Just a few questions to Dileep: 1.Where is trivia there,though I was indeed suggesting vulgarity in Dr.Nizar's position as seen in your narration. One doesn't need to vulgarize, which is already vulgar. If it is not vulgar to invent anarchism in a declared Sanathani like Gandhi, in spite of all his sympathies with Ramarajya and varnashrama call it rubbish! Further, how do you say that I behaved badly to Dr.Nizar just because of suggesting that his position on Gandhism is anachronistic? How do you say that referring to history, to prove the vulgarity in reading Gandhi without a reference to his open support to state violence and equally open condemnation of people's right to defend themselves, bad? Didn't Gandhi help the imperialist powers in 1914 in recruiting Indian villagers to the world war, despite his preachings for non violence when it comes to confronting the state? Lastly, when you came with an account of Nizar's thoughts on Gandhi, it was but natural for one to say something in response. Did you mean that those thoughts are outside the purview of critical reflections here just because Nizar is not a member? Believe me ,please - I had nothing personally against anybody. But I still take the freedom to say that Nizar's analysis is no scholarly analysis at all and it is just another celebration of Gandhi, the kind we see anywhere on 2nd October. Thanks.
On Oct 5, 5:10 pm, "Dileep Raj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Jenny, > > Let me clarify my moderate claims. > 1.The report was of a seminar in which critical assessment/readings of > Gandhi were done in a dialogic manner. Of course all sorts of issues came up > in the discussion. Ambedkarite criticism included.It lasted over three and a > half hours and interactions were informal, alllowing equal space for every > participant. So inspiring was the ambience that we jointly decided to hold > seminars like "Reading Ambedkar", "Reading narayana Guru", "Reading E M S", > "Reading Sahodaran Ayyappan" etc. > 2. It might be true that my report didn't bring the whole nunaces of the > debate in focus. ( sorry, being an organiser myself, it took > almost three hours for me to prepare that report out of recorded tapes). But > even from a re--reading of the given report, I can't understand why that is > taged as celebration of Gandhi in > usual terms. You said discussions on satyagraha and panchayatiraj were going > on for sixty years and this is an extention. Could you site one or two such > examples from those sixty years? I am genuinely interested in reading > that. > 3. You legetimises Venugopal's trivial way of vulgarising opponent's > position by going to "history". OK, tell me where did poor Nizar ( who is > not even a member of GY) behave > badly to him? If you are referring to the fact that it was me who > reported..isn't that an evidence for persons becoming issues than texts? > 4.Venugopal criticised the strategy of Chengara struggle(particularly threat > to suicide) in this forum soem time ago. Nobody demanded an apology ( nor do > I beleve that it is the way one should engage with other positions). > 5.When Nizar says that it is the government who is following gandhian method > at chengara and civil society in Kerala is more cruel than British, somebody > here want him to apologise!! I sincerely don't understand why. But I could > understand the pleasure gained out of such polemics. > 6.I personally am always eager to read what you have to say on Gandhi. I > don't take it in a competetitive mood. I take it as readings, having > equal validity, and am always ready to engage critically with your position > if I have anything sayable on that. > 7 Whom do Ranju,yourself and Venu address when making comments in this > thread? Is it me? Is it because you presume that there is an uncritical > alliance netween whoever participates in a programme ( when you are not part > of it)? > 8.I never said using certain jargon should be avoided. I only said, > demanding everybody to speak the same language is fascist. I also maintain > that people could think critically using > terms like satyagraha, panchayatiraj etc. as well.You were referring to the > vocabulary alone. though I went through each and every post by you in this > thread, I didn't find a single instanec where nay of you > critically/intelllectually engaged with any of the arguments raised by nizar > on Gandhi. > 9.I consider this discussion as a small intiative from a new bookshop. > Nothing more.each one oof you are capable of bigger intiatives on this issue > within or outside this platform. I sincerely look forward to learning from > such interactions, and sincerely wish I will be spared for the simple reason > that I am yet not ready to take unprovoked insults in a gandhian manner!! > > Cheers > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 4:30 PM, ranju radha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > NIsar's stand is no less dangerous than that of deshabhimani's. And you > > call it analysing? This is nothing but shear branding dear. > > Suppose in yet another bloody oct 2nd and yet another Gandhi seminar, if > > somebedy come and "analyse" Chengara as a Hindutva fascist strategy against > > the poor left in kerala, would u again proudly report it and call it > > analysis. > > We are fed up of such analyses babaaa.... go to hell with it. and therefore > > ask the same question back with the same polemical vigour: "WHO ARE YOU TO > > ANALYSE?" > > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Dear Jenny, > > >> As you now, my role in the first instance wwas that of a reporter. > >> When Luisa raised a criticism, meaning the speaker doesn't know the > >> technical sense of anrchism, i felt responsible because, there indeed were > >> elaborate discussions on the same issue.So, I once again came reported it > >> by > >> way of making Nizar's position clear .