SUCI, to my understanding is Stalinistic and ant-Ambedkarite to the core. Is it bz of the kind of "missionary" activities they do in the area that the leaders get influenced by them. and no need to talk abt what neelakandan will do there. What is the response of the Dalit organisations and intellectuals who are supporting the struggle? What is that prevent Laha (i suppose) in going with Dalit orgns and happy to be part of SUCI and Neelan kinda mediators? What kind of mediation they do? And to what kind of solution?
I am asking this not to get answers. But the inside politics seems to be interesting. especially the role played by SUCI. (in one forwarded mail in GY, i remember reading abt their role in nandigram as well)... the solidarity group in delhi are working on meeting various bodies, as far as i know suggestions are welcome regards in solidarity On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chengara : Time Out > Friends, > The situation in chengara is deteriorating day by day. > Seleena,one of the leaders was admited to hospital today, > badly ill. She was blocked by goons and forced to sit > on road for hours before being admited.many people are undergoing diseases. > > If we are to take a close look at the struggle, the situation is ugly. > SUCI and certain mediators ( C R Neelakantan, for instance) were > influencing the leadership to the point of rejecting the support of > other dalit organisations and solidarity committee.Everybody feel helpless > and mediators, who instilled hope in order to salvage the situation in > favour of government are seen nowhere. > > who will be responsible if people die at Chengara in coming days? > > I am writing this (including mentioning of CRNeelakantan's name) after > discussion with Rekha Raj. We feel helpeless and > disturbed.There is no point in masking the ground reality. > > Perhaps we should do something independently, highlighting the heroic > struggle of people > and urging the government to act. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 7:55 PM, jenny rowena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> Aryan, I found Nizar's arguments not to have any relevance to >> understanding the present. that is the political >> reason for my posting here.. >> >> waiting to read ur piece.. >> >> jenny >> >> \\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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
