Once raging controversy, which now seems slowly settling down, about the 7 th standard school text book was much ado about nothing. It was a win-win situation for all.
After all it was nice to see a pleasant MA Baby briefing the media with a regained confidence after a long time since his muddling in a legal as well as political battle with the Self-financing colleges. It was natural that the Left was prompted to look at the curriculum and syllabi from their own perspective. When Left is in power and when in particular CPI (M) is in –charge of the education department, it's normal that there will be attempts to rework the syllabus that go beyond the compulsions of coalition politics. The changes wrought in the school text books is an induction of the secularism as promoted by the left. This secularism is inhibited with apathy towards sexual rights. And it is very normal that they withdrew the lessons aimed at sex education without reconsideration. I feel the lesson on sex education is as significant as lessons in the importance of living a secular life. I agree with Dileep Raj on the limitation of secularism. This particular secularism, may be understood as Left-Liberal, is neither tolerant nor radical on rights regarding sexualities. The first stirrings of sexuality are felt at the age of 11 and 14 in both girls and boys. Without a supportive mechanism, the teenagers more often than not tend to suppress their sexual instincts, which is not healthy for them and the society. Llittle discussion did take place. The argument about the framing of curriculum in an inter-religious and multi-ethnic society seems to be nice on the face of it. This wishful thinking is contradicted by the following sentence. Who in Damodar Prasad's opinion are the representative voices? Kalyani On 7/4/08, Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree that my comment touches the present text book issue only > tangentially. > "Limits of Secular Radicalism" is the thread I wish to see a discussion > happening. > > May be a failed polemical strategy. > > Any way, let me clarify one of my felt disagreement with ferocious ( media > driven) politically correct secular 'issues". > > They are built on credentials of radical "marriage' which often fall > withinn heterosexual > norms , considering women as lacking something. (Thus arguing for > 'complimentarity", which itself signifies the fact that one party is > subjugated). > > Groups falling beyond the accepted limits of 'radicalism' has long been > striving hard to > make their voice heard . > > I don't think that such issues should be treated in isolation. > > > On 7/4/08, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I've very severe differences about what you say. >> >> The text book issue and issue you mentioned are different. >> >> In terms of sexual rights, no much reformation ahs happened within the >> communities is something true. >> >> The same sort of issue with regard to religious communities may arise even >> on such occassions. >> >> To consider the compulsions of the government (L/U DF) as limits of the >> radical secualrism is overstating of the issue. >> >> As in the case of the present text book controversy as we see the >> controversy on designing of any text books is premised on the ground that >> the secularims has crossed its own lmits. (Even as I agree there is no >> particularly harsh things aganist any commusnity in the present texct book) >> >> I've said this before, in an interreligious, multi-community society >> designing of curriculum cannot be single-handedly done by some secularists >> and rationalists. Thats sheer audacity. More representative voices are >> required. >> damodar >> >> >> On 7/4/08, Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Let's go for a thought experiment. >>> Suppose there is a 'padam' in malayalam school textbook >>> where the real possibility of marking "nil" against the column of gender >>> is visualised. >>> Imagine the uproar aginst it. Imagine where our secular Leftists will >>> stand. >>> >>> No, that shouldn't be a hypothetical situation. >>> remember the uproar agianst the lessons on sex and AIDS which was >>> withdrawn ( without forming a KNPanikkar Committee!!) short while ago >>> following rightwing >>> protest. I remeber M A baby taking a 'safe' position on it. >>> >>> Also poder over the issue of parental righhts of women. >>> There the section denied rights through a government order was "real ", >>> (not putative ) >>> inter religious/caste couples. >>> >>> The order denying parental rigts to mothers is still not withdrawn. >>> >>> Just to remind those secularists who unleash all their furor in the >>> textbook controversy. >>> There are points at which you share the concerns of all extream rightist >>> forces and discourses in Kerala. >>> Particularly on sexual rights . >>> >>> -- >>> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
