Forgive my non-rootedness, but this conversation reminds me of Maya Angelou talking about how she got used to a white french male's play *The Blacks
*We have gone through this bit about who ranju is and who the rest of us are. Can we move on Gandhi, yes let us discuss him out - But ranju, as a favour can you not kill this discussion by asking people to get lost If it helps, Ambedkar negotiated Gandhi and was arm-twisted into the Pune pact - but that was also strategic Ranju, can you please be strategic???? Warmly 2008/10/5 jenny rowena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > damodar, it does not matter if you offend me or not > > about your parting response to Gandhi, Ambedkar - > > imagine a feminist is asking you about gender in your analysis, > would you say the same thing to her? > > *But then it is not also not necessary to discuss anyone or any idea by > always referring to Gender > If you inisist so, it may resemble like Marxist position that anything has > to be looked at from Marxist-class perspective. > * > if you would, then surely she would not have much else to say back to you > ... > > Actually, no one is asking you to turn Ambedkarite. > The only thing being said here is when Ambedkar/caste is so very relevant > and alive > as in the question of reading Gandhi today > and in understanding the Chengara struggle, why are you not engaging with > it..then.... > > Damodar, about your language, actually i was asking you to un-refine it a > bit, > so that not- so-refined people like me also can understand.. :) > > jenny > > > > >> *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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ** >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > -- Bobby Kunhu http://community.eldis.org/myshkin/Blog/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
