Dignified debates

The Indo-Pak student seminar Manzar, organised by Miranda House this week at the IIC, was an enjoyable event. Three students each from the I...

The Indo-Pak student seminar Manzar, organised by Miranda House this week at the IIC, was an enjoyable event. Three students each from the Indian and Pakistani side debated the motion8212;8216;When economies move closer, countries will follow8217;. The Indian team supported the motion, the Pakistani team opposed it.

The Indian team argued that since the major economy of both countries is based on agriculture, efforts should be made to bridge the gap between farmers on both sides of the LoC. People-to-people contact will improve and this will lead to better political relationships. The Pakistani team maintained that trade could improve only with change in political relationships. Other sectors such as the tertiary sector would also have to be taken into consideration and what was needed was a change in the political culture. Marks had to be awarded to each team taking into account the criteria of Matter, Manner and Method. Selection of the successful team was a tough job for the judges because both teams had made excellent presentations. The Pakistani team scored by a narrow margin. One plus factor for the Pakistani team was the humour of one of its participants, who sent ripples of laughter by his remark that 8216;8216;In Pakistan we do have shortage of essential commodities, but there is no shortage of presidents in khaki8217;8217;. There were pungent exchanges between the two teams but they were decorous and dignified. Our parliamentarians would have benefited from the function which could have sensitised them to the value of dignified debate. The young can in some cases teach their elders. Today the level of public discourse has touched a horrendous low. Instead of reasoned arguments and rebuttals we witness a torrent of abuse and scurrilous allegations and that too from ministers in the same government. Shameful, but true. This reminds one of Dr Johnson8217;s remark that when a person runs out of arguments he has recourse to abuse.

The debate took me down memory lane to the exciting inter-collegiate debates in Bombay between St Xavier8217;s and Elphinstone College. We Xavierites had an edge over the Elphinstonians who were replete with learning but deficient in wit and humour. Of the great debates, those between Bernard Shaw and H G Wells on one side and G K Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc8212;the Chester Bellocs8212;are most stimulating and entertaining.

My favourite debate is the one which took place at the Oxford Union in March 1892. Sir Wilfrid Lawson, an ardent prohibitionist, was slated to make his speech in favour of prohibition. F E Smith, an unknown Wadham freshman, was to oppose the motion. F.E., who spoke before Sir Wilfrid, began on a serious note. He pointed out that there exist certain human demands which no parliamentary statutes can check and which, if driven underground, assume far more sinister form. F.E. was aware that Lawson on succeeding to his father8217;s estate had immediately opened the cellars of his Carlisle mansion and destroyed the stocks of wine. With an unexpected change of voice and mood, F.E. condemned Lawson8217;s outrage to his cellar at Carlisle where 8216;8216;he destroyed that priceless heritage of the ages, in which was stored the bottled sunshine of the south under circumstances of such barbarity that even the thirstiest throat in Carlisle was denied participation8217;8217;. Then turning to Sir Wilfrid he warned that 8216;8216;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 the young F.E. who later as Lord Birkenhead enthralled Parliament with his brilliant speeches and debating skills.

Duties to animals

The Forty Second Constitutional Amendment introduced during the spurious June 1975 Emergency led to the incorporation of Fundamental Duties in the Constitution. Article 51-A lists 10 Fundamental Duties of citizens, one of which is 8216;8216;to have compassion for living creatures8217;8217;. This provision is open to different interpretations. Does it oblige persons engaged in the business of slaughter of animals to refrain from doing so? On a lesser plane, does it require restaurants and hotels to stop serving non-vegetarian food? And as a dutiful citizen, am I obliged to become a vegetarian? Ms Maneka Gandhi will no doubt canvas the extreme interpretations. Another interpretation can be that this duty extends to living animals and obliges us to treat them kindly and without cruelty and no more. This question is involved in an appeal pending in the Supreme Court in which the constitutionality of the legislation banning cow slaughter is in issue. The outcome of the appeal is keenly awaited. Incidentally recognition of animal rights is increasing. In Britain it has been decided to erect memorials in honour of animals who helped the Allied forces during the war. Bravo.