Give thy thoughts no tongue…..
By Mir Adnan Aziz • Mar 18th, 2010 • Category: Politics, Worth A Second Look • 10 CommentsGive thy thoughts no tongue, or any unproportion’d thought his act. Be thou familiar but by no means vulgar. Shakespeare. Words communicate a message; convey a meaning, feelings and thoughts. It has been said that if the tongue had not been framed for articulation, man would still be a beast in the forest.
Words have the power to soothe, educate, placate, love or torment. They can change the way people feel, think, act and view the world; bringing hope and pleasure or everlasting pain. Words can change the world for the better or worse being just not a modem of speech but the very platform that produces emotion. The end result is subject to the choice of words and manner of speech. History is replete with instances where prophets, leaders and teachers galvanized people to do good whereas there are orators who led people and countries to doom. Hitler, for one, mesmerized a whole nation transforming the whole country into a war machine.
Unfortunately most of us have become oblivious to our choice of words. In our daily lives we, knowingly or unknowingly, hurt many in our homes, work-places or elsewhere. Many lackluster apologies accumulate within the walls of our own homes hurting the ones we love the most. What we cannot say adorns the walls as graffiti. Our words are limited to our spheres whereas those of in positions of prominence are amplified through the media, spreading further. The effect is more immediate and influential than ever before.
With this common knowledge, more out of political or official expediency than a caring heart, why do not those in power show empathy and understand the emotions of those on the receiving ends of their utterances. Devoid of providing comfort with their acts, their words bring further pain. Their words are detached from our traditional values and virtues. Their words, when picked up and splashed in the media, sometimes evoke a (non) apology. They seemingly believe in Erich Segal’s heroine who said that “Love is never having to say you are sorry”; that they are not loved does not bother them at all.
In New York to attend the UN General Assembly session, Musharraf asserted thus in an interview with The Washington Post on the harrowing ordeal of Mukhtaran Mai: “You must understand the environment in Pakistan. This has become a moneymaking concern. A lot of people say if you want to go abroad and get a visa for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped.” If we insert the name of our spouse, child or sister’s name, just imagine how offensively vulgar this would feel.
On the eve of the May 12 massacre in Karachi he declared with raised arms and clenched fists that “the people of Karachi had shown there power”. These, as many other, shamelessly crass, insensitive and obnoxious remarks seemed to spew from the tongue of a demented being rather than those of a Chief of Army Staff and an “enlightened” President of Pakistan. The affront seemed more callous sans an apology. Publilius Syrus was right up to the mark when he said: “Speech is the mirror of the soul; as a man speaks so he is”.
There is an endless cycle of politicians issuing statements that border on the profane. How can one forget the on-air remarks of Musharraf’s Law Minister addressed to a senior journalist or those of a sitting lady Minister to a fellow lady parlimentarian. The leaders of the present government, their policies eerily similar to the previous regime, seem at pains to match them in tenor too. President Zardari of “promises are not hadith” fame is prone to the same affliction. What is ironic is that he has a Prime Minister who wants to outdo him in “governence” and speech.
PM Gillani, a pir and murshid to his well-wishers, came up with the heartless rebuke to an expecting lady’s painful ordeal in Quetta that “children can be born in planes too”. After some days of silence he decided to stifle the risen furor with an apology. What he came up with instead was what all those in power say when forced to apologize. Starting with a very brief sermon on destiny he conjoined it with the birth of children in unlikely places and finished off with: “but still if I offended / hurt anybody I apologize”.
Why do our rulers have to be so condescending? Why do they have to preface their apology (if made) with “if I offended”? Where and why does this “if” come in when a person of limited logic too can understand that the uttered words insulted and outraged all? PM Gillani’s apology was contingent on whether or not someone was offended. If he felt that an apology was warranted then why not just issue an apology rather than an ‘if’ apology? He obviously did not regret or feel remorse for the thing he said; otherwise he would have owned it in its entirety without exception.
Our political leaders should be enabling and not disabling to the people with their words an attractive and inclusive medium to bind people together. The Musharraf comments made global head-lines evoking harsh criticism and rebukes worldwide. We must remember that inspite of living in a wired-up globe connected to the world stage where our reputation as a nation is reflected in the words and deeds of our political leaders, the power of words continues to serve as one of our most important means of communication. All said and done there could be no sounder advice for our “orators” than: Let thy speech be better than silence or be silent.
