Ranjith, i am relying my memory for those references. i no more have files or copies of old Pachakkuthira magazines with me...
Sorry, if that was not written by you.. But my position remain the same.. On 10/1/07, Ranjit Ranjit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > to rafeek > > perhaps u r not aware of the kind of criticisms Ilaiah had faced. > he was accused of trying to destroy hinduism. even he had to fight with > his own university and dept. > ambedkar was accused of being anti-national by congress and nationalists > for raising the dalit question. EMS took a stand against dalit question > arun shoorie's irecent book on ambedkar is another eg. > > all these problms would not have arisen if i should have written "in > solidarity to sugatakumari" instead of pointing towards the other and > happening side of all these 'environmentalism' > then for raffek, it would ve been "constructive" !!! > sorry i cant side with such "constructivsms" > > as an outsider i wrote, "i hope people r capable of recognsng ....... " > and u wrote "people r capable of dealing with ........" > which is powerful position or not i dont want to argue. but i think this > is what i can write within my limitations.. i dont make claims on people.. > > i dont represent any community, > i only belong to one > > they know how to save the struggle from any 'mafia' > in solidarity > > to dileep > regarding ajitha' piece, i respect ur views and agree to some extent (esp. > on nalini jameela) > > and why r u threatening us with a letter. please make available a > copy for me... > > > On 01/10/2007, ahmed rafeek j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > This is a cross posting to both lists 'green' and 'grey youth'. > > Reflecting on the discussion which happened in green youth, I am raising > > some points which I have already felt and mentioned in a previous letter. > > Congrats to Geedha for creating a new group, but let me put my general > > apprehensions below. > > > > > > > > Again to Christie and Ranjith > > > > 1 I donot think Kancha Ilaiah is applicable the context. I laiah's > > 'violence' is not destructive, but creative ; it is dare. Let me explain it > > in this way. > > > > When some one engages in a debate, with respect to the other, the other > > person is just saying no, labelling the argument and branding the person > > knowing that the other is no enemy. Will you do the same polemics, with your > > own university where you work, or with your theories, or with academics in > > general. It is impossible because any one who work with an academy agrees > > with certain rules, even when they are unfair. Which means, the use of > > violence or violent language -in a context which is altogether different, a > > debate which is entirely different- to break the possibility of a discussion > > is dangerous. To do that is a Brahminic patriarchal logic. Which also mean > > that the 'virtual identity' who raises the question of Dalit can > > qualitatively be on the same level as of a Sangh Swayam Sevak. I see > > deviating a discussion from the thread by posting a flood of emails and > > branding others as destructive. > > > > > > > > To Ranjith and Sanil > > > > 2 Even the latest letter from Ranjith, gives advice to the Athirappilly > > movement. Here, when some one assumes such a power position, to express that > > he know the movement and issue enough to give them advises, raises the > > question of 'locus standi'. 'Locus standi' is important here, because the > > letter is not even written as an outsider's opinion. What does Ranjith or > > Sanil who equates Athirappilly struggle with ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT in > > large know about the issue at Athirappilly? Let me ask how many of us were > > ready even to enquire about the 'condemnation letter' which Dilipraj was > > asking Aryan to prepare, which never happened. Where is our support? The > > people of Chalakudi river have been struggling for almost 20 years and they > > know how to save the struggle from any 'mafia' > > > > > > > > In general > > > > 3. Mafia- Sugathakumari suddenly became the symbol of all decadence, > > hypocrisy and corruption. An ideal figure for 'savarna, mallu, > > environmental, romantic, anti-women, antidevelopment, woman. How easy things > > are. Let us pray 'Schwarzenegger' to come and kill the 'tiger' and save > > kerala. This is another weakness of polemics. It doesn't engage, and without > > engagement it cannot violate, disturb. (Well, there would be some > > voyeuristic pleasure in reading what Velayudhan nair says about his wife). > > > > > > > > > > 4. The 'weapon box' of Pavanai( Captain Raju's villain character in > > Nadodikkattu) is handed over to some of us. And whatever the enemy (a > > preconceived enemy who should be countered at any cost) says this weapon box > > is throwing different weapons. > > > > > > Let's stop throwing mud and arms, let's talk, care and engage. > > > > With lot of love and respect > > > > Ahmed Rafeek > > > > Ps. Unfortunately / Ironically the first mail in grey youth, a spam, > > makes me wonder whether little bit of moderation is needed! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/1/07, geedha geedha <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > happy news to all .................... > > > > > > A new uncensored non moderated Google Group .......... grey youth > > > movement is created as a protest to moderation in cyber space ...... > > > > > > Here are the essentials: > > > > > > * Group name: grey youth movement > > > * Group home page: > > > http://groups.google.com/group/grey-youth-movement?hl=en-GB > > > > > > * Group email address [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > geedha > > > > > > The polemicist , on the other hand, proceeds encased in privileges > > > that he possesses in advance and will never agree to question. On > > > principle, > > > he possesses rights authorizing him to wage war and making that struggle a > > > just undertaking; the person he confronts is not a partner in search for > > > the > > > truth but an adversary, an enemy who is wrong, who is armful, and whose > > > very > > > existence constitutes a threat. For him, then the game consists not of > > > recognizing this person as a subject having the right to speak but of > > > abolishing him as interlocutor, from any possible dialogue; and his final > > > objective will be not to come as close as possible to a difficult truth > > > but > > > to bring about the triumph of the just cause he has been manifestly > > > upholding from the beginning. The polemicist relies on a legitimacy that > > > his > > > adversary is by definition denied.- Foucault- > > > http://foucault.info/foucault/interview.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
