dear friends, there are so many things being said, we find it difficult to respond to each one, yet let us try... ///and btw, we r both very much part of this group... often our silence is more to avoid the male (malayalee) way of turning arguments and discussions into repartees, word play, scoring points over on other, etc..)///
these are some of the issues that dileep is trying to raise: > that we have demonized the natives and we have dismissed everyone as villains except chithra and venu eettan. > we have made self reflexivity into self righteousness > we have used left in a derogatory sense here is a response to this.. 1. by saying that we have demonized the natives is to brand us as people coming from the outside with a colonial gaze, right? we are trying to think (struggling hard not to get angry and irritated with dileep) whether this is true.. see we really felt different (not foreign) to chithra's particular and peculiar location. and we wrote about it too... but when we deal with the people in the action committee, the newspaper reports, the people (OBC) in chithra's neighbourhood. we really did not feel we were seeing something new as people coming in from the outside... both christy and i have lived most of our lives in Kerala.. in small towns which are so similar to the one we studied.. more over, right from childhood, we have been exposed to and often part of the left, progressive, citizen network.. this is not at all something which is new for us.. we have many male relatives, fathers, uncles, cousins, who are also part of such malayalee progressive networks.. so we were never writing about this as outsiders, but with the anger of insiders, who have found such networks highly oppressive, patriarchal, casteist, steeped in double standards (of which subrahmanian) provides an excellent example.. it is this anger of the insider which has sustained our work and made us align with chithra's cause... i would therefore ask dileep to rethink the quick prejudice which makes him dismiss us as outsiders... 2. we did not demonize the natives. we asked a simple question. WHY IS IT THAT CHITHRA LEKHA EVOKED SO MANY PROTESTS, MEETINGS, PRESS REPORTS..ETC AND YET HER LIFE REMAINS THE SAME, IF NOT WORSE.. in asking such a question, in quite a theoretical way, we were asking a question about malayalee society too.. we were taking the personal history and experience of chithra in kerala, to understand what makes resistances fail... the very use of the word "resistance" reveals our perspective.. the attempt was not to dismiss this resistance, but to read this in the context of the reality of chithra lekha's present condition -whatever might have been the resistance, from her personal/political perspective, it was one that had failed.. our attempt was never to judge but to seriously look for the reasons for this failure...towards this we have put forward some preliminary analysis which we will surely carry forward... this is because we feel that such progressive groups are an integral part of malayalee culture, and somewhere, the internal contradictions that marks these progressive groups, help formulate the cultural contradictions of kerala... we are surprised that dileep was not able to see this theoretical aspect in our analysis of the failure of resistance in kannur. analyzing dileep's response (this need not be right) we would say that it is our subjective writing style, and the way we have approached this work, without all those quotes from derrida and foucault, which easily makes us prey to being dismissed like this. 3. making self reflexivity as self righteousness: actually maybe dileep is right here...at least one of us (jenny) does admit to having a self righteousness attitude in many of her dealings, which often christy does not share. Yet, together, we stand by the self reflexivity that we used in this work, which we want to say here is the only academic-ethics that we believe in... at least for the time being... 4. about using leftist as a derogatory term.. mmmmmmmm, maybe that was being a little irresponsible... agreed... but still leftist is a very bad word in our personal dictionaries... 5. now a question to dileep... i know you as someone who has been very much part of the malayalee use and circulation of a lot of knowledge being produced about kerala from outside kerala. how come you are only picking on what we are saying and calling us foreigners? why only us? is it because somewhere we really are not foreigners? 7. in your own study of nalini jameela and "other" issues, aren't you often the objective male gaze turned on these "subjects"? how much of your subjectivity have you been able to explore through such works? this question is not to score a point against you. but to say that you also share a privileged position like us when it comes to research... actually in our case, we have tried to continuously expose this privilege through self-reflexivity... we strongly feel that bringing yourself under the critical gaze - at the cost of being mocked at and booed like in this forum by dileep - is the only way in which we can make some move away from the academic privilege that we all equally share.. will write about the other responses later... love and peace jenny and christy On Feb 14, 2:29 pm, salimtk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > please don't get offended, if i doubt mr.venugopal is getting 'old' in > understanding others. he starts with crying over dileep's sentence > "disregarding the conscious claims and intentions of the authors". it was > clear enough that what dileep said was about the repertory of the textual > analysis the research paper puts forward. his write-up in nowhere prompts to > disregard the content or findings (if any)) of the research paper. > > it's sad to see venugopal reminds us of the unquestioning holy-space of > academic standards and 'seriously' done research papers (disregarding the > typos and silly grammar mistakes all through the paper). this is how > ordinary people become subjcts of experts. > > i didn't find anywhere in his comment, dileep exhibits any ignorance of the > gruesome caste situation in kannur, but venugopal simply wants to make the > researchers foreign travelers to teach a lesson to dileep that he is not a > 'good-foreigner' to the caste system. in fact, dileep was in mentioning the > research scholars' narration about local cultural leaders, who are promoting > world