Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Lamenting loss of conversation! Some one said that debate is masculine; conversation is feminine. The kind of macho society we seem to be living in — “conversation”, the art of talking to each other and not at each other sometimes seems to be a rare commodity. Discussing, in a manner of speaking the loss of conversation, when you try to listen to the other person also, may, therefore be not out of place for all those who would like to a more tolerant society. And thanks to ‘Imkan’, a literary, cultural and social organization, intellectuals and writers in Islamabad (at the Pakistan Academy of Letters) assembled on Thursday evening to discuss the ramifications of the scenario. Unlike the usual book-launching or a “reference” to a poet and an author (alas! when he has passed away), the society held its first function on Guftogoo (conversation) itself. “A series of such conversations on various social and literary topics will be held later on”, so informed the ever-active Anjum Khaleeque of the organization. “Our breath,” said poet and linguist, Dr Syed Shabihul Hasan Rizvi, the main speaker at Thursday’s meeting, “is a sign of our existence, but our speech (here like an orator he seemed to extend the term to its utmost end), our conversation is a sign of our consciousness, of ourself”. “Cogito Ergo Sum” (I think, therefore, I am) of Descartes he made the yardstick in of a logic that seem to transfer the “thinking” process into the words of conversation. “What breath is to life, conversation is to consciousness. (He would even bring the sensibility of an Andre Gide and the revolt of Albert Camus to strengthen his argument.) The basic tragedy in the loss of conversation arises from a capitalistic society where one speaks from the authority of his possessions, he said. The place and the position determines who would, and in what manner, be spoken to. At another level our varying economic and social affiliations make it a tribal kind of a society and it becomes very difficult to engage in conversation from the same level. And he left the audience with the thought that speaking well is what the art of conversation was all about, but listening well was the heart of conversation. He also thought that in the early days of Islamic society relevant questions on everything could be asked and replied to; and so the conversation would continue. Dr Rizvi thought TV had killed conversation, and internet had separated those who were near; and only brought people sitting far away in chatting on computer screen. Iftikhar Arif, chairman of the Academy of Letters, tracing the history of various periods of Muslims history referred to the diametrical positions taken by Muslim philosophers regarding questioning of concepts. He spoke of the times when it was allowed to ask questions. Emphasizing the importance of questioning he also pointed out that conversation did not mean that one party could say everything and not allow the other party to say anything against the beliefs of the other party. He also traced the history of the oral tradition, the coming of the printed word and the advent of electronic media, computer and the internet that have changed the concept of conversation. Prof Laiq Ahmad, the well-known radio and TV broadcaster, who presided over the function, discussed what he called the substance of conversation. He maintained that even soliloquy was a kind of dialogue, a kind of conversation between a person and his self where the meanings were very clear to each other. He spoke of the change in meanings as we come out of the mother’s lap into society and interact with people brought in different environments. The meaning of words change with our growing consciousness. Like, for instance, he gave the example of various relationships in the family in the proper context as we grow. He spoke, as it were, of various rules of conversation: and thought that in a conversation both the sides should have enough confidence in each other and be ready to listen to each other, and also understand the subject- matter being talked about. For instance if nobody from the audience present understands atomic fusion none would come to listen to such a speaker here. Conversation comes about as a result of confidence at different levels. To illustrate his point, he gave the example of the speech about referendum made by Ziaul Haq where he raised his hand saying that if people voted for Islam he would be President for five years. The TV distinctly showed his hand in a fashion which is considered like calling names in Sindh and the lower areas of the Punjab. He agreed with Dr Rizvi some communication experts think TV to be the killer of conversation. A number of “intellectual” participants shared their ideas. They included Ali Akbar Abbas (who spoke of tolerace in society); Asghar Abid, (who defended the role of TV), Jalil Aali, (who thought the role of jumla bazi should also have been discussed and how words like mussawat and jabir hukmran are no longer discussed after the fall of the Soviet Union. He also thought no conversation worth the name could take place in an atmosphere of what he called “controlled democracy”), Afshan Abbasi, Wafa Chishti, Waseem and Ghazanfar Abbas. Some one also talked about the conversation that comes out of silence.—Mufti Jamiluddin Ahmad [Correction: In the article entitled “Truckloads of ‘great’ books and the poor reader”, on January 22 the reference in Marlowe’s Dr Faustus is to Helen, and not to Caleopatra.] Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
