|
Janab Pervaiz Sahib
Last Sunday’s [January 11, 2009] seminar was yet another occasion where most
speakers forgot what they had come to speak about. As FOTH why do we not
require that speakers must address the topic under discussion? I faced the
same dilemma when we had “……….good bye to God” and “……….terrorism…..” and
some other seminars. May be the speakers think that their audience is not
intelligent enough.
At the end of the interval I pointed out to the
moderator that the two speeches already concluded were not relevant to the
topic and that may we remind the next two speakers to honour
the topic. The reply came that in a 15-minutes presentation it was not
possible to address to the topic. Oh, really?
I strongly request that our seminars should be
properly thought of and only those speakers should be invited who do not
have personal agenda.
We did not go through the hardships [cold
weather, bad driving conditions, heavy traffic, etc.] to hear what we heard
at this seminar. What did description about Hoodbhoy,
Tariq Ali and Mark Twain had to do with the topic
under discussion? Can someone tell me this please? Although other speakers
rightfully highlighted the tragedy the victims of war are facing, but then
again, that is a topic fit for another discussion
How come intelligent, highly educated scholars
and intellectuals are so distanced from reality, the truthfulness of the
world events, its objectives, its tragic consequences that they can talk
whatever they like? I think Rashid Mughal in his
post number 38 has clearly shown us the answer. I quote him
“Self-realization truly changes our perception of the universe around us,
but first we have to come out of our parrot mode.” I’m not sure how many
people appreciate the powerfulness of this message. May I please take the liberty,
on Rashid’s behalf, to pass this advice on to us once again?
As far as the seminar itself, I look forward to
reading from scholars what it was all about and what did we learn from it
and what was the conclusion, apart from the obvious qualified and
conditional “yes” answer.
JC
|