The substantive core of the whole debate seems to revolve around a discourse of caste, gender and social inclusiveness. (incidentally, It may be much less about class when it comes to the WRB). Being someone who is neither a Dalit, nor a Woman or a Muslim, I imagine that I'm slightly advantaged to keep myself from the very identities that prohibit one to listen to the other's point.. By the by, I have no problem in claiming sort of 'Bahujan' identity, which I guess in its Ambedkarian meaning, must be a point of strength rather than a limiting factor in taking part in the present debate. Having said this, let me come to Ranju's specific query addressed to me.
1. Why cant that > fight begin now and why cant these "upper" castes support it? I have no problem with redrafting the bill to suit the needs of inclusiveness. 2. and how can u not see the feudalistic elements in WRB itself? I thought that I never said that the proponents of WRB are all anti- feudal. How could one have missed the grand media image of victorious "WRB activists" on the 'L' and the R wing of the political spectrum hugging each other sporting huge bindis on their foreheads? I thought that bindi is part of dress code, cultural code or whatever of the Brahmanic order, which systematically segregate women on the basis of their marital status; I have yet to see a widow or spinster sporting a bindi. 3. Why the celebrted "women's position" do not want to engage with the questions of The Other? I certainly appreciate this question and like to reiterate it 4. Lastly, I will object to your accusation of 'spilling ideological ignorances' unless I'm convinced of the 'ideological prescience' about the BSP- Maya version of Ambedkarism. (Thanks.) One can On Apr 8, 9:10 am, ranju radha <[email protected]> wrote: > Few disagreements venu > > 1.The way in which WRB in its present form is being objected by the > > > OBC leadership is not only disgusting to most people who want to end > > the gender discrimination, but it also it exposes their hard core > > 'khap panchayat' mentality. > > What Venu, like Kavita and scores of others want to ignore is the fact that > the bill has been opposed from Dalit (feminist) position as well. The true > Khap panchayat attitude can be seen in the way of offering (perhaps out of > sympathy) that one can fight later for quota within quota. Why cant that > fight begin now and why cant these "upper" castes support it? shows the true > colour of those who crave for discussions (whta one can expect when the khap > panchayats of the ilk Brinda-sushma mafia can even influence these > patronising ideologues as well) > > > > > 2.The infamous statement of Lalu (referring to Rabri in particular and > > women in general) in the context of WRB, seems to mean that Indian men > > and women would/should ever be proud of patriarchy. > > If that is the case,why should we have a WRB at all, let alone its > > present form? > > u know better > > > > > 3.Someone who swears by the Mayavati brand of dalit politics > > (rejuvenated with a 'sarvajan' formula that would certainly provide > > more statues for dalits but more power for the feudalistic elements > > and the Corporates..?!) has condescendingly admitted that he is a > > supporter of patriarchy. He has no appreciation for the fact that > > thanks to the WRB in its present form, the representation of SC/ST > > women in the Indian Parliament could go up to 41 or more. > > Venu, i know u have an inherent problem in understanding the politics of > Mayavati, given ur subjective position. That is none of our fault.. Please > dont spill ur ideological ignorances which will never help u even > identifying why this position is being taken.. and how can u not see the > feudalistic elements in WRB itself. it s reallly surprising. and would u > like to enlighten me who is supporting patriarchy here? those who pretend to > be above it and yet practising brahmical patriarchy or those who admit the > influence of patriarchy in our life? pls make it clear. > > > > > 4.The argument that the already pending issue of huge under > > representation of Muslims in the Parliament is bound to be aggravated > > with the activation of the WRB merits lot of serious thought. > > Therefore, the view that this issue is being raised all on a sudden > > to delay the presentation of the WRB and out of context, becomes > > equally untenable, irrespective of whether it is being raised by a > > gang of misogynist male Muslims, or by others having genuine interest > > in empowering Muslim women. > > by and large, none opposes WRB here. But the argument for addressing > diversity has been treated as stupidity, patriarchy, mysogynist, khap > panchayat (what abt the khap panchayat of WRB?) and what not. Why the > celebrted "women's position" do not want to engage with the questions of The > Other? > > when khap panchayats dictate terms for even empowering women in the form of > WRB no threads will be able to give any substantial result/solution my dear > venu. this basic understanding is importnt to even recognise the very basic > problem of WRB. > thanks > > > > > On Apr 7, 10:37 pm, ranju radha <[email protected]> wrote: > > > like in the typical brahminical kafila style it s time to say pls close > > the > > > thread. it s no longer useful unless we take out our daggers and jump > > into > > > the site of civil war.. "upper" casteism cannot be countered with war of > > > words alone ! > > > quit brahministan ! > > > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:39 PM, sukla.sen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Quote > > > > Neither your scientific rationality and mathematics on the one hand nor > > > > the "probabilty theories" and "common sense" on the other will be > > > > sufficient to explain the shameful situation of muslim representation > > of > > > > Muslims in the parliament after 60 years of independence and the > > present > > > > Dalit/Adivasi represention that you project happened only because of > > > > reservation... > > > > Unquote > > > > > What an earth shattering