Discourse is the zeitgeist. From talk show pundits to the aam admi all are rooting for a discourse.
Another diplomatic foray by Oscar Fernandez Taranco seems to be on the offing, apparently “because the natives of the land are not big enough or smart enough to tame the churlish braggadocio of the reigning actors” (I mean the honorable PM and the honorable ex-PM).
I am not sure if a meaningful discourse is possible at this juncture, for discourse is a natural extension of two logical minds of differing philosophies as they interact and strive to interject some cohesion.
Successful discourse is constructed upon a good dose of healthy respect for the “opposing partner.” Although it sounds like an oxymoron, I am choosing the term deliberately to emphasise the fact that discourse is not for the hot-headed philistine who cannot bear the smell of opposition.
“It’s no time to discourse, so Chrish (Christ) save me; the day is hot, and the weather, and the wars, and the king and the dukes; it’s no time to discourse” (Shakespeare: King Henry V).
Well, without a sense of healthy respect and optimal ambience, not even Christ is going to save a discourse.
I do watch deshi television and read a lot more deshi newspapers on the net. I notice a tremendous amount of knowledge and talent in flux. Some are lovable while some are odious; and that’s all right.
But a discourse without a sense of common sense is nonsense. A discourse has to undulate our minds like a gentle stroke of a finger on a harp.
It’s okay to bite and scratch and scratch (borrowed from Montaigne) as long as there is a modicum of sensibility.
Not long ago, I received an email from a person who frequents NFB (a Bangladeshi news portal and discussion forum) rather frequently.
A firm believer of religion, I gather, he was irrationally furious at a certain scribe who made a name for himself by incessantly trashing religion of all sorts, especially Islam.
I also gather that this gentleman, a representative of the silent majority, wrote only because he was infuriated.
One who writes or speaks or proposes, by definition, is vocal, and intends to modulate the hearts and minds of those who are not yet in sync. Hence a discourse that brings forth such outright aversion is no discourse at all.
Going back to our honorable PM and ex-PM: I am an eternal optimist and still, my mind is shrouded in gloom. I don’t see them looking eye-to-eye, sitting side by side and picking and poking each other’s brains in a way that shall glean a ray of hope for the 17 crore souls who call themselves the real owners of Bangladesh.
A proposition, a concept, or a statement that materialises no sensible consequences in the minds of the involved, whatever vainglorious it may be, is of no meaning. A noun is nothing but a noun unless a verb is there to undulate it.
