Aditya Save + Santosh Desai= Transformational insights about contemporary Marketing & Advertising through SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY

 12-13 March 2013, Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad

Marketing is increasingly being visualized beyond the context of need + impact + change. We have to know that why there is a need? How the impact can be made? What change is aimed at? Aditya Save talked about how great organizations always articulate about purpose of their existence and about their vision rather than how they do it and what qualitative they communicate? 

We are in a constant state of flux. Today is outdated already. Pace of change is faster than our efforts to update ourselves. We have to take a relook at definition of RELEVANCE. Many institutions refuse to take note of changing circumstances because of weight and burden of goodwill, legacy and heritage. Then how to go ahead in future?

‘Creative Destruction’ is changing the way organizations think about change. Creative Destruction is a historical concept describing how new technology, new ideas, business practices, introduction of new methods, products, services radically disrupt establishment; in industry. Because of failure to adapt to new ways of understanding/interpreting changes around us; our behavior to approach to change is very slow.

Change shapes our mindset to get out of comfort zone by experimenting. Merging old perspectives with new ones is most important aspect. It becomes more difficult as we realize that people don’t want to change.

We have to understand change by i) Deciphering distinct phenomenon/icon/leadership, ii) Looking for critical mass and iii) How combination of phenomenon and critical mass leads towards transformation. How the masses are connected to convictions of great ideas or phenomena? How people-data-things are connected in the framework of processes which is aimed at attaining human welfare.

Marketing Process Journey is going through transformation. Understanding consumer insights—concepts—proposition—composition. 4Ps of Marketing Product, Promotion, Price, and Place have also gone through some kind of evolutionary mutation. It has given rise to 4Cs i.e. Customer, Category, Competition, Company.

Now we should carefully understand how Brands are going through transformation compared to earlier times.

i)          Previously brands were Leaders but today Consumers are shaping the brand.

ii)        Previously brands were influencing culture but today brands are playing catch-up with behavior of consumers.

iii)  Previously brands-messages were universal in appeal to population of consumers but now brands cater to individual, diverse needs of markets.

iv) Previously knowledge about traits and features of brand were known to all but increasingly tacit knowledge about particular brands is limited to closed groups.

v) Previously people were following changes in external features of brands but now brands are following changes in benchmarks of thinking of people.

Brands make certain promises to its audiences and then try to learn from them to grow.  These days amidst the scarce resources, brands are making multiple promises to multiple audiences. This thinking is inspired by 'outliers' and inspiring innovation. Thus thinking is increasingly being shaped by:

i)                   Perceptions of well experienced customers;

ii)                Decreasing attention span of consumers;

iii)              Graphical/Visual/Textual literacy of consumers;

iv)               Preparedness of consumers to accept out of the way/innovative ideas .

Thus, marketing and advertising world is learning by listening to Revelations, Understanding and interactions within their closed group and interactions in open fora.

How change is triggering markets, societies and how thought leadership in various walks of life is inspiring people in businesses, marketing, advertising to think differently is most interesting aspect to think about in this context. Traditional purchase funnel is being replaced by new type consumer decision journey.

Core role of marketing is first to create preferences and then move consumer towards harnessing monopolistic behavior about brand loyalty i.e. to create obsession about brands. But this is also changing. These days it is more to do about adding value through the paradigm of RELEVANCE and IMPACT for target consumer, who is likely to be brand`s loyal partner, not customer. Norms of collaboration, innovation are transforming notions of consumers. Increasingly companies are visualizing, allowing consumers to have equal stake in defining consumer needs, benchmarks, quality criteria, service parameters and likewise.

Thinkers, sociologists, journalists, political leaders, psychologists, technologists, lyricist, scriptwriters, historians, novelists and all type of people who are engaged in creative—intellectual pursuit of ideas give great insights about how the world is changing around us. This dynamic perspective about changing world is always carefully, diligently being watched in business world.

Assumptions guide our behavior. Therefore we should stop one moment to give a glimpse on upcoming ideas before beginning any journey. Imagination is definitely important than knowledge.

As Seth Godin says, “As an organization grows and succeeds, it sows the seeds of its own demise by getting boring.” It refuses to recognize the changing needs of the operations people are interested in. Last few years have seen vanishing of many great companies from markets. (eg. Xerox, Kodak) On the contrary century old companies like IBM have redefined their role and transformed themselves from leaders in purely manufacturing industry to ITES/R&D organization.

