Welcome to hear; but I wish I could beleve it!
Thanks.
On 6 Oct, 09:23, "damodar prasad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On point that struck me ( I did not take any notes for that matter) in
> Nizar mash talk is this:
>
> *"Sardar Patel was Gandhi's reality and Nehru was his dream. No one likes
> reality, every one is in love with one's dreams. Nehru was closer to gandhi"
> .
> *
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:59 AM, jenny rowena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> > WHAT I MEANT - i would like to clarify - was this -
> > you were giving ambedkar, sreenarayana guru, etc as names to be discussed
> > later
> > - as if in answer to what i said about not bringing caste into the
> > discussion -
>
> > so my reply meant this : just by deciding to look at these subaltern
> > figures,
> > you are not going bringing *the issue of caste *into the discussion -
>
> > if you discuss these people like you did (or reported you did) Gandhi,
> > then such a discussion will also *not include the issue of caste
>
> > *basically what i am trying to say here is to bring the caste structure,
> > and other issues of identity into any discussion that is happening today..
> > that if you don't do this any discussion is incomplete..
>
> > i am not dictating or saying i know the truth..
>
> > jenny
>
> > On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> "And please read anyone you want in your next meetings.. Names don't mean
> >> anything Dileep,
> >> it is the issues that matter. You can read Ambedkar and still manage to
> >> talk about nothing -
> >> and even end up misreading him... "
>
> >> To my limited intelligence, saying this implies,
> >> that you have direct access to the correct reading of everything.Gandhi,
> >> Ambedkar...everything under the sun.
>
> >> What else does these words mean?
>
> >> Despite Ranju is threatening, I will write on how I see Chengara. In fact
> >> it is nothing that new, i have already wrote on it. But will try to connect
> >> it with your observations.
> >> ( Ranju, I became an activist in CPIM"s fortress Kannur. Though no longer
> >> an activist,
> >> I could sense fundamentalisms of all sort. Sorry, I am not one who will so
> >> easily get silenced.I have been closely watching how you have been engaging
> >> with "Venuettan" in
> >> this forum, soem 'respected" academics in certain other forums and how you
> >> reserve your "go to hell" attitude for certain names no matter whtever be
> >> the subject. So, please dont try to feign innocenece and strategically act
> >> as if you are not strategical. I am prepared to face it)
> >> )
>
> >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:24 AM, jenny rowena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> >>> dileep, now i really can't follow what you are saying here -
>
> >>> why are people's names and motives being brought in again and again
> >>> into a discussion that is about gandhi, ambedkar, caste system,
> >>> the modes of how it was reported to
> >>> have been read at a recent seminar, differences with that mode, etc
> >>> etc.. this is really *silly
> >>> * *
> >>> * *When you say whatever issue/name we ( i.E : some people in Kerala
> >>> where Jenny, "Venuettan", Ranju ( Ranjith ?) etal are absent) take up, the
> >>> discussion will be futile, I become a humbled person.*
> >>> *I will wait for your proclamation of "official line" on each and every
> >>> issue/name.*
> >>> *once I become a follower ( and humbly submit before the Truth revealed
> >>> by you, and will even attack everybody who are not willing to do so.*
>
> >>> and what kind of nonsense is the above?
> >>> did i say any of the things you are accusing me of?
> >>> should a difference of opinion, a questioning of a given ideological
> >>> position immediately lead
> >>> to this kind of attack?
> >>> do you know that you are making me out to be some monster???
>
> >>> anyway go on...you do it very well...
> >>> btw, if there is any issue you want to come back to...... still here..
>
> >>> jenny
>
> >>> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>>> of you critically/intelllectually engaged with any of the arguments
> >>>> raised by nizar on
> >>>> *I think i have argued exactly why Chengara struggle cannot be called
> >>>> Gandhian, and you said you take the argument and will respond.. Now what
> >>>> happened ????*
>
> >>>> **
> >>>> Dear Jenny ,
> >>>> for your ready reference let me give the portion you quoted in full .
>
> >>>> 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.
>
> >>>> When you say whatever issue/name we ( i.E : some people in Kerala where
> >>>> Jenny, "Venuettan", Ranju ( Ranjith ?) etal are absent) take up, the
> >>>> discussion will be futile, I become a humbled person.
> >>>> I will wait for your proclamation of "official line" on each and every
> >>>> issue/name.
> >>>> once I become a follower ( and humbly submit before the Truth revealed
> >>>> by you, and will even attack everybody who are not willing to do so.
>
> >>>> in case further training is needed, i will join CPIm for some time and
> >>>> learn some secrets of ideological fundamentalism .
>
> >>>> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 6:31 PM, jenny rowena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 5:40 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.*
>
> >>>>> *I was responding to the report on the seminar which seemed to be
> >>>>> taking Gandhi at face value
> >>>>> or in other words, in his hegemonic avathar ..
> >>>>> For me Gandhi in his original form does not exist.
> >>>>> I cannot agree to a critique of Gandhi's ideas, without re-creating
> >>>>> Gandhi, using the
> >>>>> various ways in which he has been interrogated by Dalit Bahujan
> >>>>> scholars...
> >>>>> i can only analyze him now after doing this. this is the only gandhi
> >>>>> available for some, NOW.
> >>>>> From the report or what you have written above, this does not seem to
> >>>>> have happened.
> >>>>> And so i see a situation where we will have to sit and stare at the
> >>>>> same old Savarna Gandhi
> >>>>> and sit and discuss the merits and demerits of Sathyagraha..
> >>>>> when we have no patience with such savarna concepts anymore and want to
> >>>>> talk of new things...
>
> >>>>> And please read anyone you want in your next meetings.. Names don't
> >>>>> mean anything Dileep,
> >>>>> it is the issues that matter. You can read Ambedkar and still manage to
> >>>>> talk about nothing -
> >>>>> and even end up misreading him... (e.g.The Chapter on Ambedkar by
> >>>>> Partha Chattterjee
> >>>>> in his book "The politics of the Governed" -)
>
> >>>>> *
>
> >>>>>> 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.
>
> >>>>> *
> >>>>> I was referring to the way in which Gandhi has been associated with and
> >>>>> has projected himself also in terms of
> >>>>> concepts like Sathyagraha, Panchayathiraj... The usual commonsensical
> >>>>> mainstream hegemonic way of seeing
> >>>>> Gandhi.. Which is deeply connected to these concepts, without allowing
> >>>>> us to enter into the existing knowledge
> >>>>> about Gandhi as the philosopher of the caste system in the modern era..
>
> >>>>> *
> >>>>> 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?
>
> >>>>> *I have not seen Venugopal using vulgarizing tactics in this forum.
> >>>>> But have seen him being ignored.
> >>>>> I have already talked about this issue...
>
> >>>>> *
>
> >>>>>> 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).
>
> >>>>> *I did not read it. And i really don't look at who is talking but try
> >>>>> to stick to issues, in this forum i remember writing against both
> >>>>> Venugopal
> >>>>> (he has done that too) and Ranjith. And i remember Ranjith and Venugopal
> >>>>> also debating similarly.
> >>>>> Why are you bringing this up?
> >>>>> *
>
> >>>>> 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.
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
