It was disappointments galore at the Music Academy on Saturday (April 7) evening. What was promised to be a lively discussion on "New Ideas for a New India" turned out to be a drudging discussion on old ideas without any focus.
It was disappointing that Rajeev Chandrashekhar, an outstanding parliamentarian, could not turn up for participation. This meant that only three speakers, Bibek Debroy, Madhu Purnima Kishwar and S.Gurumurthy, would be in the panel moderated by N.Ravi. All panelists are eminent speakers and the audience was looking forward to seminal output from each of them.
Coffee that was offered before the discussion started was of poor quality. Though I normally avoid coffee on such occasions, in my excitement expecting a feast for the ears, I drank what was on offer. I was however confident that the quality of discussion would more than make up for the tasteless coffee. As the discussion started sinking in, I realised that the quality of coffee was indicative of the quality of ensuing discussion.
The event was organised by Sastra University and The Hindu. The moderator defined what was expected from each speaker. The first to speak was Bibek Debroy. He was supposed to talk on how foreigners view India. His decibel level was so high that I could not help wondering why he used the mike at all. Was he using the volume of his sound to make up for lack of depth in his talk? The moderator had earlier made a passing reference to 'Constitutional India'. Debroy went off at a tangent and spoke about basic structure of our Constitution, amendability of the Constitution and so on. It was pure histrionics. Of course, he was decent enough to admit that he was not speaking on what he was supposed to cover !
Madhu Kishwar was supposed to focus on gender issues. She took all the time in the world to comment favourably on the status of women in ancient India. A person in the audience reminded her that she was to talk on new India. She realised she was off-track but given the thankful limitations of time, she could not discover her focus. Her main argument was that Indian women do not need any patronising advice from foreign feminists.
Gurumurthy repeated parrot-like what has become his anchor for most discussions. Reference to IIT Bombay students, Adi Godrej and Macaulay has become his constant mantra. When he, as has become his habit, rhetorically asked, "Do you know which is the richest municipality in India, per capita income-wise?" (the answer is Morvi), I could not resist my urge to exit.
I had rearranged my schedule on Saturday to be able to attend this programme. I cursed myself on my poor choice.
It was disappointing that Rajeev Chandrashekhar, an outstanding parliamentarian, could not turn up for participation. This meant that only three speakers, Bibek Debroy, Madhu Purnima Kishwar and S.Gurumurthy, would be in the panel moderated by N.Ravi. All panelists are eminent speakers and the audience was looking forward to seminal output from each of them.
Coffee that was offered before the discussion started was of poor quality. Though I normally avoid coffee on such occasions, in my excitement expecting a feast for the ears, I drank what was on offer. I was however confident that the quality of discussion would more than make up for the tasteless coffee. As the discussion started sinking in, I realised that the quality of coffee was indicative of the quality of ensuing discussion.
The event was organised by Sastra University and The Hindu. The moderator defined what was expected from each speaker. The first to speak was Bibek Debroy. He was supposed to talk on how foreigners view India. His decibel level was so high that I could not help wondering why he used the mike at all. Was he using the volume of his sound to make up for lack of depth in his talk? The moderator had earlier made a passing reference to 'Constitutional India'. Debroy went off at a tangent and spoke about basic structure of our Constitution, amendability of the Constitution and so on. It was pure histrionics. Of course, he was decent enough to admit that he was not speaking on what he was supposed to cover !
Madhu Kishwar was supposed to focus on gender issues. She took all the time in the world to comment favourably on the status of women in ancient India. A person in the audience reminded her that she was to talk on new India. She realised she was off-track but given the thankful limitations of time, she could not discover her focus. Her main argument was that Indian women do not need any patronising advice from foreign feminists.
Gurumurthy repeated parrot-like what has become his anchor for most discussions. Reference to IIT Bombay students, Adi Godrej and Macaulay has become his constant mantra. When he, as has become his habit, rhetorically asked, "Do you know which is the richest municipality in India, per capita income-wise?" (the answer is Morvi), I could not resist my urge to exit.
I had rearranged my schedule on Saturday to be able to attend this programme. I cursed myself on my poor choice.
1 comment:
Even the topic has become a cliche.. same SASTRA Univ has conducted a session on same topic earlier, with Mr yechury, N Ram and Gurumurthy
Post a Comment