Let us take a look at another few quotations of Seth Godin:

--> “Are you a serial idea-starting person? The goal is to be an idea- shipping person.”

-->  “Change is not a threat, it’s an opportunity. Survival is not the goal, transformative success is.”

---> “Expectations are the engines of our perceptions.”

--> “Ideas in secret die. They need light and air or they starve to death.”

--> “Developing expertise or assets that are not easily copied is essential; otherwise you’re just a middleman.”

                               --> “Give up control and give it away … The more you give your idea 
                                       away,   the more your company is going to be worth. “

---> “Be personal. Be relevant. Be specific.”

--->   “Art is what we’re doing when we do our best work.”

--->   “Good marketers tell stories. They don’t talk about products.”

Pentagon, in which sides are: Societal plane, Brand plane, Competitive plane, Product plane, Category plane; to discover truth or all possible shades of truth engraved in this pentagon is the ultimate task at hand.

Consumers cannot be isolated from culture, society and historical lineage they live, travel, think and share. People negotiate about their aspirations on the boundaries of tradition and modernity. In a sense tradition is being revived and modernity is being reinterpreted in terms of age old traditions. Many times festivals are being used for magnifying celebrations, to enter in the continuous alliance of conservative beliefs and free-market, liberal, individualistic initiatives.

So, understanding the past, evolving and contemporary patterns of social context, emotional patterns, language diversity, everyday political happenings, happenings in art and literature gives immense possibilities to analyze the situation according to the foresight/planning exercises of any organization, business or otherwise. 

Santosh Desai uncovered many layers of Indian mind when he discussed various advertising strategies regarding FMCGs. While doing this, he provoked the imagination in a sense to think like a social scientist while working on the problems of marketing, advertising, business development, strategic planning, and foresight analysis.

The Hindu Literary Review where Mr. Desai`s book was received, says:

“Desai examines everything from the ethos of the Hindi film hero to the place of the Bajaj scooter in our collective consciousness; from the deeper meaning of Western vs. Indian-style toilets to a deconstruction of the golguppa (or bhel-puri); from the semiotics of scratching ourselves in public to our deep-rooted dynastic urge, in everything from politics to cinema (Tusshar Kapoor ki jai!) And, refreshingly, when he writes about these things, he writes not as a scholar, or, heaven forbid, an MBA, but as a kind of poet of social anthropology. Thus he says of the humble, phut-phutting autorickshaw:

The auto’s appeal comes from its ability to provide a real luxury; it offers us the power of individualized motorized transport. When one hires an auto one is placing a value on one’s own time. Rather than wait for public transport, an auto is hailed and one’s precise destination is reached. The auto rickshaw’s implicit deal with us is that while it gives us this wonderful luxury, in return it strips everything else in the experience that could remotely reek of luxury … It is both deeply comforting and dissatisfying. It captures the variable and uneven nature of life in India that is not too poor to have no choices, yet not so affluent that it can take life for granted … It reaffirms and gives substance to the Indian belief that life may be hard but there is always a way.” 

===========================================

Objectivity and Subjectivity: Social and Scientific.....

Objectivity and Subjectivity are always been subject of contentious debates. There is a saying, “We all are objective in our subjective ways.” When considered from point of view of ‘scientific method’, then this enquiry acquires many frames of analysis inspired from sociological, philosophical, hisotiographical perspectives. Feminist enquiry of growth of science and technology as a discipline and as a rigorous investigation approach for descriptive, inductive writings of Science Technology Society has been lately very much being discussed.  

The concepts of objectivity, truth, and the authority of empirical standards have come under serious challenge by some critics of the social sciences in the past several decades.  Feminist critics charge that the concepts and methods of the social sciences reflect an essential patriarchalism that discredits the objectivity of social science knowledge.  Marxist critics sometimes contend that the social sciences are enmeshed in a bourgeois worldview that makes objectivity impossible. And post-modernist writers seem to disdain the ideas of truth and objectivity in the social sciences altogether, preferring instead the slippery notions of multiple discourses and knowledge/power. (http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~delittle/POSITIV6.htm) 

