my engagement s with the text reproduced here in GY. and my response was based on that.
and I reiterate; "If at all NIzar has made such a statement abt chengara, i think he should apologise. (based on the text he intentionally produced) and I dont want to comment on dileep's other problems. and moreover, ranju, damodar, jenny, dilip and nizar also could be read as texts. and, even if ranju makes such a statement i would have asked him to apologise. so, On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:11 PM, venukm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