Trackback URL
|
|
|
Click For More Articles By Mir Adnan Aziz
All posts by Mir Adnan Aziz
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
I appreciate the wonderful thought provoking article by Mir Adnan Aziz.His words demonstrate the values he carries in his life and thinks about the society and attitudes in general and the way our leaders should behave in their leadership roles which are non existent at the moment. Great article to read.
A true democracy is a culture of free speech and tolerance among people. We must ensure that the long awaited democratic culture should not fall a pray to our insecurities.
Amicus
The Title from Shakespeare’s Hamlet “Give thy thoughts no tongue” and conclusion “Let thy speech be better than silence, or be silent.” A quote from Halicarnassus the Greek Historian, (1) gives insight into a well-read mind. Sandwiched between is the beautiful articulation of the moral dilemma we, the people, have to live with helplessly as spectators!
The Free Dictionary defines the Government as;
1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
2. The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
3. Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
4. The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.
5. A governing body or organization, as:
a. The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system.
b. The cabinet in a parliamentary system.
c. The persons who make up a governing body.
6. A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.
7. Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.
8. Political science.
9. Grammar The influence of a word over the morphological inflection of another word in a phrase or sentence. (2)
Where is Government in my country?
Even theoretically, do we have the leadership, cohesive institutions and, above all ability, to articulate the aspirations and expectations of the people’s will expressed through the ballot?
One may see abject absence of government or governance. Morality is an existential hazard that on occasion dictates one to retract, revise, regret or repent, albeit reluctantly.
Few Quotations on forgiveness and apology:
Hadith on Seeking Forgiveness
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) reported that the devil said to God: “I shall continue to lead Thy servants astray as long as their spirits are in their bodies.” And God replied: “(Then) I shall continue to pardon them as long as they ask My forgiveness.” - Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 742
An apology is a good way to have the last word. ~Author Unknown
A stiff apology is a second insult…. The injured party does not want to be compensated because he has been wronged; he wants to be healed because he has been hurt. ~G.K. Chesterton
An apology is the superglue of life. It can repair just about anything. ~Lynn Johnston
Apologizing - a very desperate habit - one that is rarely cured.
Apology is only egotism wrong side out. ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.,
The Professor at the Breakfast-Table
Never ruin an apology with an excuse. ~Kimberly Johnson
True remorse is never just a regret over consequence; it is a regret over motive. ~Mignon McLaughlin, The Neurotic’s Notebook, 1960
(1) http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/164249/Dionysius-of-Halicarnassus
(2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/governance
“Give thy thoughts no tongue” is the most absurd quote of William Shakespeare. The blogger himself used a lot of tongue by re-visiting and describing harrowing past, insensibility of present and painting a gloomy picture of future. Crying with full throat is no remedy. We want suggestions for solutions.
If the present government is not doing anything wise tell them the better alternatives. At least we can do this in a democratic environment. However, if his desire is back to heavy boots, well in this free world, every man has a right to own their personal opinion. Just keep in mind, another demon is getting powerful. Separatists are breathing hot.
Khalid Humayun, Sir,
““Give thy thoughts no tongue” is the most absurd quote of William Shakespeare”
It may not be absurd, certainly not “the most absurd quote of William Shakespeare”.
Although one is entitled to dispute usage of a quotation.
Here’s the complete quote from Hamlet;
Act 1, Scene 3, Page 3
Original Text Modern Text
POLONIUS
Yet here, Laertes? Aboard, aboard, for shame!
The wind sits in the shoulder of your sail
And you are stayed for. There, my blessing with thee.
And these few precepts in thy memory
Look thou character.
“Give thy thoughts no tongue,”
Nor any unproportioned thought his act.
Be thou familiar but by no means vulgar.
Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them unto thy soul with hoops of steel,
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatched, unfledged comrade. Beware
Of entrance to a quarrel, but being in,
Bear ’t that th’ opposèd may beware of thee.
Give every man thy ear but few thy voice.
Take each man’s censure but reserve thy judgment.
Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not expressed in fancy—rich, not gaudy,
For the apparel oft proclaims the man,
And they in France of the best rank and station
Are of a most select and generous chief in that.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be,
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Farewell. My blessing season this in thee.
