I am just back after attending T.K's funeral . This was a personal mail sent to me on reading one of the threads in Greenyouth. Typical TK style, sharp, ironic and plain ( though we may completely disagree with him)
Friends, he was in this community. Moderators may remove that id now from members list. Unlike him , I am totally at loss when it comes to write on him in English. His influence in me lasts back to 16 years, when I was intiated into the world of "theory" in my colllege days, through one single anthology in Malayalam, "Kala Vimarsham, Marxist manadandam". he was a theoretician who took theory unashamedly as praxis and commmited his life to it.His role is central in inventing a new prose and vocabulary for theoretical debates in Malayalam. I had political/ professional /personal encounters with him over one and half decade which was warm , productive and of coourse critical. We had public fights on political issues. But it was only a matter of days before we (rather I go and ) meet again. He is least diplomatic. ( To be frank, I can't think of spending 5 minutes with certain people with whom I share political viewpoints! But could spend days with T K , most of the time listening to him) I was always annoyed by the solitude enveloping him. Both theoretical/academic and personal. may be this is the way Kerala respond to quality academicians who decide not to leave Kerala and insist on a noncompromising stand on doing academics in Kerala ( Malayalam). T.K's solitude ( even today, I felt it when his body was kept in C AchuthaMenon Hall) should at least awake us from the sort of negligence and aversion toward seriouos theoretical explorations and concerns..Also about the atrophy of ceratin limbs in thinking world, like serious debates on Music, Politics, painting, Cinema etc.. --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: chandran teekeyare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 9:33 PM Subject: Re: [GreenYouth] Re: Samesex desire and Chullikkadu poem To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Dileep, Being neither particularly green or young I do not generally repond to your blog though I occasionally read some of the entries that anyway clutter my mail box. I merely want to record my absolute amazement about the sheer veriety of misreadings on the Chullikkad's poem that the bloggers have provided. I'd just confine myself to two questions: a) Why has this poem, written several years before suddenly come into the limelight ; is it because it has been very creatively translated into English by Madhavikkutty? b) What do you make out of the references in the poem about Prince Hamlet & Jesus Christ? Love. Teekey On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wonder why Venugopal repeatedly claim that his interpretations are > "facts". > Nobody except him would have seen any connection between Ahmed's response > [ in which he took pain to quote the references to which he was responding] > and Venugopal's > intervention. It is Venu who tried to hijack the ['serious'] discussion. > > Calling somebody heterosexual [ by assumption] is more grave breach of > privacy. > > i feel we should discuss the 'serious' issues implied in Venugoapl's > > > responses , even though it calls for sidetracking from the main thread. > > Therein lies all sorts of confusions/ dilemmas of identity. > > Could Venugopal please describe what he intend by pro-claiming himself to > be > 'bisexual'? I am afraid we don't share the same sense.[ Do you think that > acknoledging to be 'heterosexual' in itself is reactionary?] > > In his writings , I find a cruel 'othering' of existing human beings. > either he has no > gay friends or he is one who feel comfortable in speaking on behalf of > 'them' from a distance. > [ This, probably more out of ego clashes with other intellectuals/ writers > than any political > compulsions] > > He demands that everybody should support [ a nonexistent] gay activism in > 'principle ' > and abstain from making any reference to those existing in time and space. > > He chants 'hetero normativity' , 'heteronormativity' , hoping that some > mysterious > powers will help him in winning over other interlocuters in the > discussion!! > > In fact he seems to be the embodiment of such normalising values > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:13 PM, salimtk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> venugopal, >> if you can easily label any X or Y in discursive terms like >> hetero-sexual by justifying it with the normative meanings in force, what is >> the point in political activism? >> >> if there are discursive practices forcing us to assume that everybody is >> 'naturally' hetero-sexual, do u just need to be part of it by calling others >> so? >> >> pl. apologize to ahmed :) >> >> >> >> On 2/25/08, venukm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dear Rafeeq and other friends, >>> Let me just make two points why you cannot expect me to apologize: >>> 1. Your response came in immediately after my post which also equally >>> wanted to take part in a dicscussion on the malayalam blog related to >>> same-sex love in the context of the generally homophobic literary and >>> cultural environment. >>> >>> 2. Your reference to