Everybody knows that language warfare is an important
reality in new politics.new latin american spring
thunders are effectively using language
politics.dialogue space is enlarging and it
accommodates different opininons,computer net
works,civil society invitations,,interviews etc are
opening opening new dialogue spaces.Beyond capturing
state-party system,They confront people with new
ideas.let us study from the polemics of james petras
and john golloway.let chithralekha incident open new
democratic spaces.
--- Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A correction first.
> "though i asked wher r they? that provoked dilip"
>
> It's incorrect reporting. I asked couple of critical
> questionsin response to
> Ranjith's
> arguments. That provoked him. He attacked me [ not
> my arguments] . This,
> only by way of reminding what happened.
>
> On the problematization of metaphors like '
> healthy', ' ulparty
> janadhipathyam' I agree with Ranjith's points.We
> couldn't be univocal in
> using words in best of times. So,
> that could be more difficult in polemical
> situations. My dream is that we
> could
> articulate our concerns without being excessively
> bothered about political
> correctness.
> When I am making myself available for criticism with
> all contradictions, I
> am also
> expressing my willingness to withdraw my statements
> if somebody show that
> to be
> problrmatic. While entering into a discussion, it is
> very difficult to
> proceed if this readyness is onesided. Once somebody
> claim that s/he is
> participating in a debate for polemical
> purposes, it is very difficult to proceed. But in
> the process, I found that
> practice and standpoints are two different things.
> Ranjith is equally
> reflexive and democratic in the course of the
> debate. Thus my remark ' it is
> healthy' , like 'ulparty janadhipathyam.' etc.
> No. I didn't imply that the dsicussion should be
> stopped. I meant the exact
> opposite.
> But I have a request. If possible do allow some
> margin for conscious use of
> problematic
> usages/ metaphors/ idioms.
>
> Why I referred to Ranjith's certain critiques as '
> displaced discourse'
> earlier have connection with this. Ours is a new,
> pertinenet dialogue. It
> try to capture, theorise and enrich our political
> present/ practical
> experiences. In that way we are not repeating /
> quoting / settling any
> earlier debate .Nor do we expect that we could
> settle all our debates
> here. It is a bit mechanical to bring in the '
> correct arguments' wherever
> you find a word/ expression/ sentenece, disregarding
> the immediate context
> of the discussion. Is it an effective way to brand
> whoever disagree with
> Ranjith or Venugopal as brahmanical and rehearse
> arguments against
> brahmanism? Is it that simple? Thus my request not
> to simplify but
> complicate always!!
>
> I think there is a deeper problem with the political
> framework in which
> Ranjith and I
> view Chithralekha issue. I place it in the frame of
> single issue
> movements. There may be
> people/ organisations involved in it who do have
> strong political positions
> which go well beyong the issue based solidarity. So,
> questioning the nature
> of civil society/ public sphere based on this
> resistence and resistence
> itself are two different affairs altogether. We
> could agree to disagree on
> the former, but do whatever is possible from within
> the platform which bring
> all concerned together. Thus if concrete steps
> arrived at, we could be part
> of it. This not in the least imply that this issue
> based alliance is
> apolitical or 'there is nothing to be discussed'.
> What for me is important in all issue based
> solidarities is the rules by
> which we negotiate differences among ourselves.
> Whether in virtual or real
> world it is of great importance because none of us
> are machines/ cadres.
> even if we are coming together with cadre
> organisations, the principles by
> which we come together is important.
>
> I know that this is not the only way to resist. A
> section can raise the
> issue with more political unity. That is one reason
> why we find several
> groups acting on same issues. But the question,
> whaether I am part of such a
> network , for me, could be decided if and only if my
> equal rights are assured. Not that I won't support
> the issue but won't be
> part of that specific group.
>
>
> I hope we could continue our debate without forcing
> others to one's
> position.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/26/07, Ranjit Ranjit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > good that u read Ambedkar
> >
> > my point is simple-- Chitralekha issue is not just
> a HR case, it needs
> > addressing Caste Question... if she's not a dalit,
> perhaps this atrocity may
> > not have even occured...
> >
> > and pure/impure debate is not mine dear... if u
> read Ambedkar carefully u
> > will understand it better
> > thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Dileep Raj
> Tel: 09447316701
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
greenyouth mailinglist is the activist support mailinglist for kerala
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
