Hi Ranju, For your ready reference let me cut and paste the small portion in full
*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 5:50 PM, ranju radha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > *Nizar observed that Chengara struggle is Gandhian in nature due to the > readiness to self injury..* > > > this is what dilip reported. my response was to this TEXT. > and how could dilip like a clever politician change his words (see the > previous mail) > and i dont understand why venugopal's stand become branding and nisars > analysiing?? > > and if one cant find any arguemts against the great nisar even after > reading wht hd been written here by Venugopal , Luisa and Jenny that is very > clever READING indeed. > > expect more such readings.... > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Dear Jenny, >> >> Let me clarify my moderate claims. >> 1.The report was of a seminar in which critical assessment/readings of >> Gandhi were done in a dialogic manner. Of course all sorts of issues came up >> in the discussion. Ambedkarite criticism included.It lasted over three and a >> half hours and interactions were informal, alllowing equal space for every >> participant. So inspiring was the ambience that we jointly decided to hold >> seminars like "Reading Ambedkar", "Reading narayana Guru", "Reading E M S", >> "Reading Sahodaran Ayyappan" etc. >> 2. It might be true that my report didn't bring the whole nunaces of the >> debate in focus. ( sorry, being an organiser myself, it took >> almost three hours for me to prepare that report out of recorded tapes). >> But even from a re--reading of the given report, I can't understand why that >> is taged as celebration of Gandhi in >> usual terms. You said discussions on satyagraha and panchayatiraj were >> going on for sixty years and this is an extention. Could you site one or two >> such examples from those sixty years? I am genuinely interested in reading >> that. >> 3. You legetimises Venugopal's trivial way of vulgarising opponent's >> position by going to "history". OK, tell me where did poor Nizar ( who is >> not even a member of GY) behave >> badly to him? If you are referring to the fact that it was me who >> reported..isn't that an evidence for persons becoming issues than texts? >> 4.Venugopal criticised the strategy of Chengara struggle(particularly >> threat to suicide) in this forum soem time ago. Nobody demanded an apology ( >> nor do I beleve that it is the way one should engage with other positions). >> 5.When Nizar says that it is the government who is following gandhian >> method at chengara and civil society in Kerala is more cruel than British, >> somebody here want him to apologise!! I sincerely don't understand why. But >> I could understand the pleasure gained out of such polemics. >> 6.I personally am always eager to read what you have to say on Gandhi. I >> don't take it in a competetitive mood. I take it as readings, having >> equal validity, and am always ready to engage critically with your position >> if I have anything sayable on that. >> 7 Whom do Ranju,yourself and Venu address when making comments in this >> thread? Is it me? Is it because you presume that there is an uncritical >> alliance netween whoever participates in a programme ( when you are not part >> of it)? >> 8.I never said using certain jargon should be avoided. I only said, >> demanding everybody to speak the same language is fascist. I also maintain >> that people could think critically using >> terms like satyagraha, panchayatiraj etc. as well.You were referring to >> the vocabulary alone. though I went through each and every post by you in >> this thread, I didn't find a single instanec where nay of you >> critically/intelllectually engaged with any of the arguments raised by nizar >> on Gandhi. >> 9.I consider this discussion as a small intiative from a new bookshop. >> Nothing more.each one oof you are capable of bigger intiatives on this issue >> within or outside this platform. I sincerely look forward to learning from >> such interactions, and sincerely wish I will be spared for the simple reason >> that I am yet not ready to take unprovoked insults in a gandhian manner!! >> >> Cheers >> >> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 4:30 PM, ranju radha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> NIsar's stand is no less dangerous than that of deshabhimani's. And you >>> call it analysing? This is nothing but shear branding dear. >>> Suppose in yet another bloody oct 2nd and yet another Gandhi seminar, if >>> somebedy come and "analyse" Chengara as a Hindutva fascist strategy against >>> the poor left in kerala, would u again proudly report it and call it >>> analysis. >>> We are fed up of such analyses babaaa.... go to hell with it. and >>> therefore ask the same question back with the same polemical vigour: "WHO >>> ARE YOU TO ANALYSE?" >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Jenny, >>>> >>>> As you now, my role in the first instance wwas that of a reporter. >>>> When Luisa raised a criticism, meaning the speaker doesn't know the >>>> technical sense of anrchism, i felt responsible because, there indeed were >>>> elaborate discussions on the same issue.So, I once again came reported it >>>> by >>>> way of making Nizar's position clear .( Why should somebody bear the burden >>>> of incomplete reporting?) >>>> >>>> and.. Luisa, I am stil not convinced why you are not considering Gandhi >>>> as an anarchist >>>> the way nizar defines it. 1. He says, Gandhi himself called sarvodaya as >>>> anarchist in a Young India article.2.Satyagraha as an organising principle >>>> of society conceives of no state. >>>> >>>> OK, now coming to my engagement with jenny and non engagement with >>>> certain others. >>>> If this is an independent discussion on Gandhi, well.. I may or may not >>>> share my views.It is a personal choice.I don't feel i am obliged to just >>>> because i reported a particular discussion. >>>> >>>> this was the first para of Venugopal's response . ( and it was the >>>> first response in the thread >>>> as well, setting the whole spirit) >>>> >>>> Dr Nisar having stated these about Gandhi, >>>> what is left there so much to discuss? >>>> Go happy, please.. >>>> Please follow Gandhi with all those ill famous inconsistencies, albeit >>>> with any semblance of critical intelligence in you totally >>>> surrendered! >>>> (Bolo Mahatma Gandhi ki...!!.) >>>> >>>> I don't know whether this will pass for branding / non engagement >>>> through your magnifying glass. Nizar said, mere pointing out of >>>> inconsistenicies won't do >>>> any good, wheareas the need is to critcally read and explore the >>>> contraditions in the texts >>>> from present's political context. >>>> >>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ** >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- Dileep R I thuravoor --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
