I wonder where stands Dr.Ambedkar, with his modernist thinking against
the Brahmanic order.
His devastating critique of Hinduism as a renegade scheme that ever
strives to perfect in co-opting of all sections in the process of
violently depriving human rights of SCs,STs,OBCs,Bahujans(sudras) as
well as women of all castes.
I wish to point out that it is precisely because of the allegedly
elitist ways(read positive,modernist thinking against the
popular,traditional and casteist mindset) that Ambedkar was too late
to be understood and accepted as a thinker even by large sections of
the dalits. His stature as an 'elite'
still prevails in the minds of Gandhians perhaps with some fear, and
in the minds of dalits with a sense of awesome intellectual distance
from a demi god.
<'this is best done by dalits themselves'
Most certainly desirable.
But perspectives are surely to be X-rayed for critical reflections by
all, irrespective of whether those are expressed by dalits or non
dalits.
Any Bangaroo Laxman or Uma Bharathi could be the stooges of hate
politics, in spite of being dalit, BC, or woman.Your contention ,
therefore is only partially true, with many dangers in it.
I was not particular with maintaining that reservation is same as
positive discrimination.
Ranju offering substantiating details to show that these are
different would have been more useful than just saying that such a
view is Brahmanical.
Regards,
Venu.K.M
On Mar 23, 7:09 am, "Rohit Shetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I concur with Ranju's thoughts. The existing power-structures are a problem
> and need to be changed with or without the perceived risks. Even as most of
> the discourse on dalits and caste take place in an elitist framework, a
> paradigm change of perspective needs to be brought about, and this is best
> done by Dalits themselves.
>
> Regards, Rohit
>
> On 3/23/08, ranju radha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > for me, reservation and positive discrimination are different...
> > when u repeatedly use the term "positive discrimination" instead of
> > "reservation", i think, it s a politiacl statement from a brahmincal stand
> > point... (and u belive that there is discrmination against the "upper"
> > caste// then u have evry right to use it... but i disagree....and everyone
> > knows andre betteile's stand on reservation to Sc/sts/obcs)
>
> > my prbolm is with the imagination "dalits are not capable of "... they r
> > capable of any thing
> > the problm does not lies with them, but in the structural inequalities
> > instead of addressing it the state/ngo/civil society blame the
> > marginallised and make them convenient preys of "social Uplift" ... this is
> > no sense deny the role of state or other machinaries, but the frmwork they
> > emply seem to be problematic....which need to be chnged// chitralekha case
> > is a good example...
>
> > On 3/23/08, C.K. Vishwanath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Prof.andre beteile gave this coinage to indian social
> > > thinking.
> > > --- venukm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Dear Ranju,
>
> > > > "Hegemonic imaginations of such schemes about the
> > > > marginalized have to
> > > > be contested.
>
> > > > There is absolutely no disagreement.
>
> > > > <1."It won't be in the interests of dalits to assume
> > > > that they can't
> > > > possibly flourish without it"
>
> > > > I am afraid there is a little ambiguity regarding
> > > > what is meant by
> > > > 'it'.
> > > > If 'it' means &includes
> > > > all those well intentioned interventions and
> > > > positive measures by an
> > > > inclusive State with a view to redeeming to dalits
> > > > everything they had
> > > > long been forcibly deprived of,i will rather
> > > > maintain that their
> > > > interests will not be jeopardized by 'it'.
> > > > Because of the factors of voilent historical
> > > > deprivations against
> > > > them and the continuation of such social order till
> > > > the present ,their
> > > > being backward,socially,educationally,economically
> > > > and in many other
> > > > ways,
> > > > is far from just being someone's assemption.
> > > > As large sections of the population and in the
> > > > absence of some
> > > > measures of "positive discrimination", that they are
> > > > not capable of
> > > > inching ahead to social ascendancy
> > > > is a truth independent of anybody's assumption.
>
> > > > This does not mean (at least, in my reference) that
> > > > the State or other
> > > > social actors should attempt to deny the dalits the
> > > > right to have
> > > > say , or to air theie own visions of progress .
>
> > > > <2."Is there discrimination? How?"
> > > > This is a question which i wish to address only in a
> > > > restricted
> > > > sense,in the context of the idea of "positive
> > > > discrimination".You will
> > > > agree, this is not a special coinage invented by
> > > > me.To my
> > > > understanding this just another expression to
> > > > signify the provision
> > > > for statutory reservation.I don't know whether there
> > > > is essential
> > > > distinction between these concepts of "positive
> > > > discrimination" and
> > > > "reservation",for that matter.THese are seen
> > > > theoratically espoused by
> > > > the US and the Indain sysytems of governance
> > > > respectively ,purportedly
> > > > for achieving social parity.