( Why should somebody bear the burden > >> of incomplete reporting?) > > >> and.. Luisa, I am stil not convinced why you are not considering Gandhi as > >> an anarchist > >> the way nizar defines it. 1. He says, Gandhi himself called sarvodaya as > >> anarchist in a Young India article.2.Satyagraha as an organising principle > >> of society conceives of no state. > > >> OK, now coming to my engagement with jenny and non engagement with certain > >> others. > >> If this is an independent discussion on Gandhi, well.. I may or may not > >> share my views.It is a personal choice.I don't feel i am obliged to just > >> because i reported a particular discussion. > > >> this was the first para of Venugopal's response . ( and it was the first > >> response in the thread > >> as well, setting the whole spirit) > > >> Dr Nisar having stated these about Gandhi, > >> what is left there so much to discuss? > >> Go happy, please.. > >> Please follow Gandhi with all those ill famous inconsistencies, albeit > >> with any semblance of critical intelligence in you totally > >> surrendered! > >> (Bolo Mahatma Gandhi ki...!!.) > > >> I don't know whether this will pass for branding / non engagement > >> through your magnifying glass. Nizar said, mere pointing out of > >> inconsistenicies won't do > >> any good, wheareas the need is to critcally read and explore the > >> contraditions in the texts > >> from present's political context. > > >> Jenny, you alleged that this particular seminar/ report belong to certain > >> other > >> uncritical celebration of Gandhi in academic circles. How culd you just > >> allege and withdraw? > >> How do you substantiate it? How does Skaria's writing, the seminar in > >> Hy'Bad University and > >> this discussion fall under same category? People participated in this > >> programme includes, > >> Geo jose (activist), Suresh George ( activist), Uthaman ( writer), K P > >> Sethunath (journalist), > >> Bindu ( journalist), P S Manojkumar( history teacher, translator), K K > >> Baburaj ( writer), Devarajan( researcher), N P Johnson ( activist), > >> Brahmaputran ( activist), Ajayan ( film society activist) , Hari ( software > >> engineer ) among (some!) others. I only epressed my 'emotions' while you > >> go ahead with such branding. Now you are claiming that you were involved in > >> dispassiionate academic engagement and it was I who onesidedly brought > >> emotions into this thread. > > >> Having said that, i do take your criticisms on forms of struggle in > >> Chengara seriously. I hope I could express my view points on it soon, > >> going beyond my disciplined role as reporter! > > >> But I am amused at the demand by Ranju ( Jenny , you said I tried to brand > >> Ranjith here.. but where is he?) that Nizar should apologise for analysing > >> chengara struggle as Gandhian. > >> If I am to question this fascist position, will it be branding? Dear > >> ranju, I could understand the spirit when somebody demands that > >> deshabhimani > >> should apologise for alleging that it is landowners who are struggling at > >> Chengara. Here you are sayng that somebody should apologise for analysing a > >> social movement differently. > > >> If this is the spirit with which you are engaging in debate , how can I > >> help asking, who are you to judge? > > >> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:30 PM, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > wrote: > > >>> jenny, > > >>> I may accept it provided you also read your mails and many other mails in > >>> the similar thread and perhaps if you have time some archival mails with > >>> same magnifying lens. > > >>> :-) > > >>> prasad > > >>> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:06 PM, jenny rowena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > >>>> The problem with such contemporary scholars, who are holding on to > >>>> cliched ways of thinking without any change.... > >>>> is that they also have access to so many politically loaded words with > >>>> which to cut down any one who questions > >>>> their ideas and hegemony from a "different" perspective > >>>> let me take some of those words from Damodar's mail: > > >>>> normative > >>>> pre-given > >>>> universalistic > >>>> fundamentalist > >>>> dictatorial > >>>> intolerant > >>>> conformist > > >>>> All that Venuettan, Ranjith and I have been saying here is being reduced > >>>> to this, > >>>> and the debate is being taken out of issues and into name-calling, > >>>> albeit in a > >>>> very posh, academic way. > > >>>> jenny > > >>>> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 11:44 AM, damodar prasad < > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>>> What is implied in both Jenny's reading or in a subtle way KMVenu's new > >>>>> mail is that there is normative procedure , which is pre-given > >>>>> applicable to > >>>>> all context and which fundamentally locates on a universalistic ethic > >>>>> as in > >>>>> universalistic US's rational human rights concept and hence > >>>>> unchallengable. > > >>>>> KM Venu has a name for it, which helps his easy to muster support from > >>>>> all quarters - from the traditional Left to active thinkers of the > >>>>> Identity > >>>>> politics. And the name is "postmodernism". Wow!! wow!! > > >>>>> These assumptions displays on its over determining moments how > >>>>> fundamentalist it is. > > >>>>> On modes of protest, an unlikely theoretically engagement as indeed > >>>>> posed by Nizar kinda buji, is immediately forestalled to make way for > >>>>> what > >>>>> is being a very normal assessment. And amusingly, this assessment , > >>>>> which > >>>>> implicates all other assessments and approaches as hierarchal in turn is > >>>>> ruthlessly dictatorial and intolerant and conformist to the extent that > >>>>> it > >>>>> wants to cancel out all "separatist" discourses as untoward instances > >>>>> because it has interrogated the integrity of a "sedimented conviction", > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
