Films, Feminism and Reservation Policy

नारीवादी ओ को नारी प्रधान फिल्मो जैसे की पिंक और दंगल में एक बात खटकती है। ऐसा क्यूँ की इन फिल्मों में सुधारवादी या नारी सशक्तिकरण की बाते कोई बूढ़ा सा पुरुष की जबान में कही जाए?
एक जवाब है।
एक हिंदी कविता में ये लिखा है जो काफी महत्वपूर्ण है।

तुम्हारे भीतर हैसदियों पुराना एक खूसट बूढ़ाजो लाठियां ठकठकातेअभी भी अपनी मुंछों कोतेल पिलाते रहता हैआखिर तुम कैसेउसकी झुर्रियों के जाल सेबाहर आ पाओगी

आखिर कोई कैसेसदियों तक अपनी जमीनबंधक रहने दे सकता है।

इस कविता में यह बात को पुष्टि मिलती है कि कही न कही बूढी दी पुरुषप्रधान समाज व्यवस्था नारी के subjugation का कारण है। इस व्यस्था का विद्रोह, विरोध और रेजिस्टेंस होना चाहिए। यह जबतक सुबजुगटेड इडेन्टिटीज़ नहीं समजेगी और रेजिस्टेंस नहीं करेगी तब तक मुक्ति नहीं मिल सकती।
इस समझ के साथ, यज भी समजना जरूरी है कि इस सुधारवादी सफर में अगर हेजिमोनिक पॉवर साथ ना देकर अगर खींचातानी में उतर आता है तो पूरी व्यवस्था में अराजकता फ़ैल जाती है।
इसलिए इस प्रकार की सुधारवादी मूवमेंट्स में हेजिमोनिक पोजीशन में रहे लोगो को आगे आने की जरूरत रहती है। एहसान करने या कुछ देने के लिए नहीं परंतु एक उत्तरदातित्व समझ कर यह करना अनिवार्य है।
बस यही पिंक और दंगल जैसी नारिप्रधान फिल्मों में बुड्ढे पुरुष कर रहे है।
यह अनिवार्य सलूशन नहीं है। इसके बिना भी यह हो सकता है। लेकुन किंतु परंतु, अगर ऐसे पेरीफेरल रेजिस्टेंस को सपोर्ट हेजिमोनिक सेंटर से मिले तो समाज अराजकता से बच कर , एकजूट हो कर प्रोग्रेस कर सकता है।
सबसे महत्वपूर्ण है अपने (self) अंदर से दुसरो (other)  को समझने का प्रयास करे।

इस ऐनक के साथ रिजर्वेशन पालिसी को देखे तो आज समाज को जो बंटवारा हो रहा है उसे अराजकता से बचाया जा सकता है।
भारत के बहुत सारे राज्यो में सुवर्ण जातीओ को अल्प संख्यक या पछात जातियो में शामिल करने की मुहिम चल रही है।
इस मूवमेंट का एक कारण यह है कि बहोत सारे पछात या बिछड़ी जाती के लोग अच्छी पोजीशन में पहुँच चुके है। यह लॉग ना सिर्फ अमीर बन चुके है पर यह अब पॉवर पोज़िशन्स में है और अपना हेजिमोनिक स्ट्रक्चर बना रहे है। यह थोड़ा हानिकारक है।

जौसे पिंक और दंगल में दिखाया गया है की कोई पुरुष अगर आगे आएंगे तो बात बिना अराजकता से सुलझ सकती है, वैसे अगर वह बिछ्ड़ी जाती के लोग जो लिबरेट हो चुके है वह आगे आकर अपना सैविधानिक हक जाने दे और अपनी नई पीढ़ी को यह समझ दे तो आनेवाले कल को हम सामाजिक अराजकता से बचा सकते है।
यह परिवर्तन इन्ही जाती के लोगो से आना अनिवार्य है।
इसके साथ सवर्ण जाती के लीगो को भी अपनी नई पीढी को ऐतिहासिक समझ देनी है। इतिहास में जिन लीगो के साथ अन्यायपूर्ण व्यवहार हुआ उसकी भरपाई करनी अभी बाकी है - यह समझ भी इतनी ही जरूरी है।

