u said it sukla
to a muddleheaded response u can expect only a similar response lol !! (to
the way u were dissecting arguments)
this whole debate on WBR has shown that "upper" caste women want to keep all
the 33% with them only. SC/STs can go and get it from their meagre share.
Since muslims do not have reservation, they can wait for some thing worst-
the complete annihilation (thanks to modis and our patriotic civil
machinery!)
And they ("upper" caste women) happily ruled for ever !!
At least i thought a single "upper" caste woman would come forward and say,
"forget about ur patriarchal OBC men, We are with u and we will argue for ur
representation. But on the other hand, all these radical to right wing women
posed their arguemtns from within their own caste subjectivities.
Women as caste subject is the thing that has emerged from this whole debate.
can the environ-headed boogie-woogie civil right activist/red radicals ever
get it right?
After all Vandana Shiva is also a woman. What has she done to the
marginalised? Right?
huh !! pathetic !!!
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's an utterly muddleheaded response!
>
> That's the implied argument of Damodar Prasad (as brought out by me), and
> NOT mine.
>
> The relevant portion is:
> Quote
> Quote
> As if the male leaders in the parties like CPM and BJP have all of a sudden
> become non-patriarchal/ progressive/feminist and what not.
> Unquote
> [That's Damodar Prasad quoted.]
>
> [The following is my analysis and dissection of *Damodar Prasad*'s
> argument.]
> What a leap of argument!?
>
> Anyway, the underlying argument is that the CPM/BJP male leaders are
> patriarchal, and hence it is quite kosher for the OBC/Muslim male leaders
> to be so.
> Forget about the fact that whatever be the reasons, and
> howsoever reluctantly and halfheartedly, the CPIM/BJP leaders
> are at least supporting 33% reservation for women.
> This is [I claim] evidently a clear admission [on the part of Damodar
> Prasad]: Yes, it is a ploy, a dirty trick! So what! Everybody does that!
> hence, nothing wrong about it.
> Unquote
>
> Where was the scope for any misunderstanding? One just wonders!
>
> The same muddleheadedness (on the part of Ranju Radha) apparently is
> permeated all over (the arguments of Ranju Radha).
> (The bracketed portions are added to clarify for the benefit of those who
> need it.)
>
> Sukla
>
>
> On 7 April 2010 06:22, ranju radha <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> @sukla
>>
>> "Everybody does that! hence, nothing wrong about it."
>>
>> what a great invention comrade. Okay that means since that old brahmin
>> marxist EMS was a filthy casteist mysogynist, u can also be so.!! Greeat
>> dialectical materialsm
>>
>>
>> And by the by, what on earth made to think that Dalit/OBC/Muslim/Adivasi
>> women has no voice at all? lol, this shows the true politics of these lovers
>> of WRB
>> damn dirty dude
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Quote
>>> As if the male leaders in the parties like CPM and BJP have all of a
>>> sudden become non-patriarchal/ progressive/feminist and what not.
>>> Unquote
>>>
>>> What a leap of argument!?
>>>
>>> Anyway, the underlying argument is that the CPM/BJP male leaders are
>>> patriarchal, and hence it is quite kosher for the OBC/Muslim male leaders to
>>> be so.
>>> Forget about the fact that whatever be the reasons, and
>>> howsoever reluctantly and halfheartedly, the CPIM/BJP leaders
>>> are at least supporting 33% reservation for women.
>>> This is evidently a clear admission: Yes, it is a ploy, a dirty trick! So
>>> what! Everybody does that! hence, nothing wrong about it.
>>>
>>> And, let me repeat:
>>> Quote
>>> The "demand" for sub-quota, by no stretch, is a "demand". It's just an
>>> alibi. A pure and simple "alibi" to block women's reservation.
>>> First of all, the SC and ST will automatically have their quota (of
>>> reservation) within (women's) quota. to ask for it is a mere act of
>>> deception.
>>> There is no such reservation for OBCs or Muslims in state or central
>>> legislatures, so there will be none here either. Till some other amendments
>>> are made.
