If I withdrew all statements which might have offended you, will it help discussion to move away from personalized charges?
anganeyelnkilum, I am withdrawing. I am also withdrawing bcoz of the belief in belief. I will respond to this: *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.. the "you" I think jenny was not addressing me directly. Bcoz I did not "**push Ambedkar under the carpet and talk about Gandhi" . But then it is not also not necessary to discuss anyone or any idea by always referring to Ambedkar. If you inisist so, it may resemble like Marxist position that anything has to be looked at from Marxist-class perspective. "please in a way that i too can understand".*. I am ready to take lessons from you to refine my language. I have only so far attended seminars in calicut or trivandrum. Perhaps, if I start attending seminars in Hydbad, I will better equip myself with a understandable language and also put idea without copy pasting (which means without reference and owning for one-self) On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 2:50 PM, jenny rowena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
