Dear DP and others, Labeling is convenient and problematic at the same time. I'm not afraid of being labeled as a postmodernist,though I didn't think myself of that sort. I would've been more happy ,if you gave me a label as a supporter of Modernism; Post-modernism , Buddhism and Ambedkarism and Marxism and other isms apart. Please, allow me to call the Neo-Gandhians Pre-Modernist rather than" Post.", if you don't mind.. I mean labeling is basically meant more for the convenience of people who do it, and it is irrespective of how the 'victims' themselves like to accept... I know your problem of not having a stock label, to call certain lines of responses, and it is understandable..... Same way, I may not be having one either, to call you other than the stock label at my disposal.. So long as our relationship remains in discursive terms, I believe it is all right. Regards, Venu.
On 5 Oct, 11:14, "damodar prasad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is implied in both Jenny's reading or in a subtle way KMVenu's new mail > is that there is normative procedure , which is pre-given applicable to all > context and which fundamentally locates on a universalistic ethic as in > universalistic US's rational human rights concept and hence unchallengable. > > KM Venu has a name for it, which helps his easy to muster support from all > quarters - from the traditional Left to active thinkers of the Identity > politics. And the name is "postmodernism". Wow!! wow!! > > These assumptions displays on its over determining moments how > fundamentalist it is. > > On modes of protest, an unlikely theoretically engagement as indeed posed by > Nizar kinda buji, is immediately forestalled to make way for what is being > a very normal assessment. And amusingly, this assessment , which implicates > all other assessments and approaches as hierarchal in turn is ruthlessly > dictatorial and intolerant and conformist to the extent that it wants to > cancel out all "separatist" discourses as untoward instances because it has > interrogated the integrity of a "sedimented conviction", "precipitated idea" > and in some cases "monolithic formations like groups perhaps located in > dispersed way where a little dissent is even discouraged". > > My best wishes for integrated the wholeness of thinking. But no need to > appear as a dissenting inquiry or knowledge. > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Jenny, > > > You ignore certain critical traditions and go on talking about Sathyagraha > > and Panchayathi Raj, which is a talk that started some sixty years ago.. > > > Dear Jenny, > > This is the place where you are totally guided by prejudices. > > Just when you see words like satyagraha and panchayati Raj, you > > simply judge that nothing new is said.( and if somebody were to use > > gender/caste sort > > of jargons and go on establishing conservative positins on gandhi, you will > > be happy. > > that shows you share certain values with certain other peple and you form > > an academic community. ya, I am one who refuse to be part of such community > > norms.) > > > You are trying to stipulate the terms of discussion. Sorry, I won't comply. > > You simply don't have any respect to others like you. You believe you are > > the only champions of all poilitcal radicalism in this country. > > > Otherwise why this sort of branding? > > > Who are you to brand and judge evrything based on your > > assumptions and prejudices? > > > the attempt was to engage with the texts oof gandhi in a critical way. > > > Your attempt was not o engage with report/text but the individuals. > > > I do respond to Luisa's response as that took the text seriously. > > > Ranju, > > Nizar kinda bujis and Dileeps of the world...:) > > Ya..that is the trap you want everybody to fall na? > > Why are you so afraid to engage with any text? > > I don't think the report I have posted is beyong criticism. i rrefuse to > > take up personal attacks. > > > and please don't speak on behalf of all dlaits.. At least K K baburaj was > > present and he was happy to enage with the text.. > > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:17 AM, ranju radha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> dilip, > >> chengara struggle is gandhian? This is the worst statement one can ever > >> make and I request NIzar Ahmed to apologise for humiliating the struggle of > >> chengara. > >> this s like saying: just bz all the struggles waged by Dalits under the > >> leadership of AYou ignore certain critical traditions and go on talking > >> about Sathyagraha > >> and Panchayathi Raj, which is a talk that started some sixty years > >> ago..mbedkar were peaceful and non-violent, it s gandhian. how horrible the > >> logic !! > >> People of chengara have rejected GAndhi and EMS . Why should NIzar kinda > >> bujis want to impose it on them? > > >> and abt ur take on "modern", i agree. but would like to point out that > >> modern could be as traditional as tradition. these days postmodern gandhi s > >> also availble on sale. > >> when talking from dalit perspective i would defenitly attach a 'positive' > >> and 'emancipatory' value to 'modernity' knowing clearly that it need to be > >> problematically looked at. for a Dalit the scope that modernity > >> offered would never be possible with 'tradition'. Gandhian modernsim was > >> rooted in the tradtion of caste heirarchy and savarna values. DAlits > >> could never become citizens in that imagination. the possibility (at least > >> a > >> minutest) is outside that. That is