discovery! > > > > Sheer stupidity placed on pedestal as ideology! > > > > > The arguments referred to were never ever meant "to explain the > > shameful > > > > situation of muslim representation of Muslims in the parliament after > > 60 > > > > years of independence"! > > > > These were meant to show how, contrary to the obstinate lies being > > peddled, > > > > the women's reservation bill, even in its present form, if enacted > > would > > > > straightaway benefit the Dalit/adivasi women; and also better the > > chances of > > > > Muslim/OBC women as compared to the situation that obtains today. > > > > > Hence the persistent attempt to scuttle the bill in the name of > > promoting > > > > the interests of Dalit/adivasi/OBC/Muslim women is nothing but a > > > > contemptible fraud perpetrated on those whose interests are being > > flaunted > > > > as the grand alibi. > > > > > Sukla > > > > > On 7 April 2010 22:13, Afthab Ellath <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> Mr Sen, > > > > >> I think your "common sense" embedded in casteist mindset is the very > > > >> problem because It doent allow any reflection... > > > > >> Neither your scientific rationality and mathematics on the one hand > > nor > > > >> the "probabilty theories" and "common sense" on the other will be > > > >> sufficient to explain the shameful situation of muslim representation > > of > > > >> Muslims in the parliament after 60 years of independence and the > > present > > > >> Dalit/Adivasi represention that you project happened only because of > > > >> reservation... > > > > >> The same brahminical and patriarchical political parties that became > > > >> "feminist" overnight with this bill, that ensured this situation will > > do > > > >> everything to make sure that proposed benefits will not go to the > > "other" > > > >> women... Asking them to wait for ever is a mockery... > > > > >> This is very simple... But one should be able to go beyond the > > brahmanical > > > >> thinking to understand that... > > > > >> I feel really bored to listening to your repeatations.. So let us call > > it > > > >> a quit.... > > > > >> Afthab Ellath > > > > >> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > >>> The same lies are being repeatedly and obstinately peddled. > > > > >>> There are two distinct categories here. Not one. > > > > >>> The representation of Dalit/adivasi women will straightway go up to > > (at > > > >>> least) 40 or 41(considering only the "reserved" seats and assuming > > nil > > > >>> representation from the unreserved category) from the current level > > without > > > >>> any hitch whatever. > > > > >>> As regards the OBC/Muslim women, they will then have to contest only > > with > > > >>> women of other categories, in so far as the "reserved" seats for > > women under > > > >>> "general" categories are concerned (i.e. 140 approx). For the > > unreserved > > > >>> general seats (282 approx.) they will of course have to compete with > > (i) > > > >>> women of other categories, (ii) men of other categories and (iii) > > also men > > > >>> of their own castes/communities. > > > >>> Currently they are to compete with (i) women of other categories, > > (ii) > > > >>> men of other categories and (iii) also men of their own > > castes/communities > > > >>> for all the unreserved seats (422 approx.). > > > >>> So the probability rating of getting nominated/elected very > > significantly > > > >>> goes up as the number of competitors very significantly goes down. > > > >>> That's a bit of simple mathematics. > > > >>> Peddling of malicious lies can hardly alter that. > > > > >>> As regards the other point, similarly, once there is reservation for > > > >>> women, one can start fighting for special reservations within that > > category. > > > >>> Not that the outcome is guaranteed. > > > >>> But that much opportunity opens up (for further fight). > > > >>> It does not require any "secret deal", just a bit of common sense > > free of > > > >>> malicious projects. > > > > >>> Sukla > > > > >>> On 7 April 2010 17:08, Afthab Ellath <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>> >> The others will also have a much better chance to be elected from > > out > > > >>>> the women's quota than the situation stands today. > > > > >>>> Good Joke... Please enlighten me Mr Sen, then why > > Dalit/Adivasi/Muslim > > > >>>> men are not getting chance to contest and get elected from the > > general(male) > > > >>>> seats? Why the women's quota is special to give great opportunities > > for > > > >>>> Dalit/Adivasi/Muslim women? > > > > >>>> >> Apart from the fact that it opens up the scope for fighting for > > > >>>> sub-quotas for minority/OBC women within the women's quota in > > future. > > > > >>>> What are the chances, Mr Sen? Have you made any secret deals? > > > > >>>> Afthab Ellath > > > > >>>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > >>>>> The "cause of Dalit/minority/OBC/adivasi women" will be served only > > by > > > >>>>> supporting the Women's Reservation Bill. > > > > >>>>> Dalit/adivasi women will immediately stand to gain for there will > > be > > > >>>>> seats reserved for them. There will be 33% reservation for women in > > case of > > > >>>>> "general" seats (33% out of 77.5% of total) and also seats reserved > > for > > > >>>>> SC/ST (33% out of 22.5% of total). > > > >>>>> The others will also have a much better chance to be elected from > > out > > > >>>>> the women's quota than the situation stands today. > > > >>>>> Ap[art from the fact that it opens up the scope for fighting for > > > >>>>> sub-quotas for minority/OBC women within the women's quota in > > future. > > > > >>>>> It's just a nasty conspiracy to cheat and oppress > > > >>>>> "Dalit/minority/OBC/adivasi women" in the name of defending their > > interests. > > > >>>>> What a ghastly joke! > > > > >>>>> Sukla > > > > >>>>> On 7 April 2010 16:29, ranju radha <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> "kavita", > > > >>>>>> my > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
