Dileep is like a matured Prince Myshkin producing innocent truths. I said matured because the cruelty of innocence is lacking!!
Renju, I can understand and also engage, even if I am critical, with your ideas. But I cannot truly understand why Nizar mash should apologize. I expect your view/explanation on this demand along with abuses and remarks on my profession and job, (ya, it is a text as well) 2. Today I had new a revelation of an idea: people as texts. You said Nizar, Dileep, damodar, Renju, jenny are all texts. So you consider Identities (virtual as well as real) as texts. That might be in new opening in social or media studies. Now I understand why you have no problem in personalized attacking bcoz you believe that the names you call are texts. And of course texts are flat and devoid of emotions/ feelings. I would request you as I had requested some others in another group, at least consider the members Cyborg existence. At least that will be minimally fascistic. On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Jenny, > > As you now, my role in the first instance wwas that of a reporter. > When Luisa raised a criticism, meaning the speaker doesn't know the > technical sense of anrchism, i felt responsible because, there indeed were > elaborate discussions on the same issue.So, I once again came reported it by > way of making Nizar's position clear .( Why should somebody bear the burden > of incomplete reporting?) > > and.. Luisa, I am stil not convinced why you are not considering Gandhi as > an anarchist > the way nizar defines it. 1. He says, Gandhi himself called sarvodaya as > anarchist in a Young India article.2.Satyagraha as an organising principle > of society conceives of no state. > > OK, now coming to my engagement with jenny and non engagement with certain > others. > If this is an independent discussion on Gandhi, well.. I may or may not > share my views.It is a personal choice.I don't feel i am obliged to just > because i reported a particular discussion. > > this was the first para of Venugopal's response . ( and it was the first > response in the thread > as well, setting the whole spirit) > > Dr Nisar having stated these about Gandhi, > what is left there so much to discuss? > Go happy, please.. > Please follow Gandhi with all those ill famous inconsistencies, albeit > with any semblance of critical intelligence in you totally > surrendered! > (Bolo Mahatma Gandhi ki...!!.) > > I don't know whether this will pass for branding / non engagement > through your magnifying glass. Nizar said, mere pointing out of > inconsistenicies won't do > any good, wheareas the need is to critcally read and explore the > contraditions in the texts > from present's political context. > > Jenny, you alleged that this particular seminar/ report belong to certain > other > uncritical celebration of Gandhi in academic circles. How culd you just > allege and withdraw? > How do you substantiate it? How does Skaria's writing, the seminar in > Hy'Bad University and > this discussion fall under same category? People participated in this > programme includes, > Geo jose (activist), Suresh George ( activist), Uthaman ( writer), K P > Sethunath (journalist), > Bindu ( journalist), P S Manojkumar( history teacher, translator), K K > Baburaj ( writer), Devarajan( researcher), N P Johnson ( activist), > Brahmaputran ( activist), Ajayan ( film society activist) , Hari ( software > engineer ) among (some!) others. I only epressed my 'emotions' while you > go ahead with such branding. Now you are claiming that you were involved in > dispassiionate academic engagement and it was I who onesidedly brought > emotions into this thread. > > Having said that, i do take your criticisms on forms of struggle in > Chengara seriously. I hope I could express my view points on it soon, > going beyond my disciplined role as reporter! > > But I am amused at the demand by Ranju ( Jenny , you said I tried to brand > Ranjith here.. but where is he?) that Nizar should apologise for analysing > chengara struggle as Gandhian. > If I am to question this fascist position, will it be branding? Dear ranju, > I could understand the spirit when somebody demands that deshabhimani should > apologise for alleging that it is landowners who are struggling at Chengara. > Here you are sayng that somebody should apologise for analysing a social > movement differently. > > If this is the spirit with which you are engaging in debate , how can I > help asking, who are you to judge? > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:30 PM, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
