bobby, strategic? that too with whom? it s big joke here..
th e discussion got killed when someone makes a statement "why can't u understand the great revelations of so and so" and if there are differences it d "personal" ... gandhi is too small a topic to be worried abt in fact, is there are any need to kill it. even if it lives, does it matter???? On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Bobby Kunhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
