Originally posted by: flipfl0p
So what should we call such an environment, a) when a group of people shout loudly so that the other person's voice is not heard b) where the speaker had to stop at least twice to address the sloganeers? Do we call it interrupted only if they were successful in driving his car out of their campus, without him speaking?
To me, only objection in his speech was, he mentioned Modi when he was speaking about great thinkers of India (not that I agree Patel or Bose to be great thinkers either. All are men of action, not thinkers. At least, the other names were past. Modi is current PM. There was no need to bring his name).
The point I liked in his speech was, why a person involved in mission to Mars is not called an intellectual, instead only those who criticise India.
He brought China's name as a sarcastic remark for those who were shouting Azadi. ( At 5 min into the video, "From whom are you asking Azadi? Definitely you have not been our slaves. If you are under any Chinese influence, ask freedom from them"). As Naxalillites try to derive inspiration from Mao, this must be towards that mindset.
Let me presume, he did say it (if not in this, may be in some other speech). But then, even an academician can say one erroneous sentence in a speech. Vivek Agnihotri at the end of day is a film maker. You decided to concentrate only on one sentence to discredit his whole speech. Good.
I don't think I could convey to you correctly the last time, so let me start again.
First, as I explained in my previous post, I called it uninterrupted in response to more exaggerated claims. For controversial events, there are always going to be protestors. Do you think protests by other people happen without slogans and interruptions? Sometimes, depending on the situation and the number of people supporting both sides, one group shouts the other down because it is numerically stronger at that time. Usually both sides are evenly matched and just keep shouting until you cannot make out who is shouting what.
Now coming to Vivek Agnihotri. I did not say he cannot make this film, or this speech. I have not seen the film in question. It is the marketing campaign of the film that makes the claim that this film exposes the link between universities/intellectuals and Naxalites and the Left in India. It shows the "reality" of some universities. So then when I listen to his speech, I expect him to address these issues. He does not.
So let us now come to the statement that you liked that why a person involved in a Mission to Mars is not called an intellectual. Can I ask you something? Have these protesting people ever said "We are intellectuals"? A group of students criticise the government and the policies of the nation state. The response is "these intellectuals can only criticise, do nothing. Why are scientists not called intellectuals?" Another version of this is "Why are the soldiers fighting on our borders not respected?" But these group of people have not claimed intellectualism from themselves, it is Vivek Agnihotri who is using it as a label and not discussing the issues that they have brought up. These people are not saying "Don't call scientists intellectuals". If you ask me, is a scientist an intellectual, I will say " of course. How is that even a question?"
These people are students of history, politics, sociology and so on. Discussing history, politics and sociology IS a part of their work. You have the right to disagree with their opinions, you have the right to prove them wrong. And so do they. It is the media and their opponents who keep labelling them "intellectual" among other things and not really discussing the things they are saying. In his speech, Kanhaiya Kumar had said to Smriti Irani "I am not your child. I am your Opposition". To me at least, that makes his position clear. Opposition is to be treated as a political opponent and strategies evolved to deal with them, but that does not mean crushing them or reforming them by asking them to change their opinions.
So, I did not discredit Agnihotri only because his speech referenced China. I work in the university sector. I am very aware of the problems in it, and can point them out in far more detail than him. I did not expect a detailed analysis from him, but when you make a film on a topic, I do expect you to have some idea of where the subjects of your film are coming from. Who are they reading? Who is inspiring them? Why are they taking the positions they do? I discredit his speech because I see no research there, only the same arguments that I have heard the last few months online. As I have said before, I do not support every decision of the Left. Or the Right. But I do think that shutting down student politics, of either kind, does not bode well for the future of a democracy.
Hindi TV Shows
Bindi
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
Jodha Akbar
10