> > > > Nevertheless ,there is one thing that immediately
> > > > cathes our
> > > > attention.While in the White dominated West a
> > > > genuinely displayed and
> > > > transparent commitment in letter and spirirt to such
> > > > legislations is
> > > > rather perceptible,the Brahmaical or
> > > > quasi-Brahmanical Indian State
> > > > is unfortunately unique in its equivocalism
> > > > ,abuse,and disrespect
> > > > toward its own constitution.As a result of this
> > > > ,reservation has
> > > > lately come to be viewed most skeptically. This in
> > > > my opinion,is the
> > > > real danger.Perhaps this brand new skepticism(shall
> > > > we call it 'post
> > > > modern' though it is hopelessly 'pre-modern' in
> > > > substance?) albeit in
> > > > differing degrees ,is shared by the elites of all
> > > > castes.
> > > > Hence, though for other contexts i will have no
> > > > difficulty in
> > > > answering this query ("Is there discrimination?
> > > > "...in reservation)
> > > > in the negetive ,the particular context wants me to
> > > > emphatically say
> > > > yes.
> > > > Reservation, i believe, is a form of positive
> > > > discriminatin;without
> > > > constitutionally implementing this in most effective
> > > > ways the casteist
> > > > society as a whole,comprising all sections including
> > > > the dalits may
> > > > neither understand what social justice is about ,nor
> > > > will it care for
> > > > the less privilaged fellow humans.In this aspect i
> > > > have no hesitation
> > > > to suggest that the society as a whole ,including
> > > > the UCs & BCs, men
> > > > &women cutting across every other distinctive
> > > > identity is more or less
> > > > at ease with its Brahmanical mode;this is especially
> > > > so ,thanks to the
> > > > conspicuous absence of painstaking and enlightened
> > > > efforts by the
> > > > governing (constitutional) set up in re-orienting
> > > > the priorities.
> > > > Hence , I only wish to reiterate here the remedy
> > > > proposed by
> > > > Dr.Ambedkar for helping everybody to refine and
> > > > strengthen :EDUCATE,AGITATE,ORGANIZE.
> > > > In carrying these out to their truly devastating
> > > > potentials, dalits
> > > > will surely be both the insiders and outsiders at
> > > > the same time.
>
> > > > With regards ,
> > > > K.M.Venu
>
> > > > On Mar 22, 7:35 am, venukm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Both agree and disagree with Ranju's points; Hope
> > > > I may be able to
> > > > > come back.
> > > > > Venu.K.M
>
> > > > > On Mar 21, 12:24 pm, "Ranjit Ranjit"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > *This means that in the absence of well-
> > > > intentioned govtal
> > > > > > > interventions and measures of positive
> > > > discrimination, dalits as a
> > > > > > > disprevileged population group might not be
> > > > able to go; they can't
> > > > > > > possibly flourish with the strength of "own
> > > > cultural and other
> > > > > > > capitals".The chances to have them had long
> > > > been deprived, and they
> > > > > > > are continuing to be deprived in many ways.*
>
> > > > > > a quick reply to this:
>
> > > > > > 1) need for wellfare activites cant be
> > > > undermined; but at the same time the
> > > > > > hegemonic imaginations of such schemes abt the
> > > > marginalised has to be
> > > > > > contestd (chitralekha does that)
>
> > > > > > 2) it wont be in the interst of dalits to assume
> > > > that they cant possible
> > > > > > flourish without it.
> > > > > > the web of strategic negotiations and the "in
> > > > and out" approach, that is
> > > > > > wht dalits adopt to deal with this situations.
> > > > it has its own failures as
> > > > > > well as victories.
>
> > > > > > 3) so denying the agency to dalts and assuming
> > > > that without civil
> > > > > > soceity/state/NGO interventions they wont be in
> > > > a position to assert will be
> > > > > > a wrong analysis.. it simply th e way state,
> > > > NGOs and various religious
> > > > > > discourses (hindu/christian) trie to coopt
> > > > dalits ...
> > > > > > complexitites involved has to be seen..
> > > > > > 4) absence of a dalits male driver in the
> > > > indcates the operation of caste in
> > > > > > that space and time
> > > > > > entry of dalit woman with the support of the
> > > > state (see similar reservation
> > > > > > debate also) unsettles the sptail pwor dynamics
> > > > and in order to restore it
> > > > > > they burtn the auto.. the state's role ends
> > > > there and the caste soceity
> > > > > > takes over... the respnse of woman leaders
> > > > (streevedi or vanitha commns etc
> > > > > > etc) r frmed within the commenscal imaginiatoins
> > > > and it s deemd to be addrd
> > > > > > only through statist intervention where the
> > > > "subject" was askd to behave
> > > > > > properly to according to the space and
> > > > time...its in these web of structural
> > > > > > complxties lie s the problem perhaps
> > > > > > wht i mean to say is that whtr in the case of
> > > > chitralekha, chengara,
> > > > > > muthanga etc the role of the people and their
> > > > agency in negotiating with
> > > > > > these hegeminc structures should be addressed
> > > > and respcted.. though with its
> > > > > > own problms ...
>
> > > === message truncated ===
>
> > > ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> > >http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
