let me remind
the context in which I spoke about the significance of
Sugathakumari's intervention. It is not the case that
everybody [ celebrities and activists] are competing to support
Athirappalli resistence. Media reports foregrounds minister A.K.Balan's
viewpoints on the issue. Sugathakumari's intervention brought the resistence
to the limelight, at least to certain extent. Considering the immediacy of
the situation, I find it positive.
For people who are supporting the struggle and
could not agree with Sugathakumari or the action committee could express
their support independently and strengthen the movement.
.
But I find it very important that 'we' who broadly are on same side should
speak in different voices [ unlike cadre organisations] and do it publicly.
To tell my experiences in issue based
alliances in Kerala...
I have been actively involved in P.E.Usha's resistence in Calicut
university. Dr. P.K.Pokker was the chairman of the counter movement waged by
orthodox left . I have wrote several articles in malayalam media in which I
quoted his anti women standpoints and tried to refute/ expose them.
Recently, we came together in couple of occassions as part of anti- death
penalty campaign. We find very few people who openly speak for
prisoners as a section.So every voice counts.
True, Geedha's emotion is not without ground. Both of us were part of
a committee which supported the woman to some extend. But then, in that
committee there was representatives of N D F as well. We criticised the same
people in Malappuram in Tasni Bhanu's issue.
Mata Amruthananda Mayi issued a statement that ' Makkale
Drohikkaruth" when Antony government proceeded with plans for
smashing Adivasi Dalit Samarasamithi's huts in front secretariat. I
remember organising a support meeting in trivandrum in which Paul Zacharia
criticised her support and asked the action committee to reject her support.
T. N.Joy another participant questioned Zacharia's position thus. " It was
you, Paul that first pointed out that she is a Dalit. When human beings are
in trouble, there are nobody except human beings to support. What if no
support come forth? There is scope for Gods
till then".. [ Interestingly, Antony and many of the ministers were
followers opf Amma and her statement really was effective]
Corporate media in India which paves the way for neoliberal policies
actively came aginst Sangh Parivar in Gujrath issue, Valentines Day issue
etc. That means we are destined to ally with different forces in different
issues. There are no permanent enemies or permanent allies anymore.
That is one reason why we are not part of any one organisation.
I was speaking from within the dynamics if this issuebased alliances.
It is not that there are no other way for political action or this is
sufficient.I find this as the organisational form in which most of the
actual struggles are happening. Problems faced by such networks can't be
captured within the frameworks in which we generally discuss issues of Dalit
or women's
politics which goes beyond the issue based momentary resistences.
"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"
Christy's post troubles me for several reasons. Let me enumerate a few.
1. Several academic analyses are possible from the same data you are
referring. What I find as interesting [ looking from my above given
framework]
is that there were no permanent alliances or enmity in this list. People [
knowing each other and strangers] debated, disagreed and at times even
transformed each other. Your analyses freezes all those dynamic interactions
and interarticulations in a single long shot.
2. At a personal level I was not afraid to be vulnerable in this forum. As
in life,
I felt free to live with all contradictions here without effecting a forced
correctness over it. thus every response here prompted me not to get back
and be self righteous, but rethink my position and transform . I never
thought that I am speaking to an audience, but sharing my dilemmas among a
symapthetic though critical group. If somebody is " looking " at all these
correspondences
[ from a distance] and judging it, I have this strange feeling that I am
reduced to something like 'chemical' in lab. As if we are not supposed to
speak back!!
3.You are not analysing but creating data.
4.Going by your logic even the present move to moderation could be claimed
as productive.[ I have condemned it as undemocratic earlier. Not because I
consider ranjith's posts as embodiment of dalit politics ] For, isn't it
because of
moderation that we heard so many voices including that of Christy's? So,
logic of post mortem could go either way.
5. Having said that, I admit that my interventions have turned violent at
times.
As I am not writing papers or well thought out analyses , I am ready to
defend my arguments and withdraw if refuted convincingly.
6. Your equating Ranjith with Dalit position and interpreting each and every
act by him as legitimate seem to me to be an inflated rhetoric.I believe his
ardent critics [ at times ] like me here are being more responsible and
dialogic.
Bindu's post, though I disagree to most of her 'applications' of the
insights to the kerala context, encourages me to be vulnerable further..
Thus this response..
--
Dileep R I thuravoor
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