>>>
>>> These selfsame worthies, it is pertinent to note, had no problem with
>>> women's reservation in Panchayats. Because these are too insignificant from
>>> their point of view.
>>> Nor they are known to ever have raised any women's issues other than
>>> this.
>>> Unquote
>>>
>>> And:
>>> Quote
>>> The points here are as under:
>>>
>>> With great difficulties - for years, the Bill has just scraped through
>>> in the RS, after a day's of pandemonium on the following day
>>> after Marshalls having been deployed.
>>> Everyone understands, in order to kill, or at least stun, the Bill what
>>> one has to do is to ask for a version different from the one passed by the
>>> RS.
>>> That's precisely these opponents are doing.
>>>
>>> And their concerns for women are well-known. This is just crocodile
>>> tears.
>>> The example of the Muslim clerics referred to is just a telling
>>> illustration. So is the silence of the other opponents of the Bill on the
>>> ground of concern for (Muslim and OBC) women.
>>> Unquote
>>>
>>> Also:
>>>
>>> Quote
>>> How the passage of WRB is going to worsen their representation status?
>>> At least the Muslim/OBC women will stand a better chance to have a
>>> higher representation from within the women's quota.
>>> Dalits and STs would of course straightaway benefit.
>>> And once the women's quota is there, it opens up the scope for the next
>>> stage of the battle (for sub-quota).
>>>
>>> Evidently, this is a ploy of the OBC/Muslim males to suppress their women
>>> in their name!
>>> A dirty trick. And that's all.
>>> Unquote
>>>
>>> Sukla
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6 April 2010 13:14, damodar prasad <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "is a ploy of the OBC/Muslim males to suppress their women in their
>>>> name!"
>>>> A dirty trick. And that's all"... What an astute observation, Mr. Sukla
>>>> Sen?
>>>>
>>>> As if the male leaders in the parties like CPM and BJP have all of a
>>>> sudden become non-patriarchal/ progressive/feminist and what not.
>>>>
>>>> "It is important to note that right from when it was first tabled in
>>>> 1996, the main opposition to reservation for women in the legislature has
>>>> always centred on the question of sub-quotas for Muslims and Other Backward
>>>> Classes (OBCs), or additional quotas for dalit women. In other words,
>>>> despite misleading media images, there has never been a simple opposition
>>>> between feminist support and patriarchal resistance. Vocal dissent has
>>>> always invoked the interests of the already disadvantaged castes and
>>>> communities – *it has never opposed women’s rights as such. Indeed, the
>>>> media’s eagerness to demonise backward caste and Muslim politicians
>>>> opposing
>>>> the Bill serves to obscure the unspoken patriarchy that is at work behind
>>>> the scenes in every political party. *How else do we explain the low
>>>> presence of women candidates among political parties in favour of women’s
>>>> reservations in all the national and state elections after 1996? It is the
>>>> silent subversion of the ayes – and not the noisy disruption of the nays –
>>>> that is most responsible for the 14 years of exile endured by this Bill"
>>>> (EPW edit, March 13, 2010)
>>>>
>>>> Mr.Sukla Sen is also attempting the same media trick of demonizing
>>>> OBC/Muslim leaders.. ... Nevertheless, the media along with its kind of
>>>> supporters were able to sell this Cen-Trick to a upbeat upper caste middle
>>>> class who till now are opposed to caste-based reservation while being very
>>>> vocal about gender-justice!!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "Green Youth Movement" group.
>>>> To post to this group, send an email to [email protected].
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> [email protected]<greenyouth%[email protected]>
>>>> .
>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peace Is Doable
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Green Youth Movement" group.
>>> To post to this group, send an email to [email protected].
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> [email protected]<greenyouth%[email protected]>
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> " 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Green Youth Movement" group.
>> To post to this group, send an email to [email protected].
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> [email protected]<greenyouth%[email protected]>
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Peace Is Doable
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Green Youth Movement" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]<greenyouth%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
>
--
" 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
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Green Youth Movement" group.
To post to this group, send an 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.