Feminist thoughts like any other critical perspective challenges hierarchy, patronizing attitudes and patriarchic mindset which is historically been not absent from science-technology enterprise. Before someone enters the arena to understand what feminist enquiry of academic writing in history, STS studies, social construction of S&T; it would be better to understand a) What is the structure of academia, b) Whose academia is it?, c) What are the relations between learned and people learning, d) Interfaces through which knowledge is shared, disseminated and appropriated. (Donna Haraway, Fox Keller, Erich Charles Conrad, Helen E. Longino, Peter K. Machamer, Gereon Wolters, Karen Cordrick Haely, Philip Kitcher, Georg G. Iggers)

Since the publication of first journal Philosophical Transactions in 17^th century, it took 300 years for Royal Society to admit women as its prestigious member. (On 22 March 1945, the first female Fellows were elected to the Royal Society. This followed a statutory amendment in 1944 that read "Nothing herein contained shall render women ineligible as candidates", and was contained in Chapter 1 of Statute 1.)

Androcentrism in Democracy and University is one of the most prominent threats to free thinking. Androcentrism is the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing male human beings or the masculine point of view at the center of one's view of the world and its culture and history. Breaking the walls in access of opportunities for education remained the pivotal challenge ahead of women before the development of feminist critic of history of science and technology. However before going ahead with the conviction of feminist critic of all the history, understanding the definition of ‘women’ is very essential. Women may be a universal group of vulnerable people who are always fighting for their rights, their justice, socio-cultural and economical equality; but considering the vast array of diverse discriminatory practices in developing countries, the process of defining ‘Women’ becomes more and more contestable. We just have to remember that even though there are consistent efforts throughout the history to treat women as a cohesive group for gaining voting rights, fare wages, access to knowledge, political representation, employment; still the emergence of category of ‘universal women’ is far from realized.

Every scholar, journalist, writer, politician, student, marketing person, business developer, artist is a ‘human body with a context.’ A recent essay published in EPW by Anirudh Deshpande describes the objectivity in history vis-à-vis other natural sciences. It says:

          “The postmodernists criticize history for being a subjective narrative imposed   on selected facts by historians through the use of linguistic devices. In the postmodernist submission, since all historical narratives are poetic acts performed by historians, it is impossible to access a verifiable objective past through the historian’s carefully constructed imaginary plot of events. Hence, and logically following the postmodern submission, all history is  subjective history, and therefore there is not much to choose between several carefully constructed interpretations of the past. If history is thus reduced to a project of cultural relativism and ideological subjectivism, it becomes easy to first denounce and later reject it altogether.”

           

The analysis, either through frame or through any other way, it is necessary to know who is the person arguing, writing and documenting is; from what belief system, vantage point they articulate their opinions. We have to be aware of contexts, situations, personal histories, ideological-professional biases, approach to knowledge creation, method of enquiry etc.

History and biography both posit a dialectical relationship between life (as information) and art (as an expression of subjectivity). Both have a ‘truth’ claim and are represented as forms of narrative. If we were to recall some of the characteristic features of history, we would perhaps expect a coherent, continuous narrative, with objectivity and sufficient analysis, thereby enabling us to produce some ‘generalisable typicality’. Even a complex history should yield points of significance that would enable us to understand/interpret in its light events, movements, and large sections of time. (Recovery, Recontextualisation and Performance: Questions on the Margin by Rimli Bhattacharya; Biography as History, Indian Perspectives; Ed. Vijaya Ramaswamy, Yogesh Sharma, Orient Blackswan)

In his more specialized collection in 2009, Philosophy of the Social Sciences: Philosophical Theory and Scientific Practice, Chris Mantzavinos offers this description of the field:

“Philosophy of science examines "scientific knowledge." It tries to illuminate the specific characteristics of science, the way it is produced, the historical dimensions of science, and the normative criteria at play in appraising science…. The philosophy of the social sciences, on the other hand, traditional deals with such problems as the role of understanding (Verstehen) in apprehending social phenomena, the status of rational choice theory, the role of experiments in the social sciences, the logical status of game theory, as well as whether there are genuine laws of social phenomena or rather social mechanisms to be discovered, the historicity of the social processes, etc.”

