Why eat raw fruit when there is a ripe sweet one at one’s disposal?

How to agree or disagree?

Recently I read an article about appointment of new Governor for Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the economic condition prevailing in India. One has commented that increase in import of Crude Oil and Gold were the main reasons for the current economic condition. Yet another commented that the oil price may shoot up if USA would wage war against Syria. This triggered other series of comments and eventually there was a threadjacking. There were comments about whether USA should wage war against Syria or not ; whether Nobel Peace prize to President Obama is justified or not; whether it was justified to use sniper jets to intrude Pakistan etc. Then there was another track of comments that discussed about the scams in the current government and blamed congress government; then someone commented on the riots in 2002 and it became a duel between two political party supporters. Then there was another set of argument that involved Hindu godman scams, Shia Sunni fights, evangelizing scam by Christian missionaries. Then it went to caste reservation system, Aryan-Dravidian discussions etc

Mind you, the original topic was about appointment of new RBI Governor. Can you imagine how cruelly the thread has been hijacked? There was absolutely no relevance to the subject of the article and the comments it received. Worst of all the language used were so arrogant and distasteful.

Why such hate? Why to go offensive in public? Is this the way to present a disagreement?

I gather my thoughts on how to present a view or counter view and conceptualised it in a form of simple layman story.

Once a Defence Minister approached the King and proposed that a bridge should be constructed across the river as every rainy season the river is flooded and people are put in difficulty.

The King welcomed the idea and asked him to present it to the Minister for Development as it comes under his scope of administration. The King called his Prime Minister and asked to convene a meeting and preside over it to discuss this proposal and also suggested to invite opinions from experts. The Prime Minister convened the meeting at the temple where the bridge was proposed to be built and also asked his office to invite experts. The King was interested to know how the meeting would eventually turn around so he disguised himself as a commoner and joined amongst the experts who have been invited.

At the meeting, the Minister of Defence opened up the idea and highlighted the advantages of building the bridge.

The King who was disguised as a commoner appreciated the idea but questioned “why not a dam be built instead of bridge.”

The Minister for Development was already perturbed that the praise and fame would go to Defence Minister if the bridge was eventually constructed now this commoner is providing another idea. The Minister for Development grew restless and wanted to express his prowess roared that the proposal of building dam was nonsense. Not knowing that the commoner was the King in disguise, he said that “Only a fool can think of such an idiotic idea”.

The Commoner said, “calling me a fool or the idea as idiotic is a weak argument. The statement does not prove or disprove anything”. Not expecting a commoner to dare and speak against the Minister,he then questioned the commoner, “Why do you insist on building dam? So that you find it easy to reach to your concubine’s house or to prostitutes of the other village, when the river is flooded? Tell me do you have concubine in the other side of the village?”

The commoner smiled and said, “the topic of discussion is building bridge or dam and it is unwarranted to discuss whether I have a concubine or not. And still, this does not relates to any positives or negatives in building the dam.”

The Minister of Development accused the commoner to be learn how to speak to the Minister with respect. And warned about the tone with which he spoke about. Hearing this, another minister in the court gathered courage to speak and supported the commoner (the King in disguise) and apologised for his intervention and humbly said, “perhaps the tone may be wrong” and highlighted that the Minister of Development still haven’t given any explanation why the dam should not be constructed.” Weary of the way it has turned out the Minister of Development returned to his chair.

The Minister of Defence, then raised and appreciated the view of the commoner and said “indeed the idea of building dam is interesting. But the whole idea of building bridge is to overcome the flood. I agree that building dam will also help to overcome the flood. But building bridge is a better Idea than building dam.”

The Minister of Development mumbled that Minister of Defence should only concentrate his area of ministry and should not unnecessarily interfere in his ministry’s work. He also highlighted that the last time the idea given by Defence Minister was rejected by the King.

The Prime Minister of the court intervened here and said, both the ideas of building bridge and building dam are helpful to overcome the nuisance of flood but the Defence Minister has not contemplated why building a bridge is better idea than building a dam. He then asked the commoner to present his views in support of his idea. He also warned that the Minister of Development should respect the court.

The Minister of Defence, got into a consultation with his office and then said, “the cost of building dam would be high. Secondly, we do not have expertise of building dam and therefore building bridge is a safer option.” The prime minister then expressed that at least now the discussion is going in a right path and some arguments are placed for discussion.

The commoner (the King in disguise) then highlighted that “building a dam is more easy as the river pass through mountains and since one half of the year the river is dry, it would be easy to build dam during that part of the year.” The Commoner then added that “when the flood water is stored in dam, it can be used for irrigation during the dry part of the year.”

The Minister of defence said “the rainy season is fast approaching and if at all we need to build a dam, it can be only after the rainy season.” And the commoner agreed the view of Minister of Defence and suggested to have a temporary erection of bridge until the dry season. After which the dam can be constructed as a permanent structure.

Hearing this, the prime minister approved the view and agreed to get consent from the King.

The commoner removed his mask and came out of disguise. Everyone was surprised to see the King in the place of commoner.

Both the Ministers were shivered with fear as they offended the King. The King pardoned their ignorance.

The King said to Minister of Development “your insecure feeling urged you to nip off the idea. However you failed to do so because you used a weak type of arguments. Firstly the you tried to abuse the commoner and tried to shut him off, when that did not work, you tried to deviate topic from its objective. When it still failed, you accused the tone of commoner”. And said, “these three are worst form of expressing disagreement. It would only result in unpleasant outcome. And irrelevantly referring to any previous instances and trying to relate with the current topic only shows your insecurity. It only shows that you are giving importance to your ego and want to show off your prowess.”

The King then said to Minister of Defence “ your intention was correct but you still could not digest that a commoner had a better idea than yours. you could not refute the idea from commoner but your ego did not allow you to accept it. You tried to make a counter argument but you could not as the idea of the commoner was also having the same objective. You simply insisted that your idea was better but never gave an opinion why your proposal was better than the other. It simply will be considered as alternative. And without knowing the positives and negatives of each alternative they were of no use”.

The King then gave a general advice that “to have a fruitful discussion, for the views and counter view to be present, one should give evidences, reference, facts and figures to support their view or counter view . And there is no use in accusing the person or commenting on the tone or trying to deviate from topic.”

When I reflect on the comments people make in the online news articles, I doubt whether they think it is cool to offend others in public. More than often, alas, everybody becomes judgemental and self proclaimed authority over the topic. There is an urge in many comments to show off their superior knowledge (or Gnowledge- google knowledge) . They get into a “Aaya toofan, bhaga shaitan” moment [Here comes the typhoon, there runs the demon] and want to bang an entry with an offence.

Most of the comments are either calling names, or questioning the authority or relevance of the author or would deviate form the core topic. And using unpleasant words can cause nothing except a deep scar and bitterness. Needless to say it is contagious too!

“Using unpleasant words” says Tiruvalluvar, a Tamizh saint in his famous collection of couplets—Thirukkural, “is like foolishly picking raw fruit when there is a ripe and sweet fruit available at one’s disposal”

இனிய உளவாக இன்னாத கூறல்
கனிஇருப்பக் காய்கவர்ந் தற்று

If you wish to make a comment

• First login using your twitter account.
• Select the sentence or word and you get an option to comment
• Or, if you just wish to show your encouragement to this article click on the ‘Green Recommend’ button below this article.