Reminisciences: Comment about Comments
For long I was planning to write blog and it chanced upon that my other blog got reports from my great classmate, Mr. Anirbit Mukherjee. Well yeah, may be it’s not nice on my part to have published about a personal chat between two persons. It’s just that I got excited because the topic of this chat was the same as the one on which I had short heated arguments with Mr. Mukherjee; short because, though people might not believe, i am a bit short tempered.
Well, this is not about the aforementioned blog or the chat. I’m not going to do that mistake again. This will follow a pattern that the article that is going to be commented upon had used. This is a set of comments on the article of comments; though I’m not that adept or mature enough to comment on articles of those people who I feel think they are writing an editorial on how things can go completely wrong with no chance of reprisal.
Well, if comments about personal conversations cannot go public, then personal ideas about public issues should be managed more diplomatically. But, my complaint about this article is neither about the writing style of this article nor am I judging or critically analyzing. It’s just that if a person gets to know the author at a more personal scale, you get to determine his/her beliefs and actions. There is truly never a limit to a person being a hypocrite. If any person who knows a little about the subject that is being talked about you can see these contradictory paragraphs appearing. There is a time when Mr. Mukherjee seems to see elementary facts to be too elementary and at times, slightly higher level realizations to be rather high.
And now coming to the point about Expectations. Expectations are common as a person. But, expectations do not alone form the basis for life and interests. I do agree that it’s mars the mind at least for a short span of time, when expectations are not reached and I definitely agree that there are things in life, in which a person should not by any chance compromise. But, at times, even such situations do arise, due to their non-zero probability, and adaptation in such a situation is must.I completely agree with the author in few of the issues raised in the article. But, it seems that the author’s pedagogy is totally pessimistic and does not have a well defined set of principles by which he measures and concocts subjects. My view of the article is that though the article issued a disclaimer in the prologue, it lacks complete sense as the issues raised were public. And giving a personalized opinion as to how the things are to be run, such that the author can live “happily ever after”, seems to me a coup d’etat on the part of the author.
Again a personal opinion, but this time it’s mine, is that, rather than a single person setting up the rules and creating the same problem as the existing one; a change has to be made where one gets to choose after a certain point of time the path that he wants to take. There is a negative side to this too. There can exist cases where instead of taking a path, one takes up various paths, so that the end is reached without any substantial increase in level by taking up random elements, here and there. Well, this might be solved, if an interaction process between us and the teachers be made such that one gets to decide on a particular path. If one is unable to decide on any, then he is to take a path set up by the teachers.
That’s all I have to say.
P.S. : Everything above is written in a very general fashion without pointing at anything specific or trying to point at the situation that has made me write this.
P.S : But, there is one point that I wanted to be specific about. It’s regarding the admission into DTP, TIFR. As i might have mentioned before, that author seems to lack complete knowledge regarding the interests of his peers. It’s not that they were not taken into DTP, it’s just that no one else’s topic of interest was offered in DTP. And, for the sake of illumination, everyone got into the department of their first preference.


