I was laughed at when I came up with a new, never before idea to start a fringe group. Family, friends and even random anonymous people on the internet started making fun of me and I felt ashamed as a society ..uhhhh.. I mean a person, ashamed as a person.
But I believed in myself and I am now the president of the fringe group “gomatha sena” spread across 3 states in the country. I thought I would share some valuable gems of experience.
Benefits of starting a fringe group a.k.a ______ sena.
- Fame – I get my own little box in TV debates that too in super duper prime time. Because we are a democracy, whatever the topic of discussion is fringe groups are given an opportunity to express their views. I have become a household name just by sitting and shouting for 2 hours. People who doesn’t even know, who the president of their country is know me.
- Money – We get paid just for sitting and shouting for 2 hours. But other than that we do promote books, movies or pretty much anything for money. Our services include throwing ink (rates vary with color of ink), threats ( murder, rape, cutting nose and so on. Rates vary). Note – GST @ 28% applicable.
- Women – Similar businesses in Gujarat, are hugely successful at getting women. I personally haven’t had much luck at this, but you know…you never know…. 😍
- Soar throat – Things can get a bit cracky at times but nothing can stop you from shouting your way to glory.
Here is what Rajdeep Sardesai had, to say about the protests against the movie padmavati.
His argument is completely reasonable. If I oppose something on the basis that my sentiments are hurt, I have to agree with anyone who opposes something using the same argument. Or else admit that I am a hypocrite.
But in this case I don’t think anybody made the argument that the movie should be banned or pre screened for a community because sentiments were hurt. The argument is that history has been distorted and not sentiments were hurt. Sentiments were hurt because history was distorted. Get it?
Now did Taslima/Rushdie distort history? No? So the argument doesn’t stand.
Now let’s look at what a straw man fallacy is –
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.
Now what if Rajdeep wasn’t attacking a straw man and was being honest? I completely agree with him. People who use the argument “my sentiments were hurt” themselves, shouldn’t protest when others use the same. Of course they can, but doing so would be hypocritical. But here I don’t think anybody is using such an argument and Rajdeep is just attacking a straw man.
“Intellectuals” in TV studios argued for artistic freedom of the makers of the movie Padmavati. Let’s take a look at some of their arguments.
1. You cannot limit artistic freedom
If I decided to make a film on some prophet and show whatever my take on that person is, will you support me? Could you guarantee that I won’t be in jail? Could you guarantee that I would be alive?
Freedom of expression is not equal to all, right? Hypocrisy?
2. What if somebody makes a movie that offends you? Make another one which you think is true.
This is the one that annoys me the most. How can I do that idiots? I am not a creative or established filmmaker and I am not rich enough to pay somebody else to do this. What should I do?
How dumb can you be, to come up with this argument? If Mike Tyson comes to me and beats me up. You expect me to beat him up in return? Well guess what I am weak and I am incapable of doing that. Do you get it?
If you understand Malayalam, watch this video.
TG Mohandas about a book written by Perumal Murugan on a particular community –
Next two points are different versions of the first one.
3. There are different versions and interpretations of history.
Now if you are claiming something to be history, do not hide behind artistic freedom when you are asked for proof. Prove your claims and everything is fine. Also this standard should be applicable to all. I should be free to talk, write or do any kind of creative work about some “prophet” or some “mother” if I have the proof.
4. Nooo, Noooo… there can be artistic imaginary versions of history that may not be fact based.
OK fine, but be consistent. Do not deny my freedom to create imaginary stuff about some prophet or mother or father or anyone I want.