हो यह राहा है कि जिन बिछ्ड़ी जाती के लोगो ने बेनिफिट्स लेके एक मुकाम हासिल किया है , किसी प्रकार के पावर पोज़िशन्स में पहुँच चुके है, वह लोग भी मिल रहे बेनेफिट्स का त्याग नहीं कर रहे। जिस तरह पिंक और दंगल में बुड्ढे पुरूष की आवश्यकता है, ठीक उसी तरह बैकवर्ड क्लास में प्रोग्रेसिव लोगो को आगे आने की भी आवस्यकता है।
जिस तरह महावीरसिंह फोगाट की कहानी लड़कियों के सशक्तिकरण में एक महत्वपूर्ण कदम है, ठीक उसी तरह, बिछ्ड़ी जाती से क्रीमी लेयर के लोगो को आगे आने की जरूरत है।
यह प्रक्रिया में भी अंदर के लोग ही मदद कर सकते है।
अब हम समय की ऐसी कागार पर खड़े है जहाँ इन दो प्रकार की ट्राजेक्टरी बनाना अनिवार्य है - सवर्ण जाती के लोग अपने बच्चो को ऐतिहासिक सत्य, सामाजिक अन्याय के तत्थयो को बराबर समजाये
और बिछ्ड़ी जाती के वह लोग जो आर्थिक, सामाजिक तौर पर क्रीमी लेयर बन चुके है वह आगे आये और अपना सैविधानिक अधिकार त्यागे।

हम सब जानते है यह मुश्किल है लेकिन नामुमकिन नहीं है। लोगो को एजुकेट करे तो यह हो सकता है।

एक और रास्ता भी है।
थोड़ा कठिन है।
इसमें दो जनरेशन का समय लग सकता है।
लेकिन परिणाम बेहतरीन हो सकता है।
हमें सिर्फ यह करना है कि - आजसे जन्म लेने वाले हर एक बच्चे को नाम नहीं नंबर दिया जाये।
न पहला नाम, न दूसरा नाम, न आखरी नाम। सिर्फ और सिर्फ नंबर।
हमारी भाषा और लिपि सेक्युलर नहीं है। भाषा सांप्रदायिक, धार्मिक, सांस्कृतिक, जातिगत, लिंगजन्य है। हमारे आंकड़े इन विभाजनों से मुक्त है। भाषा और लिपि को छोड़, आंकड़े की और जाने से शायद हम एक बेहतरीन समाज की व्यवस्था का निर्माण कर सकते है।

यूटोपिया वैसे तो ख्याली पुलाव है फिरभी मानव सहज है कि हम यूटोपिया की ख्वाहिश और सपना छोड़ नहीं सकते, तोड़ नहीं सकते।

Education System: School in Forest

In Derridean discourse, it is believed that *Language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique*. The element to undermine the proposition or hypothesis lies within itself.

जो भी हम कहना चाहे
बर्बाद करे अल्फाज़ हमारे  (Irshad kaamil)

_When I pronounce the word Future,the first syllable already belongs to the past._
_When I pronounce the word Silence,I destroy it._
_When I pronounce the word Nothing,I make something no non-being can hold_
( Wislawa Szymborska)

When Chetan Bhagat makes his God say *medium amount* of Intelligence and *a bit* of Imagination, he is actually deconstructing himself.

उसके शव्द उसको बार्बाद कर रहे है।
How? Well, a good literature is not possible without proper use of intelligence and imagination. Intelligence helps to rationalize the events and imagination helps in connecting events with the philosophical thought.

The popular literature is not 'real literature' because it lacks depth of intellectual analysis. Its flight of Imagination is also without wings of philosophy.
Thus only these two adjectives for intelligence n imagination are enough for the critique popular literature. Anyhow, the popular literature has all capacities to transcend these boundaries. It all depends on how deeply the writer can penetrate while dealing with shallowness of its content. Thus, in Chetan Bhagat's use of these words undermines entire popular literature or a sort of 'dramadies' written by similar writers.

Well, we are here to look critically at a popular meme on education system.
Below is given a popular meme on a satire on education system. It is very interesting to see how it criticizes the 'standardization' of education system. To a greater extent it is very difficult to disagree with the statement of satire made by this popular meme.

Well, can we find anything in this image to deconstruct it?

If language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique, how can we find the aporia / loose stone in this meme to deconstruct its very existence. On what grounds can we undermine the signifier so us to make Sign have different signified? 

One of the ways of doing so is to deconstruct the metaphor. The literal reading of metaphor can help in presenting a critique of its sign. In this meme, the animals are used metaphorically. The animals suggest humans with varied capabilities. One animar is good in the skill which it is meant to perform and is utterly incapable of performing other skills. Similarly, it attempts to suggest that humans cannot do everything. All humans are born with a gift to do one or the other things.