cinema, subscribing epw etc. in fact, i'd laughed reading that > comment. no problem, venugopal didn't laugh, but he even went on preached > the cultural 'vellathol' syndrome of 'many a malayali'. poor dileep. > > forget about dileep's willingness in contribution, guilt and all other > emotional solidarity to this issue; but, i expected mr. venugopal would say > something about the serious concern dileep raised related to the practical > issues in organizing the activities in Chitraleka issue. transparency in the > different committees constituted for Chitralekha issue. as he is a leading > campaigner and activist in this issue, i expected he would say something > about it. let me repeat what dileep said: "what was the structure of the > first action committee?, why was it impossible for k.m.venugopalan to > intervene from within, how is new committee different?, how is its decisions > made transparent to chithralekha?" > > On 2/14/08, Anivar Aravind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Venugopalan K M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:01:51 +0530 > > Subject: Fwd: Chithralekha Paper-your response in "Green Youth"mail > > list forwarded to me by a friend > > To: Ramki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Venugopalan K M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Feb 14, 2008 1:31 AM > > Subject: Chithralekha Paper-your response in "Green Youth"mail list > > forwarded to me by a friend > > To: Dileepraj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Dear Dileep, > > This message is only an attempt to make known my response to your post; > > not intended to be posted to the Green Youth List, though I have no > > problem > > in case you like to share this with others who you choose . > > ".( > > i.e, disregarding the conscious claims and intentions of the authors)" > > > I'm really unable to understand why you ,in the first instance, *disregard > > the conscious claims and intentions of the authors;* I also wonder by > > virtue > > of which elements of democratic practice you have a right to do > > so*. *This, > > in my opinion, is simply not fair while you engage with a seriously done > > research paper, evaluated by competent people keeping adherence to the > > academic standards. The arrogant trashing of the content even touches a > > paranoiac level, when you do it without offering any reason. Having been > > condemned to be totally worthless, it comes out of your hands with > > several > > tags attached on it based on pure fantasy of yours. > > There is a point of course there , when you are reminded of Chinese and > > European travelers.You may recall that many foreigners like Al-Baruni, > > Francis Buchanen, Barbosa had indeed stunned at the gross insensitivity > > shown by both the ordinary and the elite caste hindus to their fellow > > Indians of supposedly lower birth; I believe that in a similar situation, > > some one who by conscious choice wants to be outside this schema of > > unwritten rules of caste and gender, might experience being seen like > > pucca foreigners. I don't know if Jenny and Christy would agree...though > > (in > > my opinion) they've succeeded at least in their writing to invoke a > > feeling > > of foriegn..as someone keeping a calculated distance from this kind of > > celebration of* naattachaarams *of gender and caste. > > Perhaps there lies the strength of this paper, shortcomings like factual > > errors in giving names of places correctly etc, and other things apart.. > > Again, you may also recall (please), that many a "Malayali" only took more > > pride in their *mahakavi* defending the honour of the great nation against > > a > > foreign woman scandalising it, by talking ill of caste and gender...in > > fact,they became more proud of Vallathol Narayana Menon's poem > > ",Bharathasthreekalthan Bhavasuddhi"irrespective of the fact that it was a > > response to Katherine Mayo's(A Brit Woman) "Slaves of Gods" documenting > > the > > inhuman attitudes Gandhian volunteers and the caste-hindu people displayed > > toward widows and women of lower castes on various occasions.In fact, > > many > > of these (Malayalee) nationalists didn't even care to know what kind of > > content in writing actually prompted this awsome *desabhakti. > > *Dileep has invented certain things in the text as some residual stuff > > that > > might be useful for future researchers: (a) to (g) -[ privileges..to > > self-righteousness to prejudices..!!.]But these are nevertheless, only > > fringe benefits of the research ,the worth of which people like Dileep can > > understand and help guiding future researchers! > > What to say of such dismissive attitudes to research, esp against those in > > utterly bad taste to the desi habits, done by "foreign people" or people > > behaving that way? > > For the question directed at me by you in the GY post, I can say that I've > > been part of the left all through.The *socialist paatha* of 90s had > > consistently tried to bring to focus the question of caste and gender as > > part of the discourses taking place in the left circles here. I consider > > calling one a leftist not anything other than a compliment. The fact > > that > > myself and the other person(Subrahmanyan) who had worked with me in > > Socialist Paatha ,after openly expressing differences of opinion and > > being > > not able to get along together in an action front, which in turn > > simultaneously involved the sensitive issues of gender, caste and > > conventional left politics, speaks more than which you might be willing to > > understand. > > Why couldn't myself and a few others prevail upon the colleagues in the > > earlier committee(Pynur), what prompted us to convene another at Kannur at > > a > > much later stage etc.might not have been topics worthy of elaborate > > documentation for Jenny and Christy, but there is ample material in the > > paper suggesting the several turns and twists, ups and downs that the > > main > > agenda of Chithralekha's defence as a whole, had ultimately suffered. Any > > one who may be willing to pursue the study without yielding to skepticism > > ,unbiased and in a nonpartisan way (despite avoidable factual errors > > galore > > in it, on certain points that might be inconsequential to the conclusion > > of > > the paper )might see that all there!. > > Warmest regards, > > Venu.K.M > > > -- > > Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
