I read kumaar gaari post a couple of times before deciding to address it. I
read my reply a couple of times before posting it.
It seemed to me from a few sentences in his second post that he does not
like the current discussion (there was also his post of a couple of weeks
ago). Also, his exhortation sounded familiar. I heard it from Syamala Rao
in a much more derisive tone earlier. I saw it on the net several times.
I heard it at dinner parties. I heard it in my college days. Whenever I
heard it, it usually was in the context when somebody does not like the
contents of a particular discussion, or the fact that a discussion was
taking place. I usually find such exhortations as being patronizing. I
thought that this was an issue needed to be addressed. (Incidentally,
I did not see Kumar vaDaparti's piece as an attack on either Rama or
vEloori, despite his phrase about vEloori's vattaasu.)
I deliberately did not want to say anything offensive about Kumar gaaru.
I realize now that there is a phrase (...likes of Sri Kumar...) that
could be misinterpreted, and could have been avoided without altering my
message in anyway.
Kumar gaaru says that I misunderstood him about the 'shut up' part of it
and baapaaraavu gaaru said that there may have been some miscommunication.
kumaar's phrases about poets worrying about being trashed a couple of
generations later and his comment about the discussions of vEmana's gOchi
caused me to think that he really wants us to shut up. Perhaps if his
exhortation for improving the intellectual infrastructure (which I know
is in the forefront of the thoughts of many participants) came in a
post by itself, it could have been received differently. In any case, I
pointed it as my interpretation and invited him to correct it (which he
later did). I accept his word that he didn't mean to say to 'shut up'.
I apologize for my misinterpretation of his intentions.
However, the rest of the post stands as it is. I do not think talking is
bad. I think talking can sometimes lead to very good things as time
progresses. I am not dispirited that all this talk has not yet produced
the kind of projects that kumaar gaaru has in mind. For such things to
happen, relationships need to be built and a critical mass has to gather.
That's unlikely to happen without a lot of talk goes on beforehand.
I do not think it will help the development of any such projects,
if we all stop discussing potentially disagreeable subjects. And people
who are passionate about something are more likely to do something about
it than those that don't have it.
If kumar gaaru felt that I attacked him personally, I am sorry. That was
not my intention. I thought I said so clearly. My target is the people who
say in the middle of a discussion, 'if you feel so much about it, why don't
you do xxxxx'? Doing xxxxx has its place and time. Some of the
discussants may eventually do xxxxx, and the discussion may be one of
the reasons for doing so.
I am sorry that Ramakrishna was astounded by my response. I still am not
sure why he was so astounded. I had no idea that Ramakrishna encouraged
kumar garu to post his thoughts. Even if I did, it wouldn't have made
much difference.
I am uncomfortable with some of the comparisons chosen by Ramakrishna in his
response. They serve to illustrate Ramakrishna's discomfiture with
the current discussions, but, IMHO, they are not fair comparisons.
I am surprised by his idea of the poll. I want to make it clear that I
am not writing here to win a popularity contest. If anybody has a comment
about my post, they can always write about it, on line or off-line. Kumaar
gaaru did, Nasy gaaru did, and baapaaraavu gaaru did. Ramakrishna himself
did. Others are welcome too.
Regards. --- Chowdary Jampala
PS: I will probably send this to TELUSA also after further reflection.