|
|
|
|
Why does the Anglophone Indian want to be a Novelist?
The editorial speculates on the sociological causes for the boom in English fiction writing in India today.
 Read |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two letters responding to the editorial ‘The Nation and the Liberal Polemicist’ in Phalanx 3 and a reply from the editor.
Read |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How Indian TV Channels Pitched the 2009 elections to their audiences
Read
|
|
|
|
|
|
Films: |
|
|
Kaminey
by Vishal Bhardwaj
Read |
|
|
Inglourious Basterds
by Quentin Tarantino Read |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Home > Manifesto |
|
Manifesto: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phalanx: A Webzine for Continuing Debate
The mission
If debate is the purpose of Phalanx, its goal is to build a community sharing it, giving it worth – because debate is the most reliable measure of the intellectual development of a society.
Why debate?
“India is the world's largest democracy”: a familiar cliché but perhaps questionable as well. This is not only if one considers the small population actively involved in the democratic processes but also when one takes note of the level of debate currently on in the public space. After The Argumentative Indian allowed us to congratulate ourselves on the tradition of debate in our past, we must confront the fact that there is not much of it today although the notion is vital in a democracy. The print media once provided the platform required for a continuing discussion but, with the national press not playing its interrogative role, there is little intellectual debate on any subject/issue. As a symptom, we may cite the decline of book reviewing, once an acknowledged way of bringing issues into focus.
The only territory where criticism is freely allowed – where it is perhaps even imperative – is politics and, in this limited sense, we are a democracy. But the question to be asked is whether criticism has not become the norm in politics simply because ‘opposition’ is institutionalized. Unlike any other kind of activity in India, politicians are in the business of contradicting each other and this becomes the cue for others to be ‘critical’ of politics also.
Dropping standards
While people are fond of disparaging political mores, politics is not solely culpable for the universal lowering of standards. Intellectuals offer eulogies to their friends/acolytes even while incensed by the nepotism in public life. Bureaucrats write learned newspaper critiques of the policies/budgets that they have themselves quietly authored. Newspapers frankly sell editorial space and the people who make ‘news’ often pay for it. The educated class does not often voice these sentiments although it should – because the educated can look to no one else for it. Still, right utterances achieve very little by themselves and more is evidently required. Their expression should, at least, signal the beginning of an interrogation that tries to be disinterested and does not balk at the unpopular. Only when every issue/practice is reckoned worthy of interrogation are we democratic in the deeper sense, which is clearly the remedy to be sought. Phalanx is a quarterly webzine therefore conceived as a platform for critical debate on every pertinent subject.
Eclecticism, openness
Critical thought is in decline and intellectual issues have also become confined to specialist magazines/journals. The specialist magazine/journal has shortcomings and the most obvious one pertains to its debates not being fertilized through the inter-disciplinary approach. If different disciplines/practices influence each other (as culture and politics do, for instance) wouldn’t a common platform for varied disciplines be beneficial? The second (and perhaps more serious) drawback has to do with the specialist journal usually being pre-decided on its ideological perspective. This ‘pre-decidedness’ is a corollary of the notion that the primary debate is, implicitly, the grand ideological one between the right and the left. The left, being marginalized in politics, finds refuge in the cultural/intellectual space where it has entrenched itself. With the informal truce between the right and the left effectively dividing up the two domains between themselves, the grand debate is itself deferred. Ideologies talk to themselves, preaching to the converted, as it were. Since the grand debate never happens, one wonders if an ideological position is not, increasingly, a way of ‘positioning’ oneself. And if its ideological viewpoint is reduced to a ‘brand’ of some sort, has not the intellectual left also surrendered to the detested market? A possible remedy might be to circumvent the grand debate, to be open to smaller debates between different persuasions, in which case Phalanx can provide a useful platform.