POLONIUS
The time invites you. Go. Your servants tend. POLONIUS
Now go, the time is right. Your servants are waiting.
85 LAERTES
Farewell, Ophelia, and remember well
What I have said to you.
http://nfs.sparknotes.com/hamlet/page_44.html
Sorry Yousuf! You took me wrong. I do not deny the masterpiece Hamlet of Shakespeare, what I wanted to communicate was that this famous quote just does not fit in the present scenario when your main emphasis was that you are highly disgusted with the blunders and plunders of present government. Polonius is saying to his son Laertis just the opposite. What Polonius has said in your cited lines to Laertis is not to be overwhelmed by what you observe but give it a thorough check before deciding the act. Hamlet, in search of his father’s killer, accidently kills Polonius that provokes Laertis who returns from war to take revenge. And look what is the finale, all main characters including Hamlet die. So hatred is not the solution, suggestions and democratic change of the government is the solution.
Khalid Humayun Sahib,
While saying “Although one is entitled to dispute usage of a quotation.”, I knew in my heart you meant to convey that the usage of quote by the author, was perhaps, mistfit and hence absurd.
Absolutely no need for ’sorry’.
Our conversation on the quotation would have served its purpose if some of us are led to revisit Hamlet after a long time.
One sure was. Thanks indeed.
Keeping in view the following words, have guided one’s opinion, criticism and analysis. Has also helped in commenting and being commented upon.
Lets contemplate these 3 words:
Definition:
Opinion
opinion [əˈpɪnjən]
n
1. judgment or belief not founded on certainty or proof
2. the prevailing or popular feeling or view public opinion
3. evaluation, impression, or estimation of the value or worth of a person or thing
4. an evaluation or judgment given by an expert a medical opinion
5. (Law) the advice given by a barrister or counsel on a case submitted to him or her for a view on the legal points involved
a matter of opinion a point open to question
be of the opinion (that) to believe (that)
[via Old French from Latin opīniō belief, from opīnārī to think; see opine]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition 2003. © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
Definition:
Analysis
The examination and evaluation of the relevant information to select the best course of action from among various alternatives.
Fair Comment
A comment made which though defamatory, is not actionable as it is an opinion on a matter of public interest.
A defence to a claim alleging defamatory remarks.
Gatley on Libel and Slander adopt the following words to describe fair comment:
“… a defence to an action of libel or slander that the words complained of are fair comment on a matter of public interest. The right of fair comment is one of the fundamental rights of free speech and writing .. and it is of vital importance to the rule of law on which we depend for our personal freedom. The right is a bulwark of free speech….
“There are matters on which the public has a legitimate interest or with which it is legitimately concerned and on such matters, it is desirable that all should be able to comment freely and even harshly, so long as they do so honestly and without malice.”
In the Law of Defamation in Canada, author R. Brown comprehensively sets the defence out as follows:
“Everyone is entitled to comment fairly on matters of public interest.
“Such comments are protected by a qualified privilege if they are found to be comments and not statements of fact, and are made honestly, and in good faith, about facts which are true on a matter of public interest.
“A comment is the subjective expression of opinion in the form of a deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, judgment, remark or observation which is generally incapable of proof.
“In order to be fair, it must be shown that the facts upon which the comment is based are truly stated and that the comment is an honest expression of the publisher’s opinion relating to those facts. Where a comment imputes evil, base or corrupt motives to a person, it must be shown that such imputations are warranted by, and could reasonably be drawn from those facts.
“The comment must be made on a matter of public interest. It could be of public interest because of the importance of the person about whom the comment is made, or because of the event, occasion or circumstances that give rise to the opinion.
“The protection may be lost if it is shown that the comment was made maliciously, in the sense that it originated from some improper or indirect motive, or if there was no reasonable relationship between the comment that was made and the public interest that it was designed to serve.”
“… it is a defence to an action for libel or slander if the words used are fair comment on a matter of public interest.”
http://duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/F/FairComment.aspx
Exactly Mr. Yousuf! The quote was just juxtapositioned.
Although you have opened a new issue which was not in the debate, nonetheless, I welcome your academic approach and would like to elaborate something sensitive on the issue. There are many judgments on the issue of libel/torts. There is very thin line between criticism on good faith of public or national interest and defamation/libel. Different judgments have different verdicts entirely given on the merits of the case and as you are well aware each case has its own environement, circumstances and intentions.