That's fine. But this 'maxim' that humans cannot do everything is not aptly used in this meme. Rather, it is fact that humans can do whatever they want to. Though humans are animals, yet humans are intelligent animal. Only human beings have intelligence as well as imagination. This makes human beings capable to have philosophy as well as historical sense. These capacities makes humans far better than other animals. Especially, when it comes to education, there is no parallel between humans and animals. Yes, training is a different things. We can train animals into doing several things and can use them in Circus or domesticate to use them for agrarian works. But we cannot educate animals . We cannot teach language to animals. We cannot teach language to philosophise or have historical sense. Thus, this meme do not convey the right message. It may be good for the satire on 'standardization of tests' but not at all on 'education system'.

Do you have any other points to deconstruct this metaphor?

Can teacher's leave workplace on time?

Can teacher's leave workplace on time?

If teachers like other work professionals leave workplace on time, is it good for them? Can they do so? Can't say if this was really said by workaholic Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, but this cannot be applicable on genuine workers in any profession, and never on teachers.

• 'Love your job, but never love your company . . .' - This cannot be applicable to teachers. Teachers do not work with things, files, personnel. They work with real human beings who are 'students' of varied age group - kids, teens, young adult or just adults. They are 'company' of teachers. Teachers love their company and this company never stops loving them. So, it is irrelevant if teachers are advised to believe in these words.
•  If 'classroom' is the 'office' for teachers, teachers can leave classroom, but classroom always remains in the mind of the teacher. You can remove teacher out of classroom, but you cannot remove classroom (along with students) our of teacher's mind.
• It is true that work is never - ending process. The process is to be enjoyed. But to say that 'it can never be completed' is not fair. If the prime work of teacher is to complete syllabus, it can be and should be completed in due time.
• The students are not clients. They are a part of family - an extended family. True teachers think of character and career of students first and then their own children.
• If teacher fails, the society has to pay heavy price. Neither family nor friends can repair the loss incurred by society because of failure of a teacher.
• Teaching does not make life meaningless. Giving meaning to student's life is never meaningless. There can never be anything more to life than the class of smart students. There is no better place to socialize (students are real human beings to socialize), entertain (teaching is half theatre), relax (nothing relaxes better than having somebody to listen) and exercise (most calories burn in teaching) than classroom.
• There can be no better lie than point no. 5. Those teachers who are administrators also, have to stay late to do admin work as during regular hours, they are in classroom. All office work in pending which has to be completed after all students have left the institute. And teachers carry lots of works of assessment etc for home work. So they do work late nights in preparing some activities, tasks, projects and are busy evaluating students' outcome.
• Teachers are not machines. They are real human beings, who work with real human beings. So, their work can never be reduced to machine. Teaching is not mechanical job. The teachers may be teaching same topics, year after year, but it always changes the level of teaching, keeping learners in mind. Machines cannot do so.
• Working late is not the proof of having meaning less life. The teachers who have found real meaning of teaching, work late hours, not only at workplace but at home also.
• If you are teacher who work hard (or smart or what so ever people want to say) and get this advice from anybody, forward this blog to Mr/Ms. Adviser.  

Post-truth: The Word of the Year 2016

On Defining Post-Truth

• After much discussion, debate, and research, the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year 2016 is post-truth – an adjective defined as ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’. (Source: Oxford Dictionary)

Why was this chosen? (Click to read)

A brief history of post-truth (Click to read)

How should we read Post-truth?

• The compound word post-truth exemplifies an expansion in the meaning of the prefix post- that has become increasingly prominent in recent years. Rather than simply referring to the time after a specified situation or event – as in post-war or post-match – the prefix in post-truth has a meaning more like ‘belonging to a time in which the specified concept has become unimportant or irrelevant’. This nuance seems to have originated in the mid-20th century, in formations such as post-national (1945) and post-racial (1971). (English Language and Usage)
• In many election campaigns, misinformation and disinformation have victory over information. Facts are no longer considered important in campaigns characterised by post-truth situation. People, manipulated by emotional appeals, treat misinformation and disinformation as information. Recall two recent events — the Brexit and the Trump campaigns. In both the campaigns, emotional appeals and feelings, and not facts (truth), were the factors for Britain leaving the European Union and the triumph of Trump.
• Evidence-based facts and analysis that Brexit will not be beneficial to the country did not convince fifty-two per cent of the voters in the UK. As Sir John Major has said, the voters were bamboozled by ‘a whole galaxy of inaccurate and frankly untrue information’. It was a post-truth campaign. Take the recent US Presidential campaign by Donald Trump. Though about seventy percent of the statements he made during the election campaign were rated false (by PolitiFact), which was nearly three times the falsity score of Hillary Clinton, Trump was considered more honest and trustworthy than Clinton.
• It is a classical example of post-truth politics. The nouns that collocate with post-truth are: politicians, era, age, politics, journalism, journalists, brigade, presidency, etc. Examples: post-truth politicians, post-truth era, post-truth journalists, and post-truth brigade. Here are examples of how the word is used in sentences: Mr Trump has been described as the leading exponent of post-truth politics — a reliance on assertions that “feel true” but have no basis in fact.
• Post-truth politicians along with post-truth journalists and post-truth campaigners are responsible for creating post-truth voters. In the post-truth age, using euphemisms is a trend to convey that someone is a liar. He misinformed the public. (Albert p'Rayan)

