jenny, I may accept it provided you also read your mails and many other mails in the similar thread and perhaps if you have time some archival mails with same magnifying lens.
:-) prasad On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:06 PM, jenny rowena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > The problem with such contemporary scholars, who are holding on to cliched > ways of thinking without any change.... > is that they also have access to so many politically loaded words with > which to cut down any one who questions > their ideas and hegemony from a "different" perspective > let me take some of those words from Damodar's mail: > > normative > pre-given > universalistic > fundamentalist > dictatorial > intolerant > conformist > > All that Venuettan, Ranjith and I have been saying here is being reduced to > this, > and the debate is being taken out of issues and into name-calling, albeit > in a > very posh, academic way. > > jenny > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 11:44 AM, 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
