*If one doesn't know any thing at all about the 60 year old
Kashmir problem there are chances that one is an Islamophobe... If one
doesn't talk about cast violence at all one might be part of that violence
as well.. *
i was questioning this:
the more knowledge and active participation in
Hi,
As I have already clarified to Salim, I never blamed anybody in this group
for his/her silence in the Kashmir Issue, but the attempt was, as Ranju
pointed out, to initiate a dialogue on a hidden issue... The fact of the
matter was the silence of the mainstream media and intellectuals, which
hi aftab,
it is not based on 'pure' data of brutality we support/ oppose an issue. it
is not based on the difference between the number of people killed by indian
army and number of people killed by terrorists we take stand in kashmir
issue.
it is the discourse on certain issue determines our
One can support/oppose an issue... Claiming ignorance, when one very well
knows that, is different...
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 3:25 PM, ahmed rafeek j [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
hi aftab,
it is not based on 'pure' data of brutality we support/ oppose an issue.
it is not based on the difference
Killing and violence also influences one's discursive position
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 3:25 PM, ahmed rafeek j [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
hi aftab,
it is not based on 'pure' data of brutality we support/ oppose an issue.
it is not based on the difference between the number of people killed by
discourses determine one's position. not the opposite. we all, like
those who are having no knowledge on kashmir, caste system and etc,
are forced to take part in the same power mechanism of discourse.
more dissident knowledge and active participation in greenyouth
discussion won't deconstitute
i feel
it is not the question of how better one is placed or not.
attempt to initiate a debate on an issue need not be curbed by branding it
asa blame
by raising the issue of silence of mainstream discourse one is
critically/politically particiapting/initiating a debate.
blame it or not it is
There is absolutely no exhortation on anyone to comment on anything.
All that I personally implied is that only people who are on the giving end
of the hegemonic spectrum usually afford silences. There are many who
claim based on their experience (including the Govt of India at WCAR in
Durban and
In a Foucauldian vein...
There are many silences and many voices. Let us not
think of one SILENECE . There could be many ways in which one could be
silent in many discurisve situations.
Issues involving 'national integrity has always defined the limits of
human rights discourse in Kerala/
in the same vein..
though there r many discourses, and one discourse dominate
is it possible to look at one dominating silence?
even the possibilities are many
a conflation of such various negotiations may lead to one in that partcular
juncture
On 5/2/08, Dileep Raj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In
I find each situation relevant. But would like to highlight this line in
Afthab's first post.
Why Kashmir is excluded from our consciousness?
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:41 PM, ranju radha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in the same vein..
though there r many discourses, and one discourse
yes, there could be many silences and voices... and it is possible without
having the 'proud' feeling of representing all.
but highlighting certain discourses in red color as dominant agreein
that which (only) will the total system in danger can have some
'unjustifiable' inclination.
human right
yes, there could be many silences and voices... and it is possible without
having the 'proud' feeling of representing all.
but highlighting certain discourses in red color as dominant agreein
that which (only) will put the total system in danger can have some
'unjustifiable' inclination.
*Today, if you do not have an opinion on Kashmir (never mind whether you
actually know something about it or not) you are an 'Islamophobe'. If you
don't talk about caste violence, you are yourself part of that violence.*
If one doesn't know any thing at all about the 60 year old Kashmir
problem
we do not need to invoke the spirit of stalin or hitler, if one claims any
part in the indian social or political system, claims education (including
computer literacy), comments on what is good or bad for Indian economy and
governance and does not know about kashmir or the deeply embedded caste
I didn't say that I don't know or have no comments, if that is what you
imply, but take any issue, there are sufficient number of 'well educated',
'computer literate' people who do not know a thing about it. This is from
personal experience.
I don't find any difference between 'you have to
This is quite odd... Why Kashmir is excluded from our consciousness? I would
like to believe that this report is not true... But if it is, this is done
in the name of Indian democracy, that we are responsible for...
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Anivar Aravind [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
afthab,
u mean the report of mass grave at uri area in kashmir is wrong? or the
civil society responses and actions to it?
what is wrong if the reporting and the actions done in the name of indian
democracy?
On 5/1/08, Afthab Ellath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is quite odd... Why Kashmir is
'cold response' sounds like an allegation. before also some members came up
and did the same about the cold response on dalit related mails.
do u think silence is always condemnable?
On 5/1/08, Afthab Ellath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was mentioning about our cold response to this report...
when u writehistory of a region and remain silent on many aspects- movemnts,
historical figures, culture of particular socail grp.-- and still want to
escape quoting democratic right to be silent, such politcal mimicry is
highly condemnable. the civil society's concerns are clearly reflctd on
Salim, I was not mentioning about this group... Do you think the coverage
of the media in such a serious matter justifiable?
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 2:00 PM, salimtk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'cold response' sounds like an allegation. before also some members came
up and did the same about the
*I was mentioning about our cold response to this report... Did we take it
as a serious matter? I worry, we didn't *
above line is aftab's.
when he said like OUR cold response and WE didnt take it serious, i cudnt
imagine that he was referring to the historians, media people,
intellectuals,
*nor did i imagine that he was referring the vacuumized representation of
marginalized people in history, which is clearly undebatable.*
When we talk about this exclusion, it is not total... It is selective...
Gujarat riots was covered, in length... Nandigram was covered... Even human
rights
There have been some members here who have shown tendencies towards grand
revolutions But that apart, when it comes to issues of caste - let me
draw a parallel to feminism - silence most often regardless of the mens rea
needs to be constructed as violence for no other reason, but how embedded
silence could be for multiple reasons. however, My silence on the issue of
muslims shows/expose my ideological/political inclinations. I should accept
that. Some people who proclaim to represent ALL cant digest it. They would
like to see themselves as saviours of ALL. Silence becomes a violent
25 matches
Mail list logo
