To be specific: *Emancipation versus Reconciliation.* . frankly, little bit tired.. or may be fatigue.. so I may not be able to elaborate.
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 8:43 PM, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Dileep, > > hahahah...It is only half-reported. I was more responding to Nizar. > > One of the point I made was this: > In Gandhi, you don't have the idea of "emanicipation. There is only > reconciliation. Where as in Ambedkar, there is the idea of Liberation. In > Marxism as well you find the idea of emancipation. .Though gandhi was > working in the larger context of freedom struggle, he did not advance an > idea of Liberation. Liberation as if form chains, fetters etc. When you > advance the idea of emancipation ,you have to be specific from what? Gandhi > was vague on it. > > As I didn't take notes. I think may be I need to clarify from Devarajan or > even Gopalakrishnan.. is that what I said. > > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 6:20 PM, ranju radha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> one more point; >> how far Gandhi the man and Gandhi the ideology different? >> are they poles apart? >> that is why 13 year gandhi attracts me and the old one detracts >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 6:16 PM, ranju radha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Dear devika, >>> >>> I agree. Even I dont know what Nizar said. BUt if it s the way as >>> reported by dilip, i have not only differences in opinion. but have sympathy >>> for the kind of intellectual exercises. that may be a personal problm. let >>> it be so. >>> Again, i am not looking at Gandhi as a person here. Frankly, I was >>> influenced by Gandhi as a person, especially the 13 year old Gandhi. I am >>> least bothered about Gandhi as a person. Gandhi as a ideology is what I am >>> trying to oppose within my limited undestanding. Perhaps, I may need to >>> engage more critically with Gandhi. But i really dont want to waist my >>> energy on Gandhi. There are better things in this earth to learn. And there >>> exist such critiques which s quite available to all. why d one waist time >>> again and again on that. >>> That may be my limitation and weekness. But it s not as put forth by >>> ahmed rafeek. in fact, Nisar's arguemnts are not only week but vulgar as >>> pointed out in this discssion (i think venugopal). and does not deserve a >>> discussion at all. It s like celebrating the philosophy of 'untouchability' >>> and we are seriously discussing it without refering to the way it has >>> creeped into modern institutions. and if one make a reference to it, >>> accusing of being "fundamentalist', 'authoritarian', 'judging' etc etc. >>> first of all Nisar doesnt have an arguemnt and we are struggling to give >>> him an arguement by this kinda exercise. >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:16 PM, devika Jayakumari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Ranjuradha >>>> >>>> I have no idea what Nizar spoke the other day except by way of the >>>> report, but from what I've read of his writings on Gandhi it seems a bit >>>> unfair to club him along with the moral cowards you encounter in Delhi, >>>> about who you wrote and especially ashish nandy. The report seems to hint >>>> that the clearly culpable historical figure of Gandhi may be excused as we >>>> could view Gandhi as an interpretable, rich text. If that is the case, I >>>> would disagree with Nizar. But I doubt whether he would take such a >>>> vulnerable position. Since I haven't heard him speak I won't take a >>>> position >>>> on this. But to use epithets like 'Nandy-Nizar' is only to vent steam; it >>>> is >>>> just like calling someone a dumb idiot and call that criticism. Just like >>>> the rightwingers do to us most of the time. I think this argument (if it >>>> was >>>> indeed made the way the report states)needs to be analysed for what it does >>>> and the damage it does. In fact the damage that Nandy does, and this >>>> 'Nizar' >>>> does may be different, and have significantly different consequences. >>>> >>>> There is nothing wrong, I feel, in treating Gandhi as a text provided >>>> one is deeply aware of the role he played in shoring up soft >>>> hindu-modernised misogynist brahmin-nationalism. He is certainly not >>>> admirable, from my social location, as a historical figure. I think it is >>>> necessary for us to take away much of the legacy of anticaste bhakti - >>>> ideas, practices, techniques-- (I'm not at all surprised that he touched >>>> Phule's feet; he did use much of Phule's insights, to ends that Phule would >>>> oppose) that he appropriated for elitist nationalism. Textualising and >>>> historicising Gandhi would be a strategy to that critical end. That can be >>>> done only by challenging precisely his claim as the progenitor of a whole >>>> range of potent political techniques which have roots elsewhere, in the >>>> resistances of the underprivileged. >>>> >>>> I think it is a great tribute to Ambedkar that he continues to inspire >>>> as a historical figure, while also being read as a text. Gandhi has become >>>> a text and is no more inspiring as historical figure. >>>> >>>> Devika >>>> >>>> >>>> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
