We are living in an age of parliamentary democracy. We have to train ourselves to be effective speakers and impromptu debaters i.e. without any preparation. A good debater must be able to speak extempore. He should know how to answer the points raised by previous speakers, to state clearly with reason his own points raised by previous speakers, to state clearly with reason his own points of view and to be able to give arguments that convince and win listeners over to his side. He must not only speak fluently, logically and with conviction but he must excel in the cut and thrust, the hit-backs and retorts, the attraction of a debate. To acquire mastery over these, a good deal of training and practice are necessary. Hence in these days, debates, often conducted on Parliamentary lines have become a feature of college life.
Recently in our college, there held a very interesting and exciting debate. Notice was given of the following resolution by the Secretary of the College Union, to be moved and debated on a particular day; “That in the opinion of this House the idea of a national language for India is unnecessary and provocative and should be dropped.”
As the resolution was on a sensitive subject on which feelings likely to run high, