Dear devika, I agree. Even I dont know what Nizar said. BUt if it s the way as reported by dilip, i have not only differences in opinion. but have sympathy for the kind of intellectual exercises. that may be a personal problm. let it be so. Again, i am not looking at Gandhi as a person here. Frankly, I was influenced by Gandhi as a person, especially the 13 year old Gandhi. I am least bothered about Gandhi as a person. Gandhi as a ideology is what I am trying to oppose within my limited undestanding. Perhaps, I may need to engage more critically with Gandhi. But i really dont want to waist my energy on Gandhi. There are better things in this earth to learn. And there exist such critiques which s quite available to all. why d one waist time again and again on that. That may be my limitation and weekness. But it s not as put forth by ahmed rafeek. in fact, Nisar's arguemnts are not only week but vulgar as pointed out in this discssion (i think venugopal). and does not deserve a discussion at all. It s like celebrating the philosophy of 'untouchability' and we are seriously discussing it without refering to the way it has creeped into modern institutions. and if one make a reference to it, accusing of being "fundamentalist', 'authoritarian', 'judging' etc etc. first of all Nisar doesnt have an arguemnt and we are struggling to give him an arguement by this kinda exercise.
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:16 PM, devika Jayakumari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dear Ranjuradha > > I have no idea what Nizar spoke the other day except by way of the report, > but from what I've read of his writings on Gandhi it seems a bit unfair to > club him along with the moral cowards you encounter in Delhi, about who you > wrote and especially ashish nandy. The report seems to hint that the clearly > culpable historical figure of Gandhi may be excused as we could view Gandhi > as an interpretable, rich text. If that is the case, I would disagree with > Nizar. But I doubt whether he would take such a vulnerable position. Since I > haven't heard him speak I won't take a position on this. But to use epithets > like 'Nandy-Nizar' is only to vent steam; it is just like calling someone a > dumb idiot and call that criticism. Just like the rightwingers do to us most > of the time. I think this argument (if it was indeed made the way the report > states)needs to be analysed for what it does and the damage it does. In fact > the damage that Nandy does, and this 'Nizar' does may be different, and have > significantly different consequences. > > There is nothing wrong, I feel, in treating Gandhi as a text provided one > is deeply aware of the role he played in shoring up soft hindu-modernised > misogynist brahmin-nationalism. He is certainly not admirable, from my > social location, as a historical figure. I think it is necessary for us to > take away much of the legacy of anticaste bhakti - ideas, practices, > techniques-- (I'm not at all surprised that he touched Phule's feet; he > did use much of Phule's insights, to ends that Phule would oppose) that he > appropriated for elitist nationalism. Textualising and historicising Gandhi > would be a strategy to that critical end. That can be done only by > challenging precisely his claim as the progenitor of a whole range of potent > political techniques which have roots elsewhere, in the resistances of the > underprivileged. > > I think it is a great tribute to Ambedkar that he continues to inspire as a > historical figure, while also being read as a text. Gandhi has become a > text and is no more inspiring as historical figure. > > Devika > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
