Dignified debate News Archive News

Political debates are meant to educate the electorate so as to enable the voter to make an informed choice. Of late they have degenerated in...

Written by Soli Sorabjee

April 11, 2004 12:00 AM IST

5 min read

Political debates are meant to educate the electorate so as to enable the voter to make an informed choice. Of late they have degenerated into mud-slinging matches replete with scandalous personal allegations sparing none. Hence the demand for dignified debate whose parameters however are not clearly spelled out except the general prescription that what is revolting and disgusting should be avoided and prevented. Inevitably some element of subjectivity will creep in because what is disgusting to some may be entertaining and enlightening to others. Justice Stewart of the US Supreme Court confessed that he could not define obscenity but could recognise it when he saw it. There is no inseparable difficulty in distinguishing between a dignified debate, though marked with pungency and sarcasm, and an outpouring of vile abuse.

There was a classic verbal encounter between Winston Churchill and Lady Astor who said that if she were Winston8217;s wife she would pour arsenic into his tea. Churchill8217;s retort was that in that case he would gladly drink it.

There was a debate at the Oxford Union Society on March 17, 1892 about Prohibition Laws. The speaker in favour of the motion for prohibition was Sir Wilfrid Lawson, a witty speaker and an ardent advocate of the Prohibition movement. Sir Wilfrid, when he succeeded to his father8217;s Baronetcy, had immediately opened the cellars of his Carlisle mansion and destroyed the stocks of wine. The speaker to oppose the motion was the 19-year-old F E Smith, who later became a brilliant Lord Chancellor of England. F E after gravely pointing out the folly of legislating prohibition changed tack and launched a personal attack on Sir Wilfrid. He said: 8216;8216;What did the honourable gentleman do with his cellar? He destroyed that priceless heritage of the ages, in which was stored the bottled sunshine of the south 8212; he destroyed it under circumstances of such barbarity that even the thirstiest throat in Carlisle was denied participation. I tell you, sir, that if in years to come, the honourable gentleman comes to me, when I am nestling in Abraham8217;s bosom, and asks me for a drop of water, I shall say to him: 8216;No, not a drop! You dissipated greater liquor!8217;8217;8217; That was brilliant. No right thinking person, including our lifelong prohibitionist Morarjibhai would brand F E8217;s remarks as undignified.

Gentleman actor

Peter Ustinov was my most favourite actor mainly because he excelled in mimicry in which I at times indulge. Ustinov was performing by age 3, mimicking politicians of the day when his parents invited Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie for dinner. Ustinov had a multicultural background. In his delightful autobiography Dear Me, he says that he was 8216;8216;conceived in St. Petersburg, Russia, born in England, baptised in Germany, and raised by nurses of Irish, German and Cameroonian heritage.8217;8217;

Perhaps that accounts for his life long addiction to laughter, 8216;8216;the sound of which has always seemed to me to be the most civilised music in the world.8217;8217;

Ustinov had a serious side to his life. He devoted himself to the world8217;s children for more than 30 years as a goodwill ambassador for UNICEF. This led the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to joke that Ustinov was the man to take over from him. Ustinov also set up a foundation dedicated to understanding between people across the globe and between generations. The motivation was his belief that knowing people is the best way of getting rid of prejudices. Are there any greats in Bollywood who exemplify Sir Peter8217;s talents and virtues?

Ubiquitous Parsees

Gandhiji8217;s famous comment about the Parsee community was 8216;8216;in numbers beneath contempt, in contribution beyond compare8217;8217;. Apart from this unique feature, Parsees are also ubiquitous. In Abraham Eraly8217;s book, Emperors of the Peacock Throne there is an interesting passage about Emperor Akbar inviting Dastur Mehrji Rana, a renowned Zoroastrian theologian, to his court in Fatehpur Sikri in 1578.

Story continues below this ad

According to the author, under Mehrji Rana8217;s influence, Akbar set up a sacred fire in the imperial palace, and 8216;8216;probably also took to wearing the sacred shirt sadra and girdle kusti which all Parsees are required to wear.8217;8217; Is there any solid historical evidence in support of these statements? In any case, these events do not tantamount to Emperor Akbar embracing the Zoroastrian faith.

It transpires from Vincent Cronin8217;s chapter on Napoleon that a Parsee servant was engaged for Emperor Napoleon when he was detained in the island of St. Helena. As the engagement was without the Governor8217;s permission 8216;8216;the Parsee was arrested and dismissed on the spot8217;8217;. Alas, nothing more is said. What was the Parsee servant8217;s name? What happened to him after his instant dismissal? Was he employed as a cook? Did he introduce the Emperor to the delicacies of the delicious dhanshak? These tantalising curiosities must await further serious historical research.

Tags: