you can unsubscribe urself.. send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 7/28/07, SAKHI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > please unsubscrib us from this mailing list > sakhi > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Thursday, July 26, 2007 7:28 PM > *Subject:* {greenyouth} Re: Caste and Gender In The Urban Space of Kerala > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Deepak P http://deepakp7.googlepages.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ greenyouth mailinglist is the activist support mailinglist for kerala To post to this group, send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