Here are some interesting observations by Kathleen Higgins: (Source: nature.com)

• Post-truth refers to blatant lies being routine across society, and it means that politicians can lie without condemnation. This is different from the cliché that all politicians lie and make promises they have no intention of keeping — this still expects honesty to be the default position. In a post-truth world, this expectation no longer holds.
  This can explain the current political situation in the United States and elsewhere. Public tolerance of inaccurate and undefended allegations, non sequiturs in response to hard questions and outright denials of facts is shockingly high.
• More radical forms of relativism are often denounced as under­mining basic values. Friedrich Nietzsche, the nineteenth-century phil­osopher who is often invoked to justify post-truth, was such a relativist, and he does suggest at times that deception is rife and should not be cat­egorically rejected. His point is to complicate our view of human behaviour and to object to moral certainties that encourage black-and-white judgements about what’s good and what’s evil. Thus he denies that there are moral facts, saying that we have only “moral interpretations”, and in doing so denies that moral assertions are unconditionally true. But this does not mean there is no truth. Even when he claims that our truths amount to our “irrefutable errors”, he is pointing to the exaggerated clarity of abstractions by comparison with empirical reality.
• In fact — contrary to how he is often presented — Nietzsche held intellectual honesty at a premium. His most strenuous rejections of ‘truth’ are mostly directed not at truth, but at what has been asserted as true. Yes, Nietzsche was an elitist who was sceptical of democracy, and so his work does not necessarily fault leaders for talking down to the public. But it also points out the inconsistency of religious teachers who assume they have the right to lie.
• Scientists and philosophers should be shocked by the idea of post-truth, and they should speak up when scientific findings are ignored by those in power or treated as mere matters of faith. Scientists must keep reminding society of the importance of the social mission of science — to provide the best information possible as the basis for public policy. And they should publicly affirm the intellectual virtues that they so effectively model: critical thinking, sustained inquiry and revision of beliefs on the basis of evidence. Another line from Nietzsche is especially pertinent now: “Three cheers for physics! — and even more for the motive that spurs us toward physics — our honesty!”

• Teaching in the post-truth era - Paullete Delgado

• Click here to read

• Here is an interesting example:

The students of Nirma University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat were agitating regarding weekend holidays.

The news paper reported it like this:

The news reads: "The students of Nirma Univeristy are agitating as they are given holidays on 2nd and 4th saturdays which is normal practice in Public Universities and govt institutions.

As soon as this was posted on Instagram, the comment from one of the students was posted. Read it:

• Humour helps understand difficult concept:

Can technology replace teacher?

Can technology replace teacher?

Is teacher replaceable by technology?

The answer to these questions is another question. The question is why do we ask such questions? Has anything as such happened where humans are replaced by technology?

Well, may be there is something of this sort in our subconscious memory that humans are replaceable by technology and tools. Perhaps, collectively we all have memorised that there are very significant spaces which are encroached by technology and tools.
What is it? Where are these spaces? Are these spaces really existent?
Well, there are such spaces in urban and rural spaces where technology and tools have replaced human beings.
It is factories in urban spaces and agriculture in rural spaces.
The integration of technology in factories has minimised use of humans to almost one tenth.
The technological innovation in agricultural equipment has not only reduced human beings but have changed the skills of people working in agrarian societies.  They have readily accepted the change and adapted new skills necessary to work in rural spaces / agrarian society.
In both these spaces, people have forgot old traditional knowledge and skills and have learned new knowledges and skills.

Moreover, what is interesting is the in both the spaces outcome has not only increased but have become qualitatively better.
Is it this in our memory that makes us feel panic about technology as teachers?
Have we turned technophobic because of this in our collective unconsciousness?

Are we more afraid of technology because it's intervention has bettered the outcome?

May be yes.

We question this because of collective memory.
We deny to accept that teachers can be replaced because we fear that it may give us incredible challenge. It may force us to increase and improvise on our teaching skills and knowledge of pedagogy. If we do not do so our unhoned skills and old knowledge will make us obsolete. We as teachers will soon be outdated and updated technology will replace such outdated teachers.

