An Argument Vs A Fight

Quick Takes.

  • Cricket: India Whopped England’s ass in the first ODI. Way to go boys!
  • Had Potluck lunch at office today. The theme was Ethnic wear. I wore a Mundu!

Last time when I had gone home, I had a discussion with my mom regarding my future studies plans. There were certain things which we didn’t agree upon immediately. Thus, we ended up having an argument. I gave her a few examples and analogies and listened to her side of the argument. I gave some more counter examples, and finally managed to convince her.Thus both of us came to an agreement.

I believe that an open argument, will help resolve any conflict as long as the participants have a common base or platform to build the argument upon, and as long as they can direct their energies towards the discussion of issues at hand instead of diverting to some other issue. Most people however have this notion that an argument means a fight, and would spoil the peaceful existence that otherwise prevails. I find this notion completely brain-dead, because without an argument, there is no way by which a conflict can be resolved such that the outcome is fair. As a result, in the absence of an honest argument, people resort to short-sighted means such as pusillanimously agreeing to the other point of view, or using force to make the other party agree to ones point of view.

I find this is exactly the approach adopted in the Indian political scenario and by the Indian English media houses.

For example, the other night when Obama won the US elections, all the Indian News channels were having one or the other program discussing and debating the victory. I thought of watching CNN-IBN to find out what the fuss was all about. What struck me as rather annoying apart from the fact that too much time being devoted to this particular issue was that all the participants in the debate were essentially agreeing with every other participant there! No one bothered to throw any new light to take the discussion forward. And the anchor of the show, damn that lady, Sagarika Ghose, was repeating the comments made by the participants by translating them from active voice to passive voice! Is that all we can expect from these “journalists”? I would have liked to hear someone talking about how could this victory affect India. Democrats and their policies haven’t been all that India friendly in the past, so what new does Obama and his government have to offer us ? No one bothered to talk about the kind of stand he has been hinting on the Kashmir Issue. I was left wondering, are we so afraid to talk about some of these issues fearing that it might lead to some kind of a unrest thereby leading to some kind of a fight, that we choose to instead agree on everything that’s being stuffed into our throats?

The other issue that I have been amused with is the portrayal of the so called “Hindu Violence”. My personal take on the issue is that anybody targeting innocents, whatever his/her cause is, should be tried under the court of law. Because, such people are not seeking justice but they’re probably seeking revenge and there’s a clear difference between the two. But at the same time, if one takes a look at the acts of violence that have been erupting across the country over the past few years and the damage caused by each of them, and the motivation behind each of them, one wonders why each of those incidents weren’t tracked by the reporters with the same kind of religious fervour with which one can find them reporting on “Hindu Violence”. Again, I am left wondering, are we too afraid to ask strong questions fearing that it might break the “volatile” social thread in a country that proclaims to have unity in diversity??

Aren’t these incidents a clear indication of how “secular” the Indian Government and the Indian Media channels are? If they were secular and were truly committed to pursuit of truth and justice, why is it that they chose to show their commitment only against a particular incident when there are many more whose consequences were far more severe than the one under scrutiny? It’s like digging into soft mud. That does not offer any great amount of resistance. Also one can get the desired results much faster.

I am reminded of these comedy scenes from the Bollywood movies, where on confronting a tough guy, the comedian says something equivalent of “If I want to, I can beat you into pulp, but I feel pity on you. Hence I will let you go”. In this scene, it’s quite obvious that the person making the statement is trying to hide his cowardice beneath the veil of manganimity. Apply the same analogy to the talks and actions of the present Indian Government and the Indian English Media houses and you’ll see little or no difference.


About gautshen

A jack of many trades of which , Linux Kernel Programming puts food on the table. Also pursuing his PhD in the area Theoretical Computer Science at the Chennai Mathematical Institute. Is an avid reader interested in the Hindu traditions and philosophy. Loves Bicycling and Good Music. Name is Ranjal Gautham Shenoy.
This entry was posted in pseudosecularism, Views and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s