in 50-70 periods of india,the power elite discourses had taken a pro-land reforms position.An internal document of india governent(agrarian unrest in india)knew the importance of land reforms,. remeber .Ms.ghandhi's emphasis on land reforms in 1970s.One of the crucial challenge is to tackle the naxalite uprising.so. In cpim,harekrishna konar and a.k.gopalan had played prominent role in surplus land distribution politics.in bengal,even charu manjumdar's land was captured by the surplus land distribution politics.That broke the naxalite peasant uprisng in w.bengal. Now,neo-liberal market based political discourses among power elites has fully neglected any land reform measures.cpim knows this reality.i
--- On Wed, 8/20/08, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [GreenYouth] Fwd: FOURTH ESTATE CRITIQUE Re: Fwd: [GreenYouth] A response to KP Aravindan on Fourth estate To: "Greenyouth" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, August 20, 2008, 11:57 PM ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 11:57 PM Subject: Re: FOURTH ESTATE CRITIQUE Re: Fwd: [GreenYouth] A response to KP Aravindan on Fourth estate To: Greenyouth <[email protected]> Dr. Aravidan, The visible shift of attitude in the text towards as you indicated someone from Green Youth (let us call for the current purpose, "untouchables for CPM" and Devika, an acdemic reveals to your state of agonized mind. This itself even if you don't see, is "hierarchical" thinking. When will you come out of this? Bashing or whatever is not a one-sided affair. pls do understand. you say: You see, as a recently conscripted member of Green Youth, I had been going through their postings. Many of these irritated me no end for the sheer arrogance and know-all attitude - often just plain abuse with very little substance. This may be true. But can you specifically highlight the issue and the text or the particular passage which you think reflects the above. An whole-sale bashing is not expected from a person like you with immense experience and scholarship and knowledge of Marxism and globalization. You should also enable people to "reform" and "correct" themselves. Hence pls. do quote the text. If you want you can avoid reference to any name. Dr. Aravidan you may also very well-understand that the members of green youth are not cyborgs. They are people with flesh and blood. An attack will be responded with equal strength. Are you suggesting that any attacks and stupid/ imbecile criticism should be tolerated and succumbed to? I did not want to post anything in FE C after being 'administrated" But I thought this should be responded at FEC only not at Green youth. But any remark from now on in FEC about Gny will be countered there unless you interact where the post is published. You or anyone can take this last scentecne in whatsoever manner. On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 11:39 PM, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Since this forwarded from Green youth. GY members should also see the "fun" of it of not respondign to text bit to people and abusing GNY members "Know all and arrogant." well, never call it abuse.. but "thalodaL" People with nothing substantial to say responds like this. Shifting completely and applying cool-end. What is this? As Deviak said: It troubles the leftist middle- > class intelligensia because those who are expected to be silent are > talking. What could be worse? > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: KP Aravindan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:58 PM Subject: FOURTH ESTATE CRITIQUE Re: Fwd: [GreenYouth] A response to KP Aravindan on Fourth estate To: FEC-Fourth Estate Critique <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Dear Devika My aim in the response was not to defend the CPI(M). I don't think it needs a defence by me. All the same, let me say that I do not regard the CPI(M) - or the Kerala middle class - as the root of all evil. I am sorry if I touched a raw chord by my use of the term 'well heeled revolutionary'. For the life of me, I did not have you in mind. In fact, I did not even notice that the piece forwarded by Aniwar was written by you. So the term sort of slipped out of my keyboard. Now I feel sorry for it and retract it. After all, to think of it, I probably belong to the same category! Coming to the Chengara issue, it is simply that I and many others do not share the cause so passionately espoused by you and many others. For my take on the issue let me repost an earlier mail in response to Satchi mash and Anil. May 5th 2008 Dear Satchi mash and Anil All communities that have retained their identities probably have a tribal past - if we refer by tribes certain types of kinship organisation, pre agricultural modes of production, rituals and so on. For example, Nairs were probably a tribe in the not very remote past and many old rituals still persist. I agree that fine distinction may not be always easy and there is some arbitrariness in defining which group constitutes a tribe. But arbitrary though it may be there are consitutionally defined tribal populations in India. I was not trying to split hairs or score points by giving the list of tribes and scheduled castes in Kerala. I did so because I feel the land question and possible solutions are different in the two cases. Most tribal populations in Kerala live in the highlands in or near old forest areas. They were communal owners of large tracts of land. These lands were taken away from them forcibly or by deceit. Various legislations were designed to restore these lands, but were never implemented properly beacuse of political exigencies - the tribals were smaller and weaker compared to the settler populations who were the new owners. Much of forest land that they worked on was either degraded or taken over by the government. All in all the tribals lost out and by the time every one woke up to the terrible injustice done to them it was too late. Even now it is possible to restore much (if not all) land aliented from them. But the current strategies of giving small pieces of land for agriculture, I fear will not work. They will either be under productive or be alienated again in no time. A better approach would be to afforest these lands and declare them tribal communal property (?homelands). The forest produce can be made the basis of their economy. Of course, it