Producing, creating, constructing, shaping scientific facts depends on many attributes of scholarship and their history. Scientific objectivity depends on method of investigation—qualitative, quantitative—understanding of scientific method—grounding in sociological, humanities orientation—setting of arguments in ideological mesh—impact of tools used—influence of different technologies being deployed for finalizing the data collection or field visits etc. Scientific objectivity may be defined as rigorous fashion consistent with any particular philosophy of science. According to Popper, scientific objectivity consists of the freedom and responsibility of the researcher 1) To pose refutable hypothesis, 2) To test these hypothesis with relevant evidence, and 3) To state the results in an unambiguous fashion accessible to any interested person. (from ‘On Scientific Objectivity’ by Emery N. Castle)

------------------------------------------------------------

POEM dedicated to LEGACY of RANADE institute

Dept. of Communication and Journalism, University of Pune...celebrating GOLDEN JUBILEE
========================================================================
“CHANGE AGENTS”
--------------------------------------------------------

When there was no RTI,
When there was no spy-camera,
When there were no social-networks,
And when there was no breaking-news….

These change agents who nurtured in the chat culture of heritage building called Ranade Institute,
These opinion leaders who groomed in the crucible of Argumentative Pune,
These writer-activists who shaped the cacophony of political chaos and social churning…
And these techno-savvy digital nomads connecting missing dots of life in Maharashtra and world…

Today, we begin journey to celebrate 50 glorious tireless calenders of reportage…
Today, we humbly remember great sacrifices our community made to make the society more inclusive…
Today, we embark on challenge to repeat the audacious investigations made to break the information divide…
Today, we salute the icons of press freedom who lived and died for the cause—to make us fearless and courageous …


Let’s make the legacy of this historic moment more memorable…
Let`s spread the spirit of 'Pen-Soldiers' to coming generations…
Let`s not forget those who taught us art and skills of the game,
Let`s never allow to go away the light of ideals this building gave us i.e. Ranade Institute….
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rahul Mane (2004-06) (09654093359
=====================================

"Jaipur Literature Festival: Republic of Ideas Vs. Culture of Intolerance"

===================================================

“I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and Non-violence 
are as old as the hills. All I have done is to try experiments in both
on as vast a scale as I could.” ---Mahatma Gandhi

===================================================

Bhalchandra Nemade, author who broke with traditions of sacrosanct style of presenting culture, literature and language was speaking in exactly same tone as Mahatma was expressing few decades ago. Born in pre-independence days and having written path-breaking Novel Kosla in experimental, rebellious days of 1960s, as was the case all over the world; Dr. Nemade has tried to immortalize heritage of our most basic emotions out of daily life i.e. longing towards cherishing virtues of life while at the same time without being detached from vacuum, nothingness and futileness of temporary matters in our affair with material quest. Dr. Nemade said that by breaking up language, text and symbol he has done nothing new but only lived to the great legacy of Tukaram, Buddha and Phule. In fact, while realizing that all rebellious voices have been uttered by these great thinkers, he considers it as just emulating them without slightest impact the legendary characters of history had.

If you consider yourself a literary rebel, then be sure that whole world is shaped and decided by you. This point was emphasized by one session which discussed 'Maps of Love and Hate: Nationalism and Arab Literature'—that not a single identity of the countries in middle east, west Asia has been defined by politicians, statesmen but by authors, novelists, playwrights.  The dissent which I represent has to be inspired from the diverse coalition of all castes, creeds, religions, languages and beliefs. When I write, I have to write for all of them.  I feel very rich having a rich and extended family of kins—organic and social. These views were echoed by Jeet Thayel whose recent novel ‘Narcopolis’ was nominated for Booker Prize.

There are many types of narratives and different streams of interpretations in our culture and literature. There are norms with which these interpretations has to be documented in literature, expressed in performing arts, broadcasted and disseminate through traditional and modern media.  But subverting those styles, those “biased sacred norms” for mocking at the history, reimagining history and thus reinterpret our present and perspectives towards future in more nuanced / native`s way is my core idea of thematic narration of daily life which I did in Kosla.

“I was the first person in Marathi to use the Khandeshi language for writing a novel by breaking the long standing tradition and admanant one sided belief that creativity can be expressed in only one manner and that is tried but not contested by out of the way experiments. I used diary form to great extent in the novel to open up my unorthodox way of looking towards life. Strength of diary form refuses categorization of communities, cultures, thinking. I wanted to use humour, sarcastic way of mocking at history.”  

