Shym Benegal has come out with objective views on existing situation in FTII. He has exposed in very soft words the real reason behind the current agitation and exposed the agitating students.
CAN WE CHOOSE WHO OUR TEACHERS OR PRICIPLES ARE GOING TO BE WHEN WE ARE IN SCHOOLS OR COLLEGES? DID WE HAVE THAT AUTHORITY? SO WHAT IS THE BIG FUSS HERE? INSTEAD OF LEARNING IN THE INSTITUTION THESE STUDENTS JUST WANT TO SHOW-OFF AND DO SUCH USELESS DRAMAS. SHYAM BENEGALS FOLLOWING POINT IS VERY VALID:- Any government in power tends to choose people who are sympathetic to them. Has there been any government that has not done that?
Re: DO STUDENTS HAVE AUTHORITY TO CHOSE THEIE TEACHERS?
by RAJMOHAN NAIR on Aug 22, 2015 08:18 AM
These students are showing gundaism with the support of Rahul and Kejri. They should be evicted from the campus and give chances to new-commers immediately.
likely - more than very likely indeed - to have credentials !
Not that credentials should mean awards or academic distinctions alone.
So what are those credentials (even if awards or academics are discounted) that Mr. Chauhan has to show ?
Or what are his credentials/capbilities that the government can proffer before the students or before anyone (other than the fact that he has done that role in the mega serial) ?
And if the government is not revealing the capabilities/credentials it sees in Mr. Chauhan, is it because it does not see the need to reveal them or because there simply are no capabilities to speak of ??
Chairperson is an administrative post not an academic one. Ganjendra Chauhan is not going to teach students. Students are seeing everything through political color. They are less interested in studies and more interested in politics. I am sure all the agitating students are going to join politics sooner or later. They are just using FTII agitation to launch their political careers. They are least worried about the institute and the other students.
Re: Administration vs academics
by Useless Comments on Aug 21, 2015 08:25 PM
But he is going to select who will teach students thats why he is most dangerous
Re: Re: Administration vs academics
by Jai Maharashtra on Aug 21, 2015 09:45 PM
Chairman alone does not select the Proffessors, there is a panel to appoint such people. Please read the article carefully, FTII has its own constituition. Your user id say it all what are you upto.
What is the government doing in FTII in the first place? Educational institutions should be autonomous. Giving grants should not give the government the right to appoint Principles, directors and Vice Chancellors.
Governments should govern. Not run educational institutions.
Re: What is the government doing in FTII?
by RAJMOHAN NAIR on Aug 22, 2015 08:23 AM
Govt should remove all the striking students immediately. Students have no authority to choose their faculties, principals, directors, chairman, etc. They are there to study. All other activities are non of their business.
Benegal ji has mentioned that - An educated person means he can fit into the civilised space of society. - if this means one should not go to school if one can live in a civilised way, its not understandable. the word "civilised" has its own definitions in everyone's mind. if debated, it can become contoversial
Re: education
by Jai Maharashtra on Aug 21, 2015 09:48 PM
Benegal Sir never said about not going to school, he said you must have open mind to learn. Right now these students have shut their doors of mind.
Re: education
by Dipankar Sarkar on Aug 22, 2015 08:38 AM
'Credentials are not important, capabilities are'- What an argument! Accordingly, all graduates, though unsuccessful in IAS, can become high ranking admin position holders, as they MAY prove capable in future. Same analogy applies in every field. It does not mean though all persons with credentials are capable. Credentials are a priori requirements for any job.
Shyam Benegal is a sensible man BUT i disagree with him respectfully.
On the one hand he says that Education and politics should not be mixed and then on the other hand he says that all political parties have appointed people who have been sympathetic to them.
On the one hand he says that people should be considered based on their capabilities and not on credentials (a valid point) but then he tries to justify political parties appointing people based on their ideology (and not capabilities).
If the primary reason for getting an appointment is ideology of the person, where are the capabilities being evaluated? Let the government come out with the methodology for appointing people to high posts. It's all arbitrary. There's no transparency.
If the allegation is that the students must look at the capabilities and not credentials then on the flip side the government too should look at the capabilities and not ideology. There's no evidence that the government does that. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.
Re: A sensible man BUT ...
by Amit on Aug 21, 2015 01:10 PM
He did not say a capable person will not have any ideology. He may not have credentials. Did you understand?
Re: A sensible man BUT ...
by Jai Maharashtra on Aug 21, 2015 09:56 PM
To judge the capabilities one must be given a opportunity to perform first. Without performing how can you judge whether he is capable or not. Good Capabilities creates Good Credentials.
Re: A sensible man BUT ...
by Dipankar Sarkar on Aug 22, 2015 10:15 AM
True. 'Credentials are not important, capabilities are'- What an argument! Accordingly, all graduates, though unsuccessful in IAS, can become high ranking admin position holders, as they MAY prove capable in future. Same analogy applies in every field. It does not mean though all persons with credentials are capable. Credentials are a priori requirements for any job.
For the first time a very sane response to the appointment. I heard similar response from Dalip Tahil in a 24x7 news channel where he was very clear you cannot judge a person without giving him an opportunity. The basic problem with majority of our media is that everyone of them has a political agenda. Most of them are left leaning and Congress supporters. No one protested when Leela Samson was appointed Chairperson of the censor board. She herself admitted that she has scant knowledge of films. Her only credential was that she is close to the Gandhi clan. In fact, she was leading three primary institutions at the same time and no one questioned how she could do justice. Unfortunately, majority of the media feels only left leaning persons or products of JNU are intellectuals in this country and all others are duffers. But they support Rahul Gandhi. Is it not an irony?
