd.edu (Dheeraj Sanghi) writes: > How about the name soc.culture.saarc or talk.politics.saarc. Saarc > is South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, whose members > are Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and > Maldives. This would be on the same lines as s.c.asean. Sounds good to me. Anyone have problems with "talk.politics.saarc"? We can easily make this the name of the newsgroup. > In fact, I would suggest we have two newsgroups s.c.saarc and t.p.saarc. > We can remove s.c.indian and s.c.sri-lanka and also not create s.c.pakistan. > This way, we can take care of problem of too much politics in the > s.c.i as well as not discourage non-Indian issues in s.c.i (for there will > be no s.c.i). I wish we could do this, but I doubt if the s.c.i and s.c.s-l-ers will take such a suggestion very well. Any comments? Also, soc.culture.saarc sounds a little bogus, because SAARC is a political association, having nothing to do with culture (isn't it?) This is why I hadn't liked s.c.asean either. But I'm still open. Thanks for the input, Dheeraj. Is anyone listening, or are we talking amongst ourselves?! Sudheer. ----------------- ...{harvard, uunet}!andrew.cmu.edu!sa1z sa1z%andrew@CMCCVB.BITNET
siddarth@cs.utexas.edu (Siddarth Subramanian) (02/22/90)
In article <IZsjUEy00WB8E9fV0w@andrew.cmu.edu> sa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sudheer Apte) writes: >dheeraj@saryu.cs.umd.edu (Dheeraj Sanghi) writes: >> How about the name soc.culture.saarc or talk.politics.saarc. Saarc >> is South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, whose members >> are Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and >> Maldives. This would be on the same lines as s.c.asean. > >Sounds good to me. Anyone have problems with "talk.politics.saarc"? My problem with the name saarc is that it is a political association. Now, for example, if Pakistan leaves saarc, would the charter of the group be similarly restricted ? What's wrong with the original suggestion with south-asia being defined as the current members of saarc (with maybe Tibet thrown in). I think using the name of a political association in the name of a newsgroup is not a good idea. >> In fact, I would suggest we have two newsgroups s.c.saarc and t.p.saarc. >> We can remove s.c.indian and s.c.sri-lanka and also not create s.c.pakistan. >> This way, we can take care of problem of too much politics in the >> s.c.i as well as not discourage non-Indian issues in s.c.i (for there will >> be no s.c.i). > >I wish we could do this, but I doubt if the s.c.i and s.c.s-l-ers will >take such a suggestion very well. Any comments? The suggestion sounds good except that as you point out there will be too much resistance to it. I think a lot of the people who decry non-Indian postings on s.c.i. are going to be the ones who will insist on a Pakistani-free Sri-lankan-free s.c.i. >... are we talking among ourselves ? I'm here, but I suspect most s.c.i'ers don't subscribe to news.groups. If you want more input, cross-post. -- SIDDARTH SUBRAMANIAN siddarth@cs.utexas.edu