Ranjith, I refused to respond to Ajitha not merely because she attacked me personally. But because she refused to address Nalini whom I interviewed. Do you think that is not silencing?
She referred to my dialogue with Nalini as 'instigation' and her 'dialogue' with geetha in the same issue as 'dialougue"!! Why should i fall into the trap by responding? Let Ajitha recognise Nalini as an individual first .. On 9/30/07, Ranjit Ranjit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The tragic disposition of the people who rule greenyouth has been that > "personal attacks" divert attention from "discussion". They have maintained > it, though at times succumbing to the very logic they pretend to serve. > Anivar, dileep, etc. hav shown at times to "personally attack in order to > prove their point and ideologically position against their opponent, > difference is that anivar does it immaturely, and dileep, very cunningly. > However, I look at all these positions (including mine) not as attempt > to tarnish any one. rather the personality tangential drawn will help to > pose question to the individual dispensations of ideology and how , by means > of its public display make persuading rhetoric. > > Many scholars have done such an attempt, of course not within the > limitations of digitally-safe-guarded sacred place of listservs and its > hegemonically moderated caste/religious/gender spheres. > > Martha Nussbum on Judith butler, > > Ambedkar on Gandhi etc could be sited as some such attempts..... > > > > Ajitha's piece "DILIP RAJINTE FEMINIST JADAKAL" really exposed the kinda > patronizing agency narrative he tends to dispense at the expense of sex > working community. What Ajitha did was looking at dilip and his position > vis-à-vis the issues of sex workers, and ideologically posing questions to > it. Though I disagree with her ideologically, her posing of question can't > at any cost be branded as "personal attack". > > The kinda of impact ajitha's article created could not have been possible > with a similar but a politically correct analytical piece in a journal. So, > with all my difference, I appreciate her. > > At this moment, I would like also to appreciate the effort taken by anivar > (read his post-motrem mail on me in the previous discussion).. but would > like to remind him tht , the very effort itself indicate the "ideological" > positioning of anivar against that of mine... and I ve only referred > this in one of my MODERATED MAILS. and that was not bz of "hate" at all. > The effort anivar took was against his ideological opponent. He never > attempted to do the same for others (equally culprit of being diverting)..bz > they never position ideologically against him. > > > On the allegation of "diverting discussion" in chitralekhs issue:. > I look at chitralekha issue not as an isolated incident happened in > kerala. There is a whole lot of hisorical,political,social,cultural elements > that leads to such an incident. As such, my critique of the invisibility of > issues of the discussion of caste in the cultural spheres dominated by > the avowed cultural leaders demanded a complex and detailed interrogation > than an issue-based alliance formation. People who argue for alliances tend > to underplay the deeper concerns, sometimes immaturely and many times very > cleverly. This is the theoretical limitation of Dilip raj and his > positioning as well....not much to mention abt Anivar and his tantrums.... > > -- > Ranjit > > > -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