should be coupled with modern education and a way out for future generations to follow occupations of their choice. The Dalit question is different. Dalits are far more numerous. A significant proportion of them were agricultural laborers (slave labor to begin with). Land reforms in Kerala, Bengal or anywhere else where it was done even half heartedly were basically tenancy reforms and the laborer did not get the land. Probably there was not enough land to divide amongst all anyway. The laborers got only homestead plots. It will be well nigh impossible to provide all the dalits with sizeable agricultural land (Some of them can be given such land utilising the excess land available after the ceiling laws are implemented. But that will still leave out many). For large number of dalits the future lies in better education and jobs in different sectors of the economy - aided by affirmative action. Some Dalit leaders have realised this. Kanshi Ram for one never gave importance to land reforms. In fact his movement started off with Dalits employed in government services. Sorry for the rather long note. I think this explanation was in order. The intention of raising these distinctions is not to juxtapose identities or play one against the other. Please try to understand that people who do not share your viewpoint or those who think that the Chengara struggle is misdirected may still be concerned about the Adivasi or Dalit causes. Regards Aravindan PS: The inhabitants of Babel are not merely the Leftists. They include Ultra -leftist, Psudo-leftist etc. On Aug 20, 9:18 pm, "Anivar Aravind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 8:01 PM > Subject: [GreenYouth] A response to KP Aravindan on Fourth estate > To: Green Youth Movement <[email protected]> > > Dear Dr Aravindan > > Thanks for your response to my post on kafila. > > As you say, 'abuse is cheap, solutions are difficult'. That's > precisely the problem. I'm so used to being abused by old friends as a > "well-heeled revolutionary" -- in fact in a world where the ill-heeled > revolutionaries are hounded as maoists and criminals. In any case I > regard renunciation as a strategy of power -- the renouncer gains such > moral power over everyone else that they keep shut. So no, I'm > unapologetic about being "well-heeled" (whatever that means!) and > indeed will not keep my mouth shut. And yes, I haven't been a PPC > activist. But that doesn't mean that I can't study it. If that is the > case, we all better keep our mouths shut about deprivation. Only the > deprived should speak of deprivation. I try to listen to the deprived. > I don't try not to sit on judgement about their words. > > I who find the trade unions' blockade (please don't say that the CITU > is the least of these)appaling, am not arguing for one-shot solutions > to landlessness at Chengara or elsewhere. Certainly, the question of > finding land, of deciding who deserves and who doesn't, of planning a > strategy for farming the land, all these are complex and need to be > thought out in detail, by all concerned including the government and > the political parties. But is that happening? This struggle has been > on since one year. Why has the process of deliberation not started > yet? > > More importantly, why are we the middle class so bothered when poor > people demand to have a say in how land should be utilised? Why can't > have someone have an opinion different from the progressive middle- > class consensus on SEZs? Of course we are delighted with our SEZs > (that's where our kids, raised on Eureka and Sastragati,to go and > work, ultimately, like good "well-heeled" middle class kids). So the > rise of the middle-class isn't something happening out there --it is > happening through us. The difference is between middle-class who think > that the poor have a right to advance demands and fight for them in > their own right and under their own name in a democracy, and the > middle-class which is suspicious of the poor. > > If the CPM claims to be leftist, it should do better than call the > people at Chengara criminals; it should certainly do better than turn > workers on them (well, please don't say that the CITU is just a minor > presence among the workers!). What would have AKG done in this > context, I'm forced to think? Certainly he wouldn't have threatened > the people at Chengara with "police armed with horns and thorns" (VS > to Laha Gopalan). Again, I'm not at all opposed in toto to liberal > welfarism and Kerala's 'third-way' . I think small capitalism is much > better than the neoliberal ugliness we have to now confront, and that > it could finally free people from being governmental categories > eternally subject to state welfare. But that does not mean that we can > let the left forget that the 'first' land reform agenda remains > incomplete -- and the very incompleteness does show that caste is very > much alive in Kerala,in secularised form. By all means, let us > integrate citizens into the market on terms favourable to them -- but > that is no answer to the question of caste injustice. And minimum > entitlements to house plots or housing don't resolve that. > Irrespective of whether the second land reform is to come or not, the > first should be completed. > > "Honest efforts to empower the poor should not be scoffed at" -- true > indeed. But I beg to differ about the meaning of 'empowerment'. If the > poor were integrated into the market advantageously, as the PPC > promised, I'd say that this was a step towards empowerment towards > full citizenship. But better scholars than I -- and indeed the > government itself -- reveal how the local bodies in Kerala have > focused not on furthering production but on welfare handouts. That > helps survival -- poverty management -- but not necessarily > citizenship. That is, unfortunately, the World Bank's interpretation > of Amartya Sen's ethical individualism. And indeed, a strategy that > preserves the wealth of the middle-class elite, and indeed, the moral > superiority of the ("medium-heeled"?)development activist. Chengara > troubles the leftist middle class not because it is against the left > agenda -- it seeks its completion. It troubles the leftist middle- > class intelligensia because those who are expected to be silent are > talking. What could be worse? > > Devika --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
