Reference: Previous post
Infosys Chief mentor Mr. N. R. Narayana Murthy apologized.
Mr. Murthy said, “I apologize to those who may have been hurt by my comments on the instrumental version of the anthem played during President Kalam's visit.”
Further The Times of India reported,
Mr. Murthy said, “I apologize to those who may have been hurt by my comments on the instrumental version of the anthem played during President Kalam's visit.”
Further The Times of India reported,
The company said that the feeling was that foreigners would be more comfortable with the instrumental version, as they could then hum along as others sang the anthem.
But Deccan Herald reported,
… just as the “band” national anthem (played on keyboard) was played towards the end of the programme, President Kalam sang along with child-like enthusiasm while others barely moved their lips …
An apology, of typical political and diplomatic type, had come now. Is the matter over?
Any statement has two dimensions. One is the truthfulness of the statement and the other is its impact on others.
An apology would address the issue of the impact of a statement on others like hurting one’s sentiments, causing pain inadvertently, etc. It does not address the face value of it. It does not address the questions raised about attitudes behind the statement.
This blog would still like to believe Mr. Murthy would come out writing an article on this issue to initiate a discussion. Just think about the various themes of his articles.
At the same time, the political leaders of various parties would like to capitalize on this issue to settle old scores and vent their suppressed inabilities. I believe such things are detrimental to spirit of societal discussions. But if one uses power achieved in one domain to create leverage in other domains, one has to face the backlashes.
Any statement has two dimensions. One is the truthfulness of the statement and the other is its impact on others.
An apology would address the issue of the impact of a statement on others like hurting one’s sentiments, causing pain inadvertently, etc. It does not address the face value of it. It does not address the questions raised about attitudes behind the statement.
This blog would still like to believe Mr. Murthy would come out writing an article on this issue to initiate a discussion. Just think about the various themes of his articles.
At the same time, the political leaders of various parties would like to capitalize on this issue to settle old scores and vent their suppressed inabilities. I believe such things are detrimental to spirit of societal discussions. But if one uses power achieved in one domain to create leverage in other domains, one has to face the backlashes.
1 comment:
To paraphrase what you said in a different context - every problem has multiple dimensions ;)
I wonder how many of the conscientous protesters themselves pay due respect to the national anthem?
Then again, I know of no country where visitors are made to feel at ease by their hosts not singing the national anthem; in most occasions where the national anthem is sung, the visitor is either expected to join in, or politely keep his/her mouth shut.
Yes, I do believe that the CM (Chief Mentor) was wrong. Then again, he's done many more things for this country than other people (especially our politicians) have - so I think we should just let this matter die in peace and worry about other things :)
Post a Comment