I am amazed, sorry, perplexed at the way Parvez Kabir has described what can at best be described as a stand-off between a section of students of FFA (fighting for a genuine cause, now mired in political overtones, backed by whom, for what reasons, I guess known to all of us but the “naïve” and/or the infidel) and the University authorities (who are driven by whom, but “the naïve and the infidel”). Parvez’s description of this stand-off would have put to shame the historians (aha art historians too) who have described the great battles of past. Alas for they knew not the holy art of rhetoric as well, for there wasn’t an enlightened (sorry moderately enlightened) modern day Kabir amongst them.Yet one cannot dismiss the vital arguments that the learned columnist has raised (in his rather verbose and overtly passionate one sided version of the stand-off) but that it is a post modern battle, a guerilla warfare, a fight on streets just goes on to show that the writer has for the first time participated in protest of any kind whatsoever and he hasn’t heard of emergency either. Let us objectively and dis-passionately look at what this whole Baroda fiasco is all about in the context of Parvez Kabir’s description of the issue.I admire Parvez’s honesty in admitting that since he is a part of the protestors, he cannot present a balanced story. This to me would have been reason enough to let someone else who could have looked at this problem from a rational point of view, to present this story. Anyways it is the prerogative of the editor and so he has a right to do what he thinks is correct.
read full article here...http://artconcerns.com/html/readersPage.htm