Remedy of libel, if established by court, lies in torts laws. Torts is a body of law that provides compensation for the injuries sustained by the victim on their character and stature. These laws are as old as Roman Civilization, although many amendments inducted per se. Interestingly, if the accused takes the stand of public safety he/they have to prove the same precisely as to how they spoke/wrote were entirely in the public interest - not easy to establish. In most of the countries libel or slander proceedings are civil but some countries like Canada initiate criminal proceedings. (Bradley Waugh and Ravin Gill were proceeded under criminal defamation) You have mentioned about Canada, they have two sets of Defamation Law, the other particular Defamation being Blasphemous Defamation that being punishable two years imprisonment.
The American laws of libel and torts are different in different states but mostly criminal. I will revert to this topic on hearing further from you. Thanks for this academic discussions.
Respected Sir,
Kindly revisit your following comment:
4.khalid humayun on March 19th, 2010 :
“Give thy thoughts no tongue” is the most absurd quote of William Shakespeare. The blogger himself used a lot of tongue by re-visiting and describing harrowing past, insensibility of present and painting a gloomy picture of future. Crying with full throat is no remedy. We want suggestions for solutions.
If the present government is not doing anything wise tell them the better alternatives. At least we can do this in a democratic environment. However, if his desire is back to heavy boots, well in this free world, every man has a right to own their personal opinion. Just keep in mind, another demon is getting powerful. Separatists are breathing hot.”
Sir,
I have read your above comments. .I also re-read the thoughts of respected Mir Adnan Aziz, titled “Give thy thoughts no tongue….”.
No where the author has, event remotely made any personal or derogatory remark. Nor did I find anything even a suggestive word or sentence, that may lead one to say that author harboured the notion or “desire” “back to heavy boots,”
Sir, you also said; “Just keep in mind, another demon is getting powerful. Separatists are breathing hot.”
By saying this you actually conceded the demon (if you may) you found Mr. Mir Abdul Aziz was eluding to and said “Just keep in mind another demon is getting powerful”
I have no claim to academic nor a new debate was intended. Juxtaposed to what Mr. Mir Abdul Aziz wrote and your comments, prompted my comments No. 3, 5, and 7.
I feel the author has taken a wholistic view of the contradictions inherent in our society not any particular person, regime or leader or government.
That said, nice conversing with you and lookforward to more elsewhere on Pakspectator.
I have no claim to academics nor the de
Dear Yousuf Saheb!
I was happy we were discussing libel/torts laws, but then I see a shift, no worries, I can talk on any subject and all the subjects.
Coming back to your last input wherein you have vehemently reiterated that in his post, the learned blogger has nowhere used deragatory remarks or made compliant against the present government. Before I say something on your observation, let me tell you loud and clear, all free citizens have democratic rights to criticize the government and that is what is being done in media. What is missing is the suggestions. In a healthy society all criticisms should be associated with solid suggestion, else, they are void.
”
PM Gillani, a pir and murshid to his well-wishers, came up with the heartless rebuke to an expecting lady’s painful ordeal in Quetta that “children can be born in planes too”. After some days of silence he decided to stifle the risen furor with an apology. What he came up with instead was what all those in power say when forced to apologize. Starting with a very brief sermon on destiny he conjoined it with the birth of children in unlikely places and finished off with: “but still if I offended / hurt anybody I apologize”.
Why do our rulers have to be so condescending? Why do they have to preface their apology (if made) with “if I offended”? Where and why does this “if” come in when a person of limited logic too can understand that the uttered words insulted and outraged all? PM Gillani’s apology was contingent on whether or not someone was offended. If he felt that an apology was warranted then why not just issue an apology rather than an ‘if’ apology? He obviously did not regret or feel remorse for the thing he said; otherwise he would have owned it in its entirety without exception.”
The above cited portion of the blogger, in spite of its beautiful expression, is just a cry against present government without any valid suggestion. My whole point is only this that if an article is written on the misdeeds of the government suggestions must accompany them, otherwise, the article would be just another article.
One more thing, I never was and I am not an admirer of present government. My emphasis is that whatever sham democracy we have, we should give her a chance. When the learned blogger is only coming up with grievances and no suggestions, logically leads the reader that he does not want a change in governance but change in the government.