Agreeing to disagree on various matters that are loaded with concern to the parties or otherwise and disagreeing to agree, being attitudes that lead to contrasting consequences are different cups of tea as it were. The former attitude, an uncommon virtue, is built on dialogue marked by listening to the expressions by either parties with patience and willingness to understand in appropriate manner. Interestingly, the term listen has the same letters as that of the term silent with rearranged alphabet, apart from conveying the hidden message of the importance of silence to facilitate listening, not often valued by most discussants. The word protest unarguably sounds harsh enough closing the door for dialogue, while its euphemism version disagree can pave the way for opening the door ajar, provided both the spoken tone and the body language pass the test when viewed through the prism of mutual decency and dignity, sidelining the factor of status consciousness, a tall order. When dissent, the right that is accepted as the heart and soul of democracy, is expressed in anger for a show of protest, more so in case of the government and the land’s masses as the warring parties, the outcome is what the media is currently presenting to the people through its different channels.
While speakers with their recognised role of mentors in society take fascination to prescribe the ground rules for resolving problems that lead to soured relations both within family ambit and public domain, there are hurdles to adopt their prescriptions, particularly when the stakes are too much to give up. Administration has its constraints and the masses are in no mood to scale down their agenda, which is there for all to experience.
