also please note that I have explained my ideas and view points clearly in the previous mail. Those who wish to read between the lines can try to - but there isn't anything :)
2009/3/1 bobinson <[email protected]> > >And Bobinson's last letter seems to suggest that since "Christians" > restrict women Hindu zealots can as well. > > you can't interpret it as let it be hindu-muslim or christian everyone > restricts women ? > > come on ! > > 2009/3/1 James Michael <[email protected]> > > I am sorry to intervene at this late moment.Bobinson's points can be >> summarized as follows: >> If we take the slokas in itself, devoid of any historical contexts, it >> just preaches about knowledge. >> And Bobinson's last letter seems to suggest that since "Christians" >> restrict women Hindu zealots can as well. >> Now his arguments suffer from a double paradox. In the first instance, he >> wants to de-contextualise slokas and see it is a pure objects, when it comes >> to the issue of Hindu zealots oppressing women, as in the case of Sri Ram >> Sene, he wants to contextualise it in terms of Christians oppressing women. >> Now that this is the issue, we should know that we cannot any longer >> de-contextualise Bobinson himself from this paradox and seek to find out >> what his real intention is. >> My suggestion to Bobinson would be that while discussing about Slokas etc. >> we cannot be blind to issues like centuries of oppression that has been >> perpetuated in the name of these slokas. For example, these slokas >> themselves aren't anything greater than some wisecracks and since we can >> very well do with out it, why should these stand as symbols of our >> intellectual and moral standards? >> And also, we cannot dissociate these slokas from others in its ilk which >> talk about the legitimisation of untouchability and other inhuman crimes. >> The institute where I am studying, ever since it was converted into a >> Central University, has decided to do away with the Sanskrit sloka which >> 'adorned' its name. >> Now it just says: "Words Illumine Everything". >> James. >> >> 2009/3/1 bobinson <[email protected]> >> >> >Leaving all those factors aside will only help people like Ashik and >>> Bobinson to formulate phrases such as "Saffron clad Talibans" and assume >>> that violence in India is a foreign invention. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please go through the entire mail chain where I used Acid-Base, pH >>> analogy. To explain the behavior of the organizations. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid%E2%80%93base_reaction >>> >>> I used the term "saffron clad Talibans" to show my opposition to the >>> policies followed by the folks whom generally we refer as "saffron clad" and >>> extremist Taliban and various other similar groups. As I had explained >>> above, in one of my earlier posts, these two oppose each or at least project >>> themselves as opposing each other. One worships women as God and the other >>> according to the popular notion "consume" women. But in the end both the >>> factions does exactly the same. >>> >>> I called them saffron clad talibans in the lime light of recent attack >>> against women in Bangalore. I was thinking of a photo series of saree >>> wearing cows, churidar wearing cows, velied cows to protest against the >>> recent attrocities. I think I will need to write yet another "hitchhikers >>> guide to galaxy" to explain the idea/theme. >>> >>> But then I am not surprised because "It is difficult" >>> >>> Voilence in India is not a future invention and it may be supported >>> "ABCD" organizations outside India but it never happens without the help of >>> forces inside India. >>> >>> Now when it comes to restricting women Christians also are not behind. >>> Christian women are adivced to cover their head in churches and men are not. >>> >>> ~ bobinson >>> -- >>> http://freebird.in >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2009/3/1 Fathima Naeema <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Equating Saffron with Taliban is a political strategy of right wing >>>> Hindutva. It helps them to argue that India is a ‘peaceful’ (* >>>> santipurna*) state, *"Saffrons*" are ‘peace-loving’ (*santi*-*priya*) >>>> people and that the present run of violence are aberrations. I had raised >>>> this issue while responding to the discussion on Sreerama Sena's attack on >>>> pub-going girls in Mangalore. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We need to engage with the violence of Taliban and Saffron differently >>>> and the trope of Taliban should not limit a more complex analysis to >>>> emerge. >>>> There are many other factors which made Afghan women more subject to >>>> violence than at any time before. Image of veiled women is enough for >>>> these people to show that Islam and its verities of forms are >>>> oppressive to women. They will never accommodate other "secular" reasons- >>>> militarization, social disintegration, intense poverty, drugs and endless >>>> war- to read violence against women in Afghanistan. Leaving all those >>>> factors aside will only help people like Ashik and Bobinson to formulate >>>> phrases such as "Saffron clad Talibans" and assume that violence in India >>>> is >>>> a foreign invention. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Fathima Naeema >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 4:03 PM, ranju radha <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>is it so difficult ? >>>>> >>>>> the construction of excellnce and merit comes from this universal claim >>>>> to knwledge. >>>>> these "meritorous" people have been asking this question "is it >>>>> difficult?" for long >>>>> it can be explicated as : >>>>> is it difficult to get killed/raped bz u hav shown the courage to live >>>>> with dignity? >>>>> is it diffucult to find another place to study bz u pollute >>>>> IITs/IIMS/AIIMS? >>>>> is it difficult ? etc. >>>>> >>>>> equating excellnce with brahminsm and its value system and extnding t >>>>> to the realm of modern education... how cleverly and easily... they have >>>>> made it and we r only left with the option to find out the meaning of >>>>> words >>>>> eventually endorsing their claim on knowledge. it was not at all difficult >>>>> !! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:41 PM, bobinson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> my point is look at the slokam as a a set of words talking about >>>>>> knowledge! And I found it very apt provided I am not provided with any >>>>>> proof >>>>>> to think that it was added there intentionally by the saffron gang to >>>>>> influence all areas of society as some claim their ultimate goal is. >>>>>> Thus, I >>>>>> don't see any problem in the usage of slokam there. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2009/2/27 Afthab Ellath <[email protected]> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Bobison, Frankly I don't know how to explain the exact point of this >>>>>>> thread... What you aim by saying as "saffron clad" is not the very >>>>>>> subject >>>>>>> here, but the brahminical scriptures and/or their brahminical meaning... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> Afthab Ellath >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:39 PM, bobinson <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I meant, if we look at something with a notion that everything is >>>>>>>> saffron clad we can see anything and everything that way. And since I >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> not looking or thinking that everything is saffron clad, I didn't see >>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>> harm in a slokam which talks about knowledge. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >But I am really outraged by your "tom dick and harry" comment...You >>>>>>>> exactly know which tom dick and harry were reciting it... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> sorry about that. Let me rephrase as: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have heard that scriptures were not written initially and if that >>>>>>>> is true anyone can over hear while someone is studying / reciting the >>>>>>>> scriptures. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2009/2/27 Afthab Ellath <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bobison, I cant understand what you are talking... please re-read >>>>>>>>> what ashiq asked and my reply... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But I am really outraged by your "tom dick and harry" comment...You >>>>>>>>> exactly know which tom dick and harry were reciting it... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>> Afthab Ellath >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:25 PM, bobinson <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>>> Every text has an extra-textual context and no text has absolute >>>>>>>>>> meaning... Meaning and knowledge are historically and socially >>>>>>>>>> constructed...* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> exactly ! that is the point I looked it as a talking about >>>>>>>>>> knowledge only. it wasn't saffron clad at all. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2009/2/27 Afthab Ellath <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Aashiq, Every text has an extra-textual context and no text has >>>>>>>>>>> absolute meaning... Meaning and knowledge are historically and >>>>>>>>>>> socially >>>>>>>>>>> constructed... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>> Afthab Ellath >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:58 PM, ashik salahudeen < >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm . I was referring to the meaning of the shloka only. If you >>>>>>>>>>>> look only at where it came from , then this *could* be >>>>>>>>>>>> interpreted as not >>>>>>>>>>>> belonging to everyone. To make my point clear, consider this : >>>>>>>>>>>> What if they >>>>>>>>>>>> (or anyone) were to use only the english paraphrasing so as to >>>>>>>>>>>> remove any >>>>>>>>>>>> evidence of where it came from ? Will it be different then ? *May >>>>>>>>>>>> He protect both of us. May He nourish both of us. May we both >>>>>>>>>>>> acquire the >>>>>>>>>>>> capacity >>>>>>>>>>>> (to study and understand the scriptures). May our study be >>>>>>>>>>>> brilliant. May we not argue >>>>>>>>>>>> with each other.* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> " The so called caste-hindus are bitterly opposed to the depressed >>>>> class using a public tank not because they really believe that the water >>>>> will be thereby spoiled or will evaporate but because they are afraid of >>>>> losing their superiority of caste and of equality being established >>>>> between >>>>> the former and the latter. We are resorting to this satyagraha not becasue >>>>> we believe that the water of this particular tank has any exceptional >>>>> qualities, but to establish our natural rights as citizens and human >>>>> beings." >>>>> >>>>> - Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Mahad Satyagraha Conference, December 25th , 1927 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> James Michael >> >> >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