Writers and readers
Phalanx is beginning as a webzine but it will eventually get into the print medium when it has a significant network of readers and writers, the ideal being to induce every reader to actually write for it. More people are writing now than ever – if one were to judge by the profusion of books and periodicals. At the same time, fewer writers actually engage with issues – making the right noises usually substitutes for the willingness to confront. ‘Literary skill’ is, by and large, only an ability to embellish. Still, Phalanx places its faith in there being writers (actual/potential) who have not expressed themselves – as they should – because the examples confronting them make self-expression appear futile. We speak out when there are listeners while the media makes intelligent people doubt they will find them.
What can the writer expect?
Being dedicated to debate and argument, Phalanx is open to discussing every pertinent issue although it insists on seriousness. There must be reasons for any subject to be discussed and the writer should be clear about them. Writers are free to take any stand in relation to their subjects as long as they do not simply make assertions or overlook logical inadequacies. It is not that Phalanx does not believe in ‘correct’ politics; but ‘wrong’ politics is so beset by logical fallacies that it is perhaps unnecessary to invoke ethics to refute it. In any case the writer should expect to be challenged in her/his arguments and conclusions. Those who mount the challenges may also be contradicted at every juncture. This, nevertheless, does not mean that Phalanx is intended as a platform for polemics. Polemics is about persuasion but the more familiar the polemic, the more it addresses those already persuaded. Phalanx insists that polemicists try to persuade those on the other side.
What can the reader expect?
One thing the reader may be assured of is that she/he will be provoked by Phalanx. The writing will strive to be readable. Still, ‘readability’ has come to mean pandering to the lowest common denominator, the reader as consumer rather than as participant. Since Phalanx hopes that all its readers will become contributors eventually, readers may expect intellectual demands to be made of them – although Phalanx is intended for the ‘lay’ public. At the same time, Phalanx sees no advantage in deliberate obfuscation and the needless employment of jargon will be discouraged. But once that is assured, there is no reason for the reader not to meet the writer half way – especially when the respective roles are not set but will hopefully be interchanged.
The content
Phalanx, being an initiative from India, will place its emphasis on issues of interest to Indian writers and readers although not wholly so. Further, Phalanx intends to keep its thrust as wide as possible to hasten the fertilization of its debates by disciplines interacting with one another. The areas tentatively identified are the social sciences/ humanities, the visual and performing arts, literature, law, economics, politics, management issues, the environment (built and unbuilt), policy matters, science and education, although that does not exhaust its possibilities. For instance, the management of Indian Cricket sounds a fascinating subject but what discipline would include it? In time, areas may also emerge where attention will concentrate. Phalanx’s ‘character’ will be molded, perhaps, by the proficiency it acquires.
The format
| • |
Since the writing in Phalanx will go beyond the merely informative to be reflective and/or argumentative, it is designated as a quarterly. This periodicity is expected to keep issues alive even while writers find time to reflect and respond.
|
| • |
The feature articles can be non-academic in nature and more broadly reflective although they can also be closely researched. Length is not a constraint – so long as Phalanx remains a webzine – but a length of 4000-5000 words is considered reasonable for researched articles and 3000-4000 words for other feature articles.
|
| • |
Phalanx also encourages reviews – largely books, cinema and theatre – and an average length of 1500-2000 words per review is desirable. Here again, although the purpose of a review is immediate, reflection on the specific issues raised will be preferred to piecemeal treatment (i.e.: story, acting, music, direction as in film reviews) or summary judgment.
|
| • |
Phalanx will also have a separate section for responses to specific articles/reviews and this section is expected to gather momentum over a period of time. Another ‘open page’ is kept aside for readers’ comments – through letters – on issues in the public domain although the expectation is that Phalanx’s readers will not respond perfunctorily but will look deeply at implications. Ideally, this section should also identify subjects for further discussion/debate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Editors:
| |
M K Raghavendra (Founder-Editor)
|
| |
Hans Varghese Mathews |
| |
Sharadini Rath |
| |
S A Shivashankar |
| |
C R Sridhar |
| |
S Sridhar |
| |
Subashree Krishnaswamy |
| |
Usha K R |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
|
|
