Write an article on your takeaway from Mahua Moitra's speech.
Answers
Answer:
To my mind there have been two bona fide criticisms of her speech. One, everything about the recently held elections screams that Anglophone, elitist speeches of this type are unlikely to have much electoral impact in India today. Two, that its wilful blind spot, to the authoritarianism in the MP’s own party and state, is so glaring as to compromise the entire speech.
On the first criticism, I would say the class of the speaker and the votes won by a speech, need not be its sine qua non. Moitra’s analysis of the dangers faced by society today has value independent of its electoral utility. As for elitism, hard work and Harvard are not antonyms, challenging the argument of a speech should not be confused with mocking the accent of the speaker.
The Mamata blind spot is a blind spot indeed.
But moving on, the most ridiculous criticism of Moitra’s speech is that it was plagiarised. These critics have pointed to Martin Longman’s 2017 column about the 12 early warning signs of fascism in the US. But Moitra laid out 7 early signs of fascism very much in the Indian context, with very desi details and flavour. Both Longman and Moitra are totally upfront about their muse, a poster once seen in the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC. On top of this, Longman himself has tweeted:
Explanation:
TMC MP Mahua Moitra’s maiden speech in the 17th Lok Sabha was powerful. Even those who disagree with the substance of it cannot deny its forcefulness, which was both physical and cerebral. But arguing as it did, that there are “danger signs of early fascism” manifest across the country today, the speech was bound to be challenged vigorousness.
To my mind there have been two bona fide criticisms of her speech. One, everything about the recently held elections screams that Anglophone, elitist speeches of this type are unlikely to have much electoral impact in India today. Two, that its wilful blind spot, to the authoritarianism in the MP’s own party and state, is so glaring as to compromise the entire speech.
On the first criticism, I would say the class of the speaker and the votes won by a speech, need not be its sine qua non. Moitra’s analysis of the dangers faced by society today has value independent of its electoral utility. As for elitism, hard work and Harvard are not antonyms, challenging the argument of a speech should not be confused with mocking the accent of the speaker.
The Mamata blind spot is a blind spot indeed.
But moving on, the most ridiculous criticism of Moitra’s speech is that it was plagiarised. These critics have pointed to Martin Longman’s 2017 column about the 12 early warning signs of fascism in the US. But Moitra laid out 7 early signs of fascism very much in the Indian context, with very desi details and flavour. Both Longman and Moitra are totally upfront about their muse, a poster once seen in the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC. On top of this, Longman himself has tweeted:
A variety of substantive rebuttals to Moitra’s speech are possible. For instance one could argue that, blips aside, free press and freedom of expression are super thriving in India. Or that the independence of the electoral system is far from being eroded. To go down the plagiarism rabbit hole instead, is a tactic that will deceive only those determined to be deceived.
To read books, learn from them, quote them, interpret our own lives in their light, that’s not plagiarism. That’s learning. Civilization itself