why Ambedkar asked Dalits to "Come out > >> of > >> Gandhian villages and go to cities. it s a spiritual and political call. it > >> chaged the Dalit world. the project is not finished yet. and to remind u > >> that city is not an end in itself. > >> Gandhi would never be the path for Dalits. it can;\'t be, even if NIzars > >> and dilips try to impose it on them. > >> DALITS HAVE OUTRIGhTLY REJECTED GANDHI. > >> regards > > >> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 2:36 AM, jenny rowena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > >>> Sorry i sent off that half-written piece, without knowing.. > > >>> Dileep , > > >>> You ignore certain critical traditions and go on talking about > >>> Sathyagraha > >>> and Panchayathi Raj, which is a talk that started some sixty years ago.. > >>> and when some others bring attention to some alternate ways of thinking > >>> about the same subject, you turn the tables on them and project your > >>> own problems into them? > > >>> Can you please follow your own advice about critical debate, and tell > >>> me what > >>> makes you think i am intolerant. I was just drawing attention to the fact > >>> that Venugopal's > >>> post with so much informatin on gandhi was being ignored, and then > >>> connecting it to the > >>> fact that caste was not brought into the discussion, also .. > > >>> And i was not asking the seminar to "mention" Chengara. I was referring > >>> to the point > >>> that in talking about Gandhi, you cannot forget the issue of caste, which > >>> had come alive > >>> after the Chengara issue.. > > >>> Who is Ajay Skaria? I saw similarities in the seminar on Gandhi that > >>> happened in Hyderabad, > >>> with people like Ajay Skaria.. and in the report you gave.. that is why i > >>> mentioned him. > > >>> and you are the one who seems to be angry.. > > >>> jenny > > >>> 2. Jenny, > >>>> on post Chengara scenario, there ofcourse were serius deliberations in > >>>> the session. > >>>> ( why are you so intolerent of a debate where about thirty people met -- > >>>> everybody except two or three were nonacademicians-- and had a live > >>>> discussion on certain important political issues ? who is Ajay Skaria? > >>>> Why > >>>> do you transfer such anger to this sphere?) > > >>>> Nizar observed that Chengara struggle is Gandhian in nature due to the > >>>> readiness to self injury but the present day state and civil society is > >>>> more > >>>> brutal than the British. It doesn't mind even if the > >>>> struggling people die. Thus here government is resorting to Gandhian > >>>> method , waiting patiently for the people to change ther mind > > >>> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 2:25 AM, jenny rowena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > >>>> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 10:58 PM, Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>>> ( I really don't understand why people exhort to refrain from > >>>>> engaging in critical debates and be satisfied with chanting certain > >>>>> manthras.While somebody claim that everything is said and done on > >>>>> certain topics, > >>>>> and everybody should content with uncritical repetition of > >>>>> certain 'critical' traditions... and show intolerence toward all > >>>>> differences, > >>>>> and even worse, brand everybody referring to certain names as > >>>>> reactionaries... I simply feel like ignoring it.) > > >>>> You ignore certain critical traditions and go on talking about > >>>> Sathyagraha > >>>> and Panchayathi Raj, which is a talk that started some sixty years ago.. > >>>> and when some others bring attention to some alternate ways of thinking > >>>> about the same subject, you turn the tables on them and project your > >>>> own problems into them? > > >>>> 1.*Really? and modern?? > >>>> what kind of discussions take place there in GAndhi's (savarna) raj? > >>>> * > > >>>>> Ranju, > >>>>> This is as rediculous as retorting "Really?Modern?" to somebody who say > > >>>>> Hindu fundamentalism is modern not, traditional!! > > >>>>> the point was, panchayat is a state, umpire, arbitrar, whihc works on > >>>>> hierarchy. > >>>>> Gandhi does not deny decision making within it . Its not that Gandhi > >>>>> stick to statelessness. > >>>>> Its only that his state is small. > > >>>>> The moment one come across "modern" or "discussion' why should some > >>>>> (positive) values be ascribed to it? > > >>>>> 2. Jenny, > >>>>> on post Chengara scenario, there ofcourse were serius deliberations in > >>>>> the session. > >>>>> ( why are you so intolerent of a debate where about thirty people > >>>>> met -- everybody except two or three were nonacademicians-- and had a > >>>>> live > >>>>> discussion on certain important political issues ? who is Ajay Skaria? > >>>>> Why > >>>>> do you transfer such anger to this sphere?) > > >>>>> Nizar observed that Chengara struggle is Gandhian in nature due to the > >>>>> readiness to self injury but the present day state and civil society is > >>>>> more > >>>>> brutal than the British. It doesn't mind even if the > >>>>> struggling people die. Thus here government is resorting to Gandhian > >>>>> method , waiting patiently for the people to change ther mind !! > > >>>>> Can you please follow your own advice about critical debate, and tell > >>>>> me what makes you think i am intolerant. > > >>>> When there is a report on a seminar with no reference to the issue > >>>> of Caste, and there is a cliched debate > > >>>>> ** --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