From another session where Anjum Hasan, Gayatri Chakravorthi Spivac, Manu Jospeh, Chandrahas Chaudhari discussed what constitutes criticism, reviewing and appreciating books, literature. Criticizing any work is all about writing, thinking and building connections between them. We should always try to understand what writer wants to say. Thirty fourty years ago when the voices of oppressed and downtrodden were started to be echoed in the sub-altern   literature it was largely following tradition of powerful convictions of French deconstructionists.

“You cannot approach subaltern with metaphor. You have to be direct, explicit, provocative and honest in your submission.”

Manu Joseph, writer of a novel ‘Serious Men’, referred cook Rat in a movie ‘Ratatouille’. The protagonist in this movie describes the great experiments Rat cook does while being in Paris. Role of critic or reviewer is not to write what people want to read. One cannot be good critic who wants to play safe. Great artist/writer can come from anywhere no matter what the background is. Christhopher Ricks said that we have to remember where the technique starts and where it ends. We have to rehear and reimagine the  ways of interpreating literature. Wit is so important a weapon in inspecting the opinions and review, critic gives a sharp way of doing it. We have to develop analytical skills, sensibility of method, how much a personality has invested in understanding the thoughts and arguments in the book. He also said that there is a difference between what critic from academia writes and that what reviewer from media writes about contemporary and historical books. Reviewers educational background may help them to become critic but reviewer`s ability to connect to the thinking, aspirations of readers is better suited to them to become a dependable reviewer. Criticism brings in lot of information about the history of the subject of text, knowledge about the diversity, problem areas, arguments existing, evolving in literature and thus the ability to analyze the complex texts. Reviewers have to do the same thing considering the positive intention of the readers towards the books which they might read after going through the review.

Anjum Hasan referred to Amit Chaoudhari who analyses often the necessity to go beyond virtues of ‘cultural nationalism’; creating inhabitation of our self transcends national, racial, regional boundaries. Local, nuanced and thematic appreciation of the making of the book leads to global because the original virtues are essentially diverse, located in specific locality and always having special ecology.  What writer is doing has direct connections with a theory put by Ronald Barthez  i.e. Death of Author. Sometimes believing the ‘death of an author’ after the book has been published may infuse limitations in our assessment of the work. We have to understand how author has negotiated self with text; what exactly author is doing, rather than what author has said in a text? What about mind behind writing? When asked by someone  that for a common reader who does not know deconstruction by Derrida, Foucault how meaningful and relevant can be book criticism and book review then panel replied that we should be able to give entire picture, spectrum of arguments from contemporary, literary history so as to respect freedom of readers mind to think about it proactively.

Gayatri Spivac said that criticism can become boring as a teaching subject except when one looks at it out of historical context. “First we have to teach how to perform a reading of a text”, she said. Ranajit Guha, Dipesh Chakravarty have written extensively about sub-altern movement and literature. By invoking Derrida, she said that “Reason” remains the principle weapon behind the strengthening of sub-altern voices. But we have to be sensible for understanding the difference between “reason” and “reasonable”. For fearless critic of writers, we have to expand our reading base. By consistent reading we have to manage to discover unearthing gems from ocean of literary criticism.

Finally Anjum Hasan said that book reviewer should not be a reviewer alone, they should do their other day jobs. By just being book reviewer, one can become monotonous, narrow minded conservative in assessing books through one lens only. We have to be grateful by acknowledging the great legacy of work done in particular theme because we cannot move ahead in reviewing any work without reflecting on the great body of work done previously either supporting or rejecting our point of view. Every work has great historical relationship with previously published equally and more compelling works so listening, reading of those voices is very significant process while reviewing, criticizing upcoming work. It must be remembered that reviewing is not being judgmental. Quick opinion must not be confused with slowly developed argument. Our judgment has to evolve through carefully crafted through arguments. In a way book-reviewing and book-criticism has a long way to go in India.

Its all about engagement with a text, culture and minds. Review is a bit follower of charm of writing but critic may patronize particular tradition of the intellectual history while finalizing the critic of new books. Panel expressed their unhappiness over the fact that book reviewing and book criticism has become hostage to the marketing, advertising, and promotion professionals in India and therefore one can get swayed away by torrent of PR so as to ignore original/harsh reviews.

