<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d13780929\x26blogName\x3d%E0%AE%AE%E0%AE%A9%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D+%E0%AE%92%E0%AE%B0%E0%AF%81+%E0%AE%95%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%99%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%95%E0%AF%81\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://kurangu.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://kurangu.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d591562645360627291', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

ஒரு மின்னஞ்சல் உரையாடல்

சென்ற வாரயிறுதியில், ஒரு கலை நிகழ்ச்சியில் நண்பர் சங்கரபாண்டியைச் சந்தித்தேன். வலைப்பதிவுகள் - குறிப்பாக இடஒதுக்கீடு குறித்த பதிவுகள் குறித்துப் பேசிக் கொண்டிருந்த போது, பத்ரியின் ஒரு பதிவில் தாம் எழுதிய ஒரு நீண்ட பின்னூட்டத்தைப் படித்தேனா என்று கேட்டார். நான் இல்லை என்றவுடன், வீட்டுக்குச் சென்று சுட்டி அனுப்புவதாகச் சொன்னார்.

சொன்னபடியே அவர் மின்னஞ்சலில் அனுப்பிய சுட்டியைத் தொடர்ந்து எங்களுக்குள் ஒரு சிறு (இடஒதுக்கீட்டிற்கு நேரடி தொடர்பில்லாத) விவாதம் நிகழ்ந்தது. வார்த்தை ரீதியாக அவ்விவாதம் ஒரு முடிவுக்கு வந்தது போல் தோன்றினாலும், அடிப்படையானதொரு கருத்தொற்றுமை உருவாகியதா என்பது குறித்து எங்கள் இருவருக்குமே ஐயப்பாடு உள்ளது, எனினும், விவாதத்தின் சுவாரசியம் கருதி, அவர் அனுமதியோடு, அதைப் பதிகிறேன்.

முதலில், பத்ரியின் பதிவு, மற்றும் சங்கரபாண்டியின் பின்னூட்டம்.

1. சங்கரபாண்டியின் பின்னூட்டத்தின் கடைசிப் பத்தி:

இந்த மூன்றையும் இட ஒதுக்கீட்டுக்கு எதிராகச் செயலாற்றும் கும்பல் ஏற்றுக் கொள்ளப் போவதில்லை. அதுவரை நானும் சமூகநீதித் தீவிரவாதியாகவே இருக்க விரும்புகிறேன். எந்தப் பிரச்னையிலும் இரண்டு தீவிரவாதங்கள் சண்டையிட்டுக் கொண்டிருந்தால், நடுனிலையாக எதுவும் செய்ய முடியாவிட்டடல் தொடக்கத்தில் இருந்தே பாதிக்கப் பட்டவர்களின் தீவிரவாதத்தை ஆதரிப்பதே மேல் என்னுடைய கொள்கை.

2. பின்னூட்டத்தின் சுட்டியைத் தாங்கி வந்த மின்னஞ்சலுக்கு எனது பதில்:

Sankar,

Thanks for the link. I agree overwhelmingly with your ideas, and I especially agree with the three action items you have put forth - great ideas.

However, I completely disagree with your philosophical position presented in the last paragraph. It is a false choice to say that there are only two ideological extremes to choose from. I, for one, refuse to be arm-twisted or have my philosophical hand forced by the extreme positionings of those whose voices happen to be the loudest in a debate.

thanks,

Srikanth

3. சங்கரபாண்டியின் பதில்:

>However, I completely disagree with your philosophical position presented in >the last paragraph.

I exactly knew this when I was sending it to you :-)

I dont know whether I can quickly communicate why I think so. Let me try otherwise we will argue next time when we meet :-)

What I wrote is a blanket statement - it does not apply for all the cases of two-opposite-extremist-ideologies, but it applies wherever there are people who have felt/still-bearing the brunt of physical violence. two examples are eezham issue and caste issue. Of course, there is middle ground and I too like it as a solution. But the people who talk about this middle ground is not only minority but is completely incapable of action. How long we can wait for them to become majority or do-instead-of-talk when the people have been still suffering. It is easy to suggest peace and have a prolonged discussion on peace for decades but if I were in the original victim's place, I would know only my pain. When I dont see even a small change in the minds of the original perpetrators of violence, I will have to stand by the original victim. This is what I say in my statement.

If you ask for an instance where I would not like to go by the extreme stand - language issue. Even though this causes disadvantages for some and advantages for others, it is not a serious problem - people are not subjected to mental or physical violence.

4. என் பதில்:

Actually you make good points, and I see where you are coming from. I still don't agree with your conclusion if only because accepting it would means accepting unpalatable compromises. However, I have over the years grown to be slightly nuanced in my position in this manner - whereas *I* will not change my position in these situations (and embrace an extreme), if an *affected person* does so, I will understand their acceptance. This "understanding" (as patronizing as it sounds even though I don't mean it in that way) is different from either accepting it as right or advocating it as good.

To put it simplistically, if an eelam tamil or a caste-oppressed individual resorts to violence as a retort to their oppression, I will not criticize/condemn them for it. But if another person (not one among them) suggests that that is what they *should* be doing, I will criticize that person. In my mind, it is the moral/civic duty of the people that are not affected by a situation to see the bigger/long-term picture and not be as emotionally driven as those who are affected.

thanks,

Srikanth

5. சங்கரபாண்டியின் பதில்:

I agree with you if you include the converse also:

"But if another person (not one among them) suggests that they *should not* be doing what they are doing and that they should stop it at any cost, I will criticize that person."

6. என் பதில்:

I agree.

In the back of my mind, however, I get the feeling that there is a more fundamental philosophical difference that we are not being explicit about (both of us), but I am not able to place a finger on it. I guess it will come out on its own at some point. :-)

thanks for the dialogue,

Srikanth

7. சங்கரபாண்டியின் பதில்:

You are absolutely right. However, honestly I feel that we both have moved from our positions compared to 10 years back and we are still moving. But the problem is that we have much less time to discuss what we agree.

When I look at the big division in the blog-world and seeing its ugliness, I feel that there is no reason to feel so personally hurting each other. We can express our stand even if it is diametrically opposite and still be friends. That way, we will be able to understand the reason for our stands. That would be the first step to come to a middle ground.

8. என் பதில்:

Amen to that.


மனம் ஒரு குரங்கு - முதல் பக்கம்

4 Comments:

Blogger Sugavasi said...

And to think of all those idiots who exchange emails on where the "Sivaji" unit is going next :-)

Seriously, that was an interesting exchange of ideas.

Goes to say that when there is an underlying "respect" for each others opinions , ideas (diametrically opposite ones) flow freely and paves the way for a more wholesome understanding of the issue.

June 13, 2006 10:59 PM  
Blogger Badri said...

Amen.

June 14, 2006 12:09 AM  
Blogger Srikanth said...

Sugavasi, நம்ம வண்டவாளத்தை இப்படிப் போட்டு உடைக்கணுமா? :-)

பத்ரி, thanks for stopping by.

June 14, 2006 8:11 AM  
Blogger செந்தில் குமரன் said...

I just wish all exchanges happening in thamizmanam are done in the same thoughtful and diplomatic manner shown in your mails.

June 14, 2006 9:11 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home