Dear Bobinson I have no doubt about your intention in fighting fascist hinduvata forces. But you are done in by 'Indian nationalism'. This nationalism cannot survive without historical/ traditional boasting. And that “glorious past” never had any space for muslims/dalits/ women. This is what happened to Rasul Pukti also. In an attempt to glorify the “Indian sound effect past”( J) at Oscars , the poor man couldn’t find anything but Om!!
I think the real danger is not the so called communalism but it is this “nationalism” with all its imperialistic ambitions. On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Bobby Kunhu <[email protected]> wrote: > and also strongly endorse Fatima and Ranju's positions on the use of > taliban as the bench mark for communal fascism > why do not people come up with phrases like "skull-cap clad RSS" . This is > not to exonerate taliban, but to highlight a tendency to get away with any > terminology that re-inforces cultural fascism thats fashionable > > 2009/3/1 Bobby Kunhu <[email protected]> > > Just wanted to point out that the punishment for the Sudra (not an avarna >> mind you) for hearing the scripture was that molten lead would be poured >> into his ears (she would never even get to the place of recital) >> this is well-documented when that "mythical" transformation happened >> between the sruthis to the smritis >> >> >> 2009/3/1 ranju radha <[email protected]> >> >> >>> fathima has rightly pointed out the ' political insensitivity' with which >>> come up with to address atrocities of caste hindus. >>> it was Pratibha Patil who always seen covering her head with a saree >>> criticises the Burqua system.. >>> the upper caste feminists who rallied for "women's rights" raking up the >>> imrana issue, refused to see the "Hindu fatwas" invkd by caste HIndu >>> panchayats agaiinst Dalit women... (Dalit body becomes the focus of all >>> sorts of violence -- the caste hindu/indian state/ institutionalisation of >>> patronising secular missions/ violence embedded in the self emancipated >>> caste hindu selves >>> >>> our great modern eductional institutions have no shame in eologising the >>> vedic barbaric era.. >>> >>> we r left with a nation of jhootan which the caste hindu self throws at u >>> with an institutionlised mechanism of power-disguisd guilt >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Fathima Naeema <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Mahad Satyagraha Conference, December 25th , 1927 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >> >> -- >> Bobby Kunhu http://community.eldis.org/myshkin/Blog/ >> > > > > -- > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
