F*irst sentence errata: I am not opposed to Univeraslism. there is problem in opposing universal with traditional or local.
I would only... *On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:23 PM, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Venu, > > Stock taking, tagging, labelling and finally couriering is not my kinda > job. > > Just one point: I am not opposed to Universalism in a relativist sense by > highlighting some traditional as well as localisms I would only like to > imagine or think of varied and multiple Universalism. > > Academic/ Metropolitan-Traveling Theorists, my point is we are not living > in 19th century Europe. Perhaps just immediate to the publishing of Darwin's > Origin of Species!!!! > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
