Dear Venu, Were you responding to me? or what I have written?
Beneath your mail there lies my text. :-) If you are responding to me, I wonder how you presumed such things from this text or the two previous mails about Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi or who fathered the Nation. *It would be good if you are not inclined in scoring a point or settling a score, it is high time one introspects how a discussion takes a character of personalized aggression with a specific intervention. It is not bcoz of raising questions on gender or caste. But it is absolutely personal. And gender or caste or class, have a cultural SEZ opened for specific "investors" only to talk about? Is there any specific criteria including the birth criteria on talking specific concerns? **eh? **Bcoz if so I like to bring some related issue- personal as well. * Do you have any guidelines which topic should be debated and how? if so pls. list the topics and methodology. So that I can decide whether to continue here or not. When I joined Green Youth, I didn't see any such specification. PS: I don't hold the same view on Jenny's & Dileep's comments regarding the first higlighted portion. On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 2:04 PM, venukm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Again, I am tempted to comment that you keep every kind of bias > against egalitarian thoughts originated in the 19th century and at > the same time , find absolutely nothing bad with obscurantist visions > of panchayat, Gramaswaraj,etc, which have been largely instrumental > in institutionalizing a Manuite concept of governance through the > compulsory observance of Sanathanadharma by all the subjects. Just > change the prefix from 'pre' to 'post'(modern)! > It works wonders in appearing to be brand new ; the moment one starts > asking the obvious questions about caste, gender, etc, call it > 'jargon' as though you didn't understand! > May be you are getting bored with same line of contention being > raised. > But others also have aright to get bored, or rather offended, by > attempts of imposition of Gandhi as the darling of all Indians! > Regards, > Venu. > > On 5 Oct, 11:53, "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 > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
