hope that he won't call Ambedkar , "the Dalit Gandhi" soon..
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 6:25 PM, aryakrishnan ramakrishnan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Jenny,Luisa,Ranju, > > My interest in engaging in this kind of exercise is related to > understanding the present. which is more political than historical. > History do help in major ways but sometimes the novelty, > innovations, and surprises won't be captured due to overhistoricising. > > One has to be theoretically inventive, creative and commited in order to > theorise the present. > > Thus I found Nizar's proposition interesting. Arguing with it will also > be productive, as this debate increasingly show. > > I will share my reading of Chengara struggle in anorganised manner soon. > triggering rich theoretical work in itself is an indication of the > creativity of the movement. > It isn't at all an attempt to negate agency to Dalit activists in Chengara > and ascribe it to Gandhi ! I personally take the social reality as > indeterminate, calling for > various theoretical frameworks. > > > Luisa, > To be frank, Nizar himeself (in an interview published in a Malayalam > journal) called Bin Laden > "violent Gandhi". considering their position on civilisation. > > > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 6:09 PM, jenny rowena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Friends, > > > > 1. Given the new turn in the discussions to read Gandhi as a text, both > by > > Ahmed in an another thread > > and by Devika here... what i am writing here is also an attempt to read > > Gandhi's philosophy.. > > Actually i have done it earlier too in talking about the concept of > > Sathyagraha... > > However Ahmed i know that some readings always gets better visibility > than > > others.. > > > > 2. Dileep, most of the points that you have written about Sathyagraha can > be > > shared by any > > non-violent and even violent resistance as Luisa pointed out.. > > The core to what distinguishes Gandhian Sathyagraha from other forms of > > non-violent resistance > > is the fact that here there is an insistence on suffering, self-injury, > > truth and other ideals > > like patience, sympathy, weaning, love... etc.. > > -- let me quote again from Gandhi's own text... > > > > Its root meaning is holding onto truth, hence truth-force. I have also > > called it love-force or soul-force. In the application of satyagraha, I > > discovered in the earliest stages that pursuit of truth did not admit of > > violence being inflicted on one's opponent but that he must be weaned > from > > error by patience and sympathy. For what appears to be truth to the one > may > > appear to be error to the other. And patience means self-suffering. So > the > > doctrine came to mean vindication of truth, not by infliction of > suffering > > on the opponent, but on oneself... > > > > In an earlier mail to Dileep, I had already talked about this to which > > Dileep wrote: > > > > ??>6.The point you raise, that, it is not a choice but forced situation, > > doesn't nullify such a proposition. > > > > Let me elaborate my point further... > > > > The whole Gandhian idea of winning over, patience, love, suffering etc.. > > imagines a struggle, where > > the resisting party is already placed in some kind of a negotiating > > position.. > > Where she can still be patient, suffer, wean, wait it out, talk about > love, > > etc etc.. > > In other words, where she is able to somewhere make a connection with > > the opponent from his present situation and wean him into give in.. > > > > This is Sathyagraha for you.. For an excellent illustration see Lage Raho > > Munna Bhai.. > > > > What i am saying is this... > > this kind of an approach might not be available to Dalit Bahujan and > other > > politically oppressed people > > whose political position has given them less than human-lives and intense > > SUFFERING for > > centuries after centuries, > > > > PATIENCE AND SUFFERING AND LOVE as IDEALS, JUST MIGHT NOT APPEAL TO THEM > > > > Because patience and love are not essentialized and naturally given > ideals > > and they need a cultural context to be made into a reality and to > survive.. > > > > So one can conclude that sathyagraha is a very savarna middle-class > ideal, > > with its use and uselessness... > > > > And most Gandhian ideals are like this... > > Gandhian philosophy is also like this... > > > > You really cannot stop reading Gandhi's own identity into his political > and > > philosophical formulations.. > > You meet it there in his text as well as in his action.. > > And then you realize that he cannot be easily transplanted into subaltern > > locations and positions.. > > neither to understand subaltern struggles or politics.. And this is where > > Ambedkar's analysis > > begins to become important.. > > > > Some more points on what Devika said: > > > >>>I don't think saying that the activists at Chengara are using the > >>> techniques of satyagraha automatically reduces them to >Gandhi's > politics or > >>> denies their innovativeness. > > > >>>Satyagraha has always been an idea capacious enough to allow multiple > uses > >>> and interpretations. > >>>I have a feeling the activists at Chengara could be seen as innovating > on > >>> it in a strikingly anti-Gandhian spirit and to ?>diametrically opposite > >>> ends. > > > > If Chengara struggle has "innovatively moved" out of Gandhian Sathyagra > and > > is also "anti Gandhian", then why is Nizar Ahmed and others compelled to > see > > "Gandhian" ideals in it? > > > > I really really cannot understand.......except by thinking of dogmatism - > > this is not a personal comment, but i really cannot understand thisd > > phenomena otherwise... . > > > > To end, let me just say that... the Chengara struggle is a Dalit > struggle, > > with ideas, ideals and philosophy mainly drawn from Ambedkar and > Ayyankali.. > > And this is what the struggling people in Chengara are telling us.. And > this > > is the philiosophy that India/Kerala culture has no access to. Saturated > as > > we have been with Gandhi and Gandhians for so long.. > > > > We want the ideals and ideas of Ambedkar, Ayyankali and other Dalit > Bahujan > > thinkers, who take CASTE as one of the most important > > analytical category for any kind of analysis. > > > > We reject the Savarna ideals of Gandhi's philosophy and persona and > > recognize him and his writings as the spokesperson/philosophy of the > HIndu > > caste system, which is one of the most oppressive power structures in > India > > today... > > > > If we are to think about Gandhi please don't assimilate Dalit struggles > into > > Gandhism. In stead tell us how Gandhi is relevant for Dalit Bahujan > Minority > > Gender and Sexual politics.. and which of his philosophy and which text > we > > must read for this..... > > > > > > jenny > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 4:39 PM, ranju radha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> > >> Before branding Chengara struggle as Gandhian, do these intellectuals > ever > >> felt for a second to think about how Dalits waged their freedom movement > >> agansit brahminism? DO they refer back to find out the nature of > struggle > >> that Ambedkar led? genealogy of Dalit Struggles can't be find in Gandhi > and > >> Gandhism. there is a history of such struggles. Chengara could be traced > >> back to that history. > >> for me, NIsar's reading is yet another attempt to mask that history of > >> struggles by Dalits. > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
