Dear Jenny, Christy and Bindu, I personally argue with those people whom I respect and consider in equal terms. [I know well how certain people who are patronising and always stay at a safe distance in a ' benign' way] I raised a question to Ranith based on his writing. He replied by way of attacking me personally. I should have remained silent [ I did remain silent on two occassions in print media experience. Once, when I did an interview with Nalini, Ajitha wrote a reply ' Dileep rajinte Feminist Jadakal". Second , when Geetha accused Reshma and nme in Madhyamam as 'neo liberal intellectuals", " theory mongers' etc. Both of them refused to address the issues we raised against their arguments. ] I personally consider this sort of polemics as THE WAY of present day kerala . i.e: disregard every argument and attack the author personally .
[Let me show how bad this could turn out to be by a thought experiment. I see Sanil writing in support of Ranjith's rights in this list. I could forward a scanned copy of Ranjith's published letter attacking Sanil in Pachakkuthira monthly couple of years back and brand Sanil as anti Dalit and try to bring the whole discussion to Sanil the person, if I follow the Kerala polemics logic!!!] Bindu, Sanil, [ as sanil brings in Nagaraj's name] D.R. Nagaraj defines the situation of demanding new rights by Dalits as structural crisis. He classifies new rights into three categories. 1) Structural rights: Covering areas like claiming ownership of land , water, forest and other related matters. [ Think of Muthanga struggle, Aralam farm struggle, Nelliyampathy, Nainankonam, and now the claim over land raised in harrison by people] 2) Right to equal social space ; i.e; rights to enter and use public spaces 3) right to cultural space [ including the realm of religion] I personally stand by Nagaraj's wishful thinking expressed in the following words. " Unless the Dalit and ecological movements interact and build a commonality in perception, their existing notion of rights will make them permanent enemies; besides that, both the movemnts will fall into the trap of preserving their ever-dwindling bases without having a new space to extend their strength , inflence and perspective" Bindu, By seeking the active intervention of the activists outside, isn't it that these movements are breaking the existing violent 'harmony' and creating a new notion of alliance? I don't know what will be the image of a kerala village in your mind, but from my subjective position i think of PARTY VILLAGES in kannur. [ unlike other states party affilations become hegemonic and undemocratic for certain sections/ individuals as seen in chithralekha issue] I am sure that traditional left in kannur will see any attempt to build an alliance going beyong Kannur as 'a threat to the existence of traditional harmony/ values. Isn't such alliances in line with the Dalit movement's position that it could not accept the notion of the undifferentiated village as a politically legitimate category of thought and action? As Arunima, pointed out, the rise of hindutwa is a stern warning to the activists of all these movements.Though a unity might be unrealistic and unnecesary, possibilities for meaningful alliances are there. To quote Nagaraj again, 'they should cure each other's excesses and prejudices" . On 9/29/07, carmel christy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Friends, > Happy to see that Geedha's forwarded article is released at last.. > > i was tryin to connect wit what she wrote in the last mail > > Since modernity is still a largely incomplete project in a country > like India, my theoretical aspirations to hold a postmodern standpoint > is encumbered by the everyday life situations which myself and many of > my friends encounter. and since the theory constantly engages me with > the society and myself, i understand that myself and many of my > dalitbahujan friends will tkae generations to reach a "positionless > position" where one can be a 'universal' citizen unmarked by caste and > gender. those who can afford to become 'universalists' can discuss abt > alliances and dismiss 'politics based on identities' . but for many, > even with the problems inherent in such a stand, it is still a > reality. that is why people from various groups, since their lone > voices have been systematically oppressed, it is these groups which > help them to question and reach out.. > > In the previous mail, i was trying to differentiate between what we > percieve as violence and what we do not and the use of polemics.. it > was not an attempt to shrink Dileep to a 'go to hell' and ranjit to a > polemic 'fascist'. > > I dont claim to be non-violent persona in my mails and i do think that > most of the participants in the discussion are also doing the same.. > > Regards > Christy > > On 9/29/07, Sreejitha P V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Anivar, > > I think Geedha's mail is particularly relevant here as it points to > > the way women's participation in an issue is analysed. Sugathakumari > > can be placed in termes of her husband? > > Renjith > > Who decides what is the hegemonic act?I think since so many identities > > are merged, it is not so simple to place someone in a particular > > identity and say her/ his act is hegomonic or counter Hegemonic. > > Sreejitha. > > > > > > On 9/29/07, Anivar Aravind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > jenny chithra wrote: > > > > > > > > dear friends, this is in response to ranjith's call to protest > against > > > > anivar putting him in moderation and then blocking mails. > > > > > > See the blocked mails weekly updated on files sections in the group. > > > What is in the logic of call for protest in the name of not releasing > > > mails sent between 12 night- 2.30 AM.The call for Protest mail > appeared > > > at 8.25 AM. > > > > > > > anivar i think is unjustly exercising his power as moderator in > > > > moderating ranjith just for views expressed against a public figure. > > > > i also don't see why geedha's mails which has some evidence against > > > > sugathakumari cannot be published in greenyouth. anivar need not > > > > block us from accessing what ranjith and geedha has to say and > > > > protect us like this. we can read and decide whether what they are > > > > saying is right or wrong. i feel anivar is exercising this power not > > > > > only against ranjith and geedha but also against me as someone who > > > > silently belongs to this group... and i protest... > > > > > > Geedhaas mail are not published in this list due to following reason > > > > > > 1. As per list rules All new members are moderated untill they post 3 > > > messages worth for the discussions in this group. > > > > > > 2.The mail Geedha posted is titled as "the article written by > > > vellayudhan nair in madrubhumi when sugathakumari was the chairperson > of > > > womens commission" with a scan of Velayudhan nair's article on sthee > > > peedanam. I told her that its tome is same as in various manorama > > > reports. She replied that Velayudhan nair is sugatakumaries husband. > > > So what? > > > > > > I felt it is totally not relevant to the list > > > I am posting it since the hiding feeling is created through offlist > > > campaigns and it is shared by a lot of list members. > > > > > > > i want to remind myself that the best thinkers of this world, like > > > > ambedkar.. > > > > used analysis and not polemics or branding... > > > > > > Flamewars will not benefit anyone. (You call it polemics, In mailing > > > list terminologies it is called as flamewars) > > > > > > > > > > > > > however, as christy pointed out, no one even noticed the violence > when > > > > dileep > > > > did it. no one felt like moderating him... > > > > > > Didnt you see his apology for those usages? look at archives before > > > concluding > > > > > > > > > > i think it is this deadly male combination of dileep, ranjith and > > > > anivar.. that has led to this kind > > > > of a cyber warfare. > > > > > > Why not geedha? why not christy? (as sreejitha pointed) Did you forgot > > > > sanal's contributions?, Do you think they are not on picture? > > > > > > i liked the argument of "immature crude power" can you explain it > further? > > > > > > > > > Anivar (as list admin) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > I eat meat."It was not that I felt myself turning into evil, but that > > an enormous physical indifference, as vast as the whole abyss of light > > at my feel, came to me: an indifference not only to the other man's > > body scrambling and kicking on the ground with an arrow through it, > > but also to mine" > > > > > > > > > > > -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
