Using his first public speech after la affaire 'one-eyed king’ as a platform to explain the comparison, Rajan rued that words and phrases of public figures are wrung for meaning, at the same time apologising to the visually challenged section of the population to whom he felt, the words did hurt.

“The proverb suggests that a one-eyed man is better than a blind one. A moment’s thought suggests this is not true. The blind can develop capabilities that more than make up for their disability and add new perspectives and new variety to our world, making it richer and more vibrant. So I am indeed sorry for implying the blind were otherwise than capable,” he said.

However, asserting that while words mattered, so did intent, he said, “When words are hung to dry out of context, as in a newspaper headline, it then becomes fair game for anyone who wants to fill in meaning to create mischief. Worst, of course, are words or proverbs that have common usage elsewhere, because those can be most easily and deliberately misinterpreted. If we are to have a reasonable public dialogue, everyone should read words in their context, not stripped of it. That may be a forlorn hope!”

If public figures spent all their time watching their words and using inoffensive language or hedging everything with caveats, they would be dull and be unable to communicate as no one would listen, he felt.

Invoking Mahatma Gandhi’s use of the phrase that an eye for an eye would only make the whole world go blind, Rajan said that these words could be replaced by “Revenge reduces collective welfare” which is short and inoffensive, but meaningless for most listeners.

“Alternatively, we could say `The taking of any body part for another will temporarily reduce the collective capabilities of the population thus affected, until they develop the faculties that will allow them to compensate for the missing body parts’. This restatement is more correct than the original, but lacks zing and therefore the ability to persuade," he quipped.

While the original maxim could be seen as discriminatory, Gandhiji’s focus was on the absurdity of a policy of revenge, and his intent was not to disparage the blind, he said.

“I think we all have work to do to improve public dialogue. Speakers have to be more careful with words and not be gratuitously offensive. At the same time, listeners should not look for insults everywhere, and should place words in context so as to understand intent,” he advised.

We need both respect and tolerance and the greatest danger would be that we did not communicate or debate. “For then we will allow distorted stereotypes to flourish unchallenged, and divisiveness to increase. In a country like ours, conceived and flourishing in diversity, that will truly be a disaster,” Rajan believed.

Related Topics