One of the online groups I subscribe to had an interesting discussion titled "dialog with the reprehensible". How do you sit down for an open discussion on a topic that you find morally, ethically or legally reprehensible?
Diplomats do it all the time, India and Pakistan have diplomatic discussions even though the people in these countries are sworn enemies.
Is it possible to do this in our normal interactions?
Most public meetings I attend believe in preaching to the choir, A leftist would not feel welcome in an RSS shakha meeting. similarly an rightwing supporter would not be made welcome in an leftist "anti-communal" meeting.
This weekend we are having a meeting to discuss the implication of Gandhi's assassination.
I would like to have an healthy debate with Gandhian's Ambedkarites and Sanghi's sitting across the table and discussing what Gandhi meant to them. What were his ideals, What were the ideals of those who opposed him and so on...
Such a debate becomes difficult when we refuse to acknowledge the tension between Ambedkar and Gandhi. Many of Ambedkar's speeches about Gandhi border on misrepresentation of intent and hate speech. Is it possible to point out the mistakes by Ambedkar without having the DSS launch protest and file an FIR under atrocities act?
Can we have a debate about Gandhi's assassination without referring to Nathuram, Savarkar, Golwarkar and Hegdewar? Can we give equal space for an RSS sympathizer as we give for denouncing RSS.
If we fear giving space to the reprehensible by mentioning their leaders, If we fear raising topics which can offend the easily offended how do we discuss the sensitive issues?
If we cannot discuss sensitive issues with the proper audience and restrict the audience to those who are "tame" or agreeable to our view points then what is the use of a Dialog?
Diplomats do it all the time, India and Pakistan have diplomatic discussions even though the people in these countries are sworn enemies.
Is it possible to do this in our normal interactions?
Most public meetings I attend believe in preaching to the choir, A leftist would not feel welcome in an RSS shakha meeting. similarly an rightwing supporter would not be made welcome in an leftist "anti-communal" meeting.
This weekend we are having a meeting to discuss the implication of Gandhi's assassination.
I would like to have an healthy debate with Gandhian's Ambedkarites and Sanghi's sitting across the table and discussing what Gandhi meant to them. What were his ideals, What were the ideals of those who opposed him and so on...
Such a debate becomes difficult when we refuse to acknowledge the tension between Ambedkar and Gandhi. Many of Ambedkar's speeches about Gandhi border on misrepresentation of intent and hate speech. Is it possible to point out the mistakes by Ambedkar without having the DSS launch protest and file an FIR under atrocities act?
Can we have a debate about Gandhi's assassination without referring to Nathuram, Savarkar, Golwarkar and Hegdewar? Can we give equal space for an RSS sympathizer as we give for denouncing RSS.
If we fear giving space to the reprehensible by mentioning their leaders, If we fear raising topics which can offend the easily offended how do we discuss the sensitive issues?
If we cannot discuss sensitive issues with the proper audience and restrict the audience to those who are "tame" or agreeable to our view points then what is the use of a Dialog?
No comments:
Post a Comment