Why I will never use the word Intellectual for paid journalists and writers

My reply to Ergo today

1.Your sentence hisses more than a poisonous snake as 'his analysis''his facts and figures'

2. "an intellectual is one who says what appears to him to be correct on the basis of his analysis of his facts and figures available to him then."

3. Sorry again 'says what appears to him'- I think there is a spelling mistake or omission. you meant probably 'what appeals to him' or 'what appears to him in his dreams or as per the script given to him by his ideological pay masters'.

4. Facts are facts though you are at liberty to give your own interpretations or judgments on it but not facts selectively available for or cherry picked out of context rather I should say 'scum cleaning' by these perverted writers -I will never misuse the word intellectual for them.

5 . We have one thing in common I too 'I am neither a historian, nor a sociologist, nor a RSS branded nationalist.

6. But my tolerance level signals me to ignore a person who forces his mother to prostitution for his survival and any one who projects a prolonged perverted version of anti -nationalism to eke out a profession.

7. No individual is 100% perfect nor is any nation and both require wise and sane advises, suggestions, criticism for course correction ,modification or improvement but not contemptuous condemnation.

8. Denigrating a dignified profession like writing imbued with only negativism through hidden agendas and ulterior motives is the pathetic last resort of unworthy souls- I can only pity them.

9. There are many things that are wrong with India, Hinduism - I am not even jumping to justify by saying so it does in other nations and denominations.

10. But proper positive support and unbiased analysis will help rather than presenting tailor-made analysis ensconced in pleasant words to suit a conclusion for which one gets paid or out of which one gets popularity is a very cheap activity.

Ergo balayogi • 3 days ago

I disagree with you Sir. This is sociology as well as history. In such subjects, one man's meat is another man's poison. There are no fixed posts to hold onto tenaciously. Points are made and demolished only to take another form. In this confused scenario of free for all, an intellectual is one who says what appears to him to be correct on the basis of his analysis of his facts and figures available to him then. If his analysis leads to a conclusion that is not to your liking, no wonder he is not intellectual for you. That is what is happening here: Sen and Guha are not intellectuals for all those who don't like their conclusions. For them, Bhatra will be a better intellectual only because his conclusions are exactly what you like to know and accept. But for others, not he but they who are intellectuals.

Hope I have made my point clear. What about me? I am neither a historian, nor a sociologist, nor a RSS branded nationalist. So, I enjoy watching the show enacted by different players on the stage.