Damodar Prasad, i never asked you to be self critical for me - i told you to find those words for me..
i have raised some criticism yes, but some from this group need not then move on to start attacking me for that.. you can answer that criticism without copy-pasting some imported names, and writing academic poetry and now writing this kind of a mail.. .. what is not kafila? career helpers? distinguished academics? what are you talking about??? why would others understand? who are others? PLEASE EXPLAIN -.. and do stop pointing fingers at evryone and come to the issue and answer some simple questions. you might not think in an ambedkarite way.. and maybe i too don't always... but you can't push Ambedkar under the carpet and talk about Gandhi, 'like it has always been done in India. ...give an answer to this issue - and please in a way that i too can understand.. jenny On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 2:34 PM, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Athu kollam Jenny, > > you give your Self to some else to be critical of one self. What is this. > :-) > > have I said you to be self-critical? > > This is a public discussion group. You are a member & you have raised the > Ambedkarite criticisms and it is not necessary every should speak on behalf > of you like you want me to critically think for you. > > Jenny, having said that: *accommodation is very diplomatic word :-) > * > Its not Kafila. You need not be polite. we are all same. Not distinguished > academics and career helpers. jenny, if you don't understand this somebody > else surely will. > > damodar Prasaf > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 2:26 PM, jenny rowena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> >> Dear Dileep, who said i alleged and withdrew?..i am very much here. >> This is what i originally wrote about the Hyderabad seminar.. >> * >> >Actually all the casteist "truths" about Gandhi, as pointed out by >> Venugopal, >> >does not seem to disturb India's most enlightened intellectuals. >> This was visible to many of us, when a seminar on Gandhi was organized >> a few years ago in Hyderabad, and Gandhi was presented as the >> best thing to have happened to alternate, intellectual thought. >> * >> Is there some kind of ban on not speaking of a similar seminar happening >> somewhere? >> The whole point being that the casteist "truths" about Gandhi, did not >> seem to >> figure in the report about the seminar in Kerala, just as it did not in >> Hyderabad. >> Can i not say this? >> >> And how does the long list of people who participated in the Kerala >> seminar, >> - i didn't even read it, - have anything to do with what i am >> trying to say. I really don't understand. >> >> I never brought you or any person or Nizar Ahmed into the discussion, I >> was referring to an issue, which i put forward in quite a theoretical >> fashion. >> referring both to how can you forget in any reading of Gandhi, >> the Amdekarite critique about him (especially in the context of Chengara) >> and how can you still have a seminar (or at least a report of it) >> without any linking back to issues of caste, religion, gender, sexuality, >> etc? >> >> These were questions and i still have not got an answer for that. >> If i do i am really ready to engage with that. Or we will have to go on >> with this kind of >> discussion... * >> >> 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! >> * >> >> waiting for this.. >> >> About Ranjith, NIzar, apology..etc....I don't want to speak for Ranjith at >> all.. . But >> somewhere Dileep we are all tired and angry with the way in which the >> debate is going on in >> the same old way, without accomadating any of the present day concerns.. >> >> And analyzing a social movement that is trying to bring to the forefront >> an Ambedkarite politics >> with the lenses of Gandhi who was written off by Ambedkar.. is really a >> grave issue >> An explanation is really needed to make us even consider it......Allenkil >> you will keep getting >> this kind of response. >> >> Here i am reminded of something i saw in a blog by an afro-american woman: >> >> "Why are black people so angry all the time? Probably some dumb shit you >> did." >> >> So please do tell us more.. >> >> It would be a worthwhile exercise for a more serious engagement.. >> >> love >> jenny >> >> >> ps: damodar, its difficutl to be self-critical - so why don't you do it >> for me, >> it might help me a lot... i mean it seriously.. :) >> >> >> And dileep, one more thing about Venugopal's post. Given the way in which >> each of his posts >> have been ignored in this forum for quite a while, i don't expect him to >> speak any other >> language. This is my personal opinion, i really am not speaking >> for Venuettan. Just telling you what i felt while reading his >> response...everything >> should be seen in a context, no? >> >> >> >>> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
