In the olden days, Indian women on
requiring making a curry paste would embark upon an arduous and time consuming
process of grinding various food components. With the advent of mixers and
grinders the same process can be done with relative ease, thus liberating the
woman of the need to be subjected to such a task and leaves her with much more
productive time. Possibly now the time she has saved from her curry paste
making process is utilized in watching her favorite daily soaps. That the
keenness of this new task is so much that she would like not to entertain or
engage with her young child which she possibly would have while spending more
time in the older task.
While the first part of the narrative would
have been easily relatable, made much sense and sounded practical, the second
would have required some thinking, popped some ‘is-it-so’ questions and maybe
caused reflection. In fact the ‘curry paste’ scenario presented above is
stitched from a debate between two stalwarts – T V Mohandas Pai and Sundar Sarukkai.
The Manipal Conclave held by Manipal
Institute of Technology had for a debate, Mr Mohandas Pai, chairman of Manipal
Global Education Services, the illustrious former Infosys mascot, and a well
known TV personality who daftly handles TV anchors of the boisterous kinds.
Opposing him was Sundar Sarukkai, Director of Manipal Centre of Philosophy and
Humanities, a particle physics doctorate from Purdue University, an eminent
philosopher and thinker of the country and author of several books.
Technology, its advantages were put forth
by Mr Pai, armed with his statistics; who elucidated how advances in technology
have removed drudgery of human life, how longevity (and average human height) has
been enhanced, how travelling time has reduced and is reducing, how
connectivity has eradicated starvation deaths in far flung regions and how life
has become more easy going. However he noted that a few misgivings of
technology have treaded along.
There was a man, who had been at the
forefront of technology revolution of India, having an active public life
taking on governments for wrong doing, indulging in opportunity and knowledge
creation, engaging with masses on twitter, who drove home the point which we
have all become conditioned with, that advent of technology has made our lives
better and that being devoid of it is unimaginable.
Then the thinker spoke. Professor Sarukkai who
began by telling that talking about ills and perils of technology at a
technology institute was only ironical, craftily enlightened on aspects that on
the first thought could sound alien but if pondered upon could help internalize
the message. That technology commonly used today have been result of war
efforts where millions have been killed (millions of women and children he emphasized
as a case-in-point), that technology has led to disease proliferation like mad
cow disease and that technology has decimated the human ability of deep focus.
The merit of the debate is certainly worth
noting. The relevance of the arguments needs thinking. The debating point holds
enormous value for all generations who are in throes of technology becoming
integral part of life. Is it to be accepted in its present form? What should be
done with newer technologies, how it should be done, and if at all something is
to be done. For technologies affecting us cannot be denied, but being deeply
conditioned with it could spell dire changes in the future.
Well, that was not the conclusion. A large
part of learning experience from the Pai-Sarukkai debate was beyond the arguments.
There were two gentlemen who disagreed in the most graceful manner possible.
Humor was never lost. When Mr Pai pointed out that the microphone Dr Sarukkai
was speaking into was a part of the technology advancement, the philosopher
chose to denounce it further on. Walking the talk was exhibited right there in
the most light-veined manner possible.
It is rare, in the new age debate culture
as the television makes us believe, to be civil, to listen carefully, to be
modest, and yet to stick on to ones views. One’s firmness of those views need
not be expressed in a manner of shouting down, taking irrelevant detours, or
rigidity to acknowledge genuine contradictions. The Pai-Sarukkai debate was a
fine example of that.