Teachers will have to remember and understand that Google is not their friend. It is an enemy. One shudder know the language and capacities of  an enemy. Today's teachers shall know the language and capacities of Google. And then master all Google can do . . .  And then go beyond what Google can do.

Google can give information. What Google cannot do is connect dots in such a way that innovation and creativity can be perceived.
Teachers should not be mere information giver. They shall be connectors of dots in this networked era.
Google is just a tip of iceberg so far as technology integration in real world is concerned
Lest much more advanced technology is surely going to replace teachers as it has replaced humans, unhoned skills and old knowledge in factories and agrarian society.

______________________________________________________________________________

There are some interesting comments on this in Comments on this Facebook post:

Hollywood, Foreigners, and the Press

MERYL STREEP'S POWERFUL GOLDEN GLOBES SPEECH

(If you cannot view the video, click here to open in YouTube: https://youtu.be/EV8tsnRFUZw )

Thank you, Meryl Streep for reminding that American multiculturalism is not only Salad Bowl but a Melting Pot where people around the globe has melted in one, global culture. It should have been an illustrious example for the world to follow in the 21st Century. . . and this is the right time to remind that we, as human beings, are regressing and disconnecting in the highly connected, networked world. We cannot allow a few groups of fanatics to make all of us fanatics. A few violent groups should not be victorious to make all think and speak the language of violence.

Whether the disabled reporter was mocked or not; what is important in the speech is a reminder about multi-nationality and multi-cultural identity of Hollywood.

 Thank you for this bold and brave pronouncement against Power. Your resistance will inspire and give confidence to many to who stood for the better world then what is unfolding in our times. 

Read full transcript here:

"Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Please sit down. Please sit down. Thank you. I love you all. You'll have to forgive me. I've lost my voice in screaming and lamentation this weekend. And I have lost my mind sometime earlier this year. So I have to read.

Thank you, Hollywood foreign press. Just to pick up on what Hugh Laurie said. You and all of us in this room, really, belong to the most vilified segments in American society right now. Think about it. Hollywood, foreigners, and the press. But who are we? And, you know, what is Hollywood anyway? It's just a bunch of people from other places.

I was born and raised and created in the public schools of New Jersey. Viola [Davis] was born in a sharecropper's cabin in South Carolina, and grew up in Central Falls, Rhode Island. Sarah Paulson was raised by a single mom in Brooklyn. Sarah Jessica Parker was one of seven or eight kids from Ohio. Amy Adams was born in Italy. Natalie Portman was born in Jerusalem. Where are their birth certificates? And the beautiful Ruth Negga was born in Ethiopia, raised in -- no, in Ireland, I do believe. And she's here nominated for playing a small town girl from Virginia. Ryan Gosling, like all the nicest people, is Canadian. And Dev Patel was born in Kenya, raised in London, is here for playing an Indian raised in Tasmania.

Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners. If you kick 'em all out, you'll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts. They gave me three seconds to say this. An actor's only job is to enter the lives of people who are different from us and let you feel what that feels like. And there were many, many, many powerful performances this year that did exactly that, breathtaking, passionate work.

There was one performance this year that stunned me. It sank its hooks in my heart. Not because it was good. There was nothing good about it. But it was effective and it did its job. It made its intended audience laugh and show their teeth. It was that moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter, someone he outranked in privilege, power, and the capacity to fight back. It kind of broke my heart when I saw it. I still can't get it out of my head because it wasn't in a movie. It was real life.

And this instinct to humiliate, when it's modeled by someone in the public platform, by someone powerful, it filters down into everybody's life, because it kind of gives permission for other people to do the same thing. Disrespect invites disrespect. Violence incites violence. When the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose.

This brings me to the press. We need the principled press to hold power to account, to call them on the carpet for every outrage.That's why our founders enshrined the press and its freedoms in our constitution. So I only ask the famously well-heeled Hollywood Foreign Press and all of us in our community to join me in supporting the committee to protect journalists. Because we're going to need them going forward. And they'll need us to safeguard the truth.

One more thing. Once when I was standing around on the set one day whining about something, we were going to work through supper, or the long hours or whatever, Tommy Lee Jones said to me, isn't it such a privilege, Meryl, just to be an actor. Yeah, it is. And we have to remind each other of the privilege and the responsibility of the act of empathy. We should all be very proud of the work Hollywood honors here tonight.

As my friend, the dear departed Princess Leia, said to me once, take your broken heart, make it into art. Thank you."