the generic categories of different identities >>> such as Muslim, Nasrani, kottayam, Pathanamthitta linked to the >>> homosexual subjectivities seemed to me ill matching to the last one , >>> which seems specific. It was your innuendo "Dalit- Payyanur - >>> homosexual" that followed immediately my post, (which in turn wanted >>> to highlight the typical homophobia existing here in the contemporary >>> cultural and literary fronts of Keralam), that prompted by subsequent >>> ones. >>> If your post, as you claim didn't contain any such purposeful innendos >>> against any individual and if others also feel that way, I would >>> happily withdraw the contents of my subsequent posts. >>> >>> lastly, >>> About calling yourself or any one else a hetero-sexual: >>> This is a ficticious and frivolous charge. Because, >>> Yourself, me, and every other are already defined as hetero-sexuals; >>> that is precisely the question.. which the blogger, Aryan and myself >>> apparently tried to focus. You subverted the discussion in the first >>> place, and myself only reacted to your subversion.. which also caused >>> such distraction. >>> What can we do ? >>> >>> >>> On Feb 25, 1:08 am, "ahmed rafeek j" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > Dear members of the group, >>> > >>> > In my response to the post by [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wrote some >>> > observations about the blog by 'krishnathrishna'. >>> > My thre points were limited to the blog and the literary tradition of >>> > Kerala. But the discussions following the post demands my response and >>> > I am obliged to do that to the group. >>> > >>> > First of all, let me clarify that I am least interested in any >>> > memebers sexual or gender identity, unless they make a claim/ >>> > assertion on it. As far my last post was concerned I was talking to >>> > the list, and was not aware of VenuGopal's claim on his region and >>> > sexuality. >>> > >>> > >Who is demonising, >>> > >who is immortalizing, >>> > >and what kind of impossibility >>> > >were you talking about? >>> > >>> > Demonisation meant the 'demon' of the homosexual in 'Badha' and in >>> > Padma Rajan's 'Ningalude Thavalangal Ningalku'. In both cases the >>> > homosexual character is dead and haunts the hero. These characters are >>> > impossible as they are dead, but their demons are haunting the hero >>> > and therefore they are immortalised. This was referred to the literary >>> > tradition of Kerala of portraying homosexual as the other/ dead >>> > subject. By locating it to Muslim/Dalit/ Nasrani and >>> > Kottayam/PTA/Payyannoor I was pointing that homosexual is not an other >>> > without any attributes of religion or caste or regionality. >>> > >>> > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Venugopalan K M < >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > >>> > > 2. If you (Mr. Rafeeq) don't have the need to talk of, >>> say,Malayalee, >>> > > Kottayam Nasrani or Pathanamthitta Muslim hetero-sexual, there is >>> equally >>> > > no need to refer to these brands of homosexuals. >>> > >>> > The discussion thread was on homosexuality and Chullikkadu's poem. It >>> > was not on heterosexuality. >>> > >>> > > You were purposely >>> > > brandishing with words taken from the homophobic lexican; otherwise >>> you >>> > > could have used some universal expression like LGBT or simply Gay. >>> > > Your invention of Malayalee, Nasrani, Kottayam , Muslim , Dalit and >>> Payyanur >>> > > brands of homosexuals didn't really serve a purpose in this >>> discussion. >>> > > I was simply shell shocked at the prospect of "homosexuals"living at >>> the >>> > > mercy of smarter people, the hetero-sexuals like Rafeeq. >>> > >>> > I don't know what makes VenuGopal to declare that I am a heterosexual. >>> > I am really intrigued to know, how you came to a conclusion on my >>> > sexuality. Is it a conclusion based on some empirical evidence? Then >>> > you are mistaken me for some other Ahmed Rafeek. Also your declaration >>> > of my sexuality may be a referral point for others, and that will >>> > affect my reputation. >>> > >>> > > 4. This is contrary to all ethics when you make unwarranted and out >>> of... >>> > >>> > VenuGopal can use the group to declare his sexual orientation, I have >>> > no opposition to that. But I expect him to have the decency to >>> > apologise to me for calling me as a 'heterosexual' un wantingly and >>> > also for deviating my response to the content of the 'blog' to his own >>> > personal agenda. As his writing is evident of homophobia, I am not >>> > going to analyse it further. Also I am not interested in his polemical >>> > terms where he declares his sexuality in the group and where I may >>> > have to declare as well to balance the game. But I refuse to that, and >>> > refuse his categorisations on my sexuality. >>> > >>> > The criticism I made on the content of the blog remains the same, and >>> > I am more than happy to discuss on that with the group, but not in >>> > reference to VenuGopal's or my sexual preferences or practises. >>> > >>> > Thank you >>> > >>> > AhmedRafeek >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > Dileep R I thuravoor > > > -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