“Colonization of mind through English language was another issue of discussion of another session where diplomat Pawan Verma, journalist Ravish Kumar, critic Ashok Vajpayee, academic and write Uday Narayan Singh, write Ira Pande were discussing the dialectic between Hindi and English. All of them agreed that Hindi has become colonial ‘English’ for all of the Indians in a way we can’t live without it but still being hegemonised by it. In session, The Vanishing Present:Post Colonial Critiques Anjum Hasan interviewed Gayatri Chakravorthy Spivok and Amit Chaoudhari. They discussed literature in the era of globalization, ethical impulse s in literature, relevance of aesthetics education, status of education in 21^st century and place of literature in university.

Prof. Spivac expressed great anguish that place of literature in university is vanishing slowly. You can’t train youngsters to read literature by emphasizing on the value or benefits of it. We have to sensitize about the process of how literature evolves in our life, how words get expression. We have to engage students in a dialogue about how to train our mind deeply into ethical impulse of literature with our whole soul, body and mind. We have to train our imagination though active imagination to change the ways of how we know.

Amit said that we have to imagine for whom we are writing for, who our foreign audiences are. While reading a text, we have to be aware about what the literary affiliations of the author are and what the literary arguments of author are. We have to understand how author creates oneness with readers? Assessing Literature is a very complex field. Current post-colonial literature suffers with a problem that it has allowed to glorify exotication of everything, language estrangement. There are different feelings about how we should write about different places. There is a special mythology about exoticizing we need to move away from. We have to develop a way to read things which have travelled. Globalization and changing profile of readership is compelling us to look towards literature and readership in a certain prejudiced way. English being engine of globalization, there are massive forces which are impacting provincialising of literature. German and French provinces of literature have their own way in thinking about life. We have to be aware about increasing trend in masses of writers in India who are thinking in English so not able to express themselves the issues from the roots here.

Discussing question that “Is reading literature an ethical practice?” Prof. Spivac said that We read to transform ourselves. We constantly try to learn through languages, books, experience, events, and processes. Literature allows us freedom to act of becoming different person, to feel unique experiences characters in book are having and thinking each jeanre in text is giving. Like Marathi poet Arun Kolhatkar, who used to say that I keep my pencil sharpened at both ends and I believe to write away from King`s English. Same was reflected when Bhalchandra Nemade was talking about his novel Kosla.

All the Ideas of Republic were at the forefront on 26^th January for confrontational debate on different stages named ‘Republic of Ideas’ participated by Tarun Tejpal, Patrik French, Ashish Nandy, Richard Sorabji, Urvashi Butalia. Another session on same day was devoted to ‘ Freedom of Speech and Expression’. The row created by previous session justified the perfect positioning of later. Ashish Nandy in his complex argument dealt with idea of equality in Indian context being strengthened by unavoidable evolution of corruption in all castes, classes and creeds leading towards making Indian republic more robust, vibrant and thriving living up to the great struggle of social and political movements our country witnessed for equal opportunities, justice and well-being to all kinds of people. This particular way of presenting argument received conservative political/social response leading towards exit of Prof. Nandy from the festival.

Session of freedom of expression was presented by John Kampfner, Shoma Chaudhury, John Burnside, Basharat Peer and Timothy Ash. This session greatly dealt with how government authorities react to the freedom of expression and how public deal with notion of free expression. To how much degree there is a desire in public to accept or be flexible to take offense. In todays India, we take freedom of expression for granted. Questioning the Article 19 (2) and its provisions which list the exceptions under which our right of freedom of expression can be repealed, is the need of the hour. In the age of “Market of Ideas”, we are debating democratic processes.  While discussing the freedom of expression there are two areas where the contestation about this is most prevalent; in cultural production and in public discourse. In creative culture production industry there must be freedom to experiment with text, art-form and craft unless it provokes communal disharmony and violence. In democratic/public discourse we have to develop senses, culture and environment where we respect the culture to take offenses in constructive ways. Freedom of expression in armchair activism has also created many problems, by taking absolute freedom.

Police are doing surveillance of press activities. Lot of magazines, newspapers remains dependent on advertisements given by central government agencies like DAVP etc. Legal threats, possibility of hacking by state/non-state actors are also possibility. Our laws give sanction to legislative actions if legislature is not satisfied with the coverage of specific issue. All those discussions were tested immediately in the real-time of festival as all types of threats were exercised on Prof.Nandy from boycott to arrest. 

==================================