dileep, first and foremost i must again remind u that the arguments which u asked me to explain are only a supportive ones to my main content which u still not ready to confront
and about cover story published by madhyamam. i personally feel that it did not defame sughathakumari but had some accusations which were true-( vithura girl was taken to ravisankar, vithura girl was prevented from representing to change the advocate /reconsideration of the case ) .in madhyamam after geetha's article was published, sugathakumari herself got enough place to clarify. u had space to post ur argument and geetha's edited reply was published and my response was not published . its true that madhyamam had stood for the cause of downtrodden /marginalized sections of the society unlike most of the conventional weeklies. And it is publishing my articles . the point is that those who does not wound the brahmanical psyche will get ample space where the real issues are not addressed. recently in bashaposhini, when paul zakria wrote only two lines about sugathakumari in an article about the so called 'kerala renaissance' all the brahmanical /upper caste /cultural /literary intelligentia protested .remember an interview done by u with nisar ahmed where he termed the hug of amrithanandamayei as a cultural revolution .........its the space . and where is the space for the financial/tsunami/human god/brahmanical hindutwa aspect of amrithananthamayi and the suicide/drop out- of tribal children in attapady who stayed in amrithavidhyalayams . geedha --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
