I think so many issues are involved in this debate. About the figure of Sugathakumari - My sympathies are completely with Ranjit. As a growing up girl in Kerala, I have found the ideas she propogated for women extremely debilitating for me. It had the connotations of the "good woman" always and the sexual morality story behind it was irritating for me. Now, I also read caste along with gender into such a narrative, and realize that most of the women have to be excluded from this concept of Sugatha's "good woman!"
But, the issue at hand is not my personal irritation as far as Sugathakumari's position on gender issues is concerned. It is a rights issue of the Adivasis being dispossessed by development (perhaps gone bizzare), loss of environmental wealth like forests and other living things etc. Of course, there is a pitting of this against the gains of having the develepment programme. (please forgive my ignorance of the issue itself - but these are the general narratives in most of the water, forest related development issues). Going back to a personal history, I had been a supporter of environmental issues. Now, I read my own growing up in kerala, the magazines which would have shaped my intellectual growth etc to these stands. I am going into a biographical mode also because it might have been the story of many of the kids growing up in the 80s, when there was widespread disillusionment with the left and the alternative in front was gandhian environmentalism. But, the 90s put serious doubt into my head about the kind of politics that the anti-development stands of envoromentalists vouched for. This is also, thanks to the questionings from Dalit intellectual circles which I stared hearing quite clearly being in Andhra Pradesh. (unlike in kerala, where a person like me would not have heard it at that time. Post 2000, it is different). I slowly began to understand the extreme irritation that Dalit intellectuals have against Gandhi and his ideas of village swaraj, which many of the enviromentalists (all over the world), respect and draw from. The idea of the "self-sufficient" village republics which would not allow "outside" influcences, in legal systems, economy or labour, I realized, had very different meanings for people who might be in the last rungs of caste hierarchy. I am surprided at how, though I called myself a feminist even at that time, never felt the danger in giving off the power to "village panchayats." That is because, I never gave actual faces to that panchayat. It was just a romantic alternative to the beaurocracy of modern development. (which i read then as extremely violent). But, when we look at the "civil" society in our country, these village republics, we all know, will be lorded by the existing local power structures - and if we need to give faces to the panchayats - will only be male and upper caste. Urbanisation,brought about by development, (and here, through constitutional provisions and sorry to say, the State itself) at least disturbs these structures (though we see the replication of it and transformation of untouchablity and feudal sexism and other structures of power into more "modern" avatars, sometimes not even recognized as these, very often). I read all these issues into Ranjit's irritation of Sugathakumari (apart from individuals becoming unquestionable institutions). This is not a translation of his stand, but a reading process through my personal history. I do not dismiss environmental concerns even now. But, all this added information, and the language in which environmentalists speak, especially in Kerala, has become ideologically irritating for me. Again, this does not mean that I have any right to criticise the people (as I understand, mostly Adivasis) who are affected by the project and who are involved in the struggle. yet, to tell everyone the truth, I am not sure of the green agenda anymore. About moderation and the politics of the language of polemics - Christy says it all. Regards, Bindu On 28 Sep, 10:18, "carmel christy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Friends, > > Anivar's moderation and censorship is a good example of how some sections > are branded as 'rowdy-sheeters' and how even after bloody violence some are > given clean chits by the mainstream intelligentsia. If moderation is to > ensure democracy (?), then why is it differentially distributed? Why the > violence of some is considered to be so natural and some others 'violent'? > As some of us sit and analysed the trajectory of the whole debate, it is not > Ranjit who started using the 'hate language,' but still uncensored 'heros' > who used expressions like 'go to hell' to Ranjit's provocative way of > putting questions. > > It is not a good practice to moderate somebody when one does not comprehend > (or pretend so) what she/he says. We have been listening to the shouting > created by Ranjit and I think he has theoretically given the context of his > 'masculine, violent' (in the mainstream imagination) language. The effective > use of polemics has been theorized by various scholars including Kancha > Ilaiah whose so called 'violent' speeches and writings gave a new impetus to > Dalitbahujan politics not only in Andhra Pradesh, but also in the whole > country. > > Eventhough it has its own limitations as we go deeper into the problem, when > one opens up a new space which has been hitherto a taboo, it demands one to > be polemical. And I think some members in the group feel threatened to hear > these voices. Actually, it is an extension of mainstream imagination about > Dalit intellectuals in Kerala. Of course, it is Ranjit's male position > (enjoyed by most participants in the discussion) which privileges him (and > most other participants) to keep the tempo (of the fight which most of us > are unable to) whole through the debate which is quite alienating for many a > 'women.' By saying that I don't mean to consider 'women' as a homogenous > category and I do believe in a stronger recognition of cross-gender > commonalities forged by racism/casteism, etc,. > > We rarely see any discussion on the forwards as mentioned by somebody else. > It is not Anivar's forward on Chitralekha issue to the group which created > debate, but Ranjit's provocative expression which opened up a discussion > which eventually became a battleground of egos. > > I think this is an occasion which you yourself created to re-think about > your own notions of 'violence' and democracy. Otherwise be there with your > control rod to keep away fresh and new assertive voices. Forums are abundant > in the cyberspace and you can keep this forum as your sacred, traditional > place of worship where there is no need of rethinking. > > We never knew that your commitment to cultural leaders is so sincere! Keep > it up!!! > > I lament the moderation (the same feeling has been conveyed my many among > the student community in the campus) that is thrust upon somebody who is > trying to yell out the insensitivities of the hegemonic structures and > people. It is highly unwarranted. This arrogance and exercise of power is > hegemonic and this is what forums like greenyouth if they really mean to be > progressive should counter. If this is how you make your forum a forum for > forwards, well, keep going!!! > > Ranjit, keep your good work going. > > Regards > > Christy > > (All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, But Some of Us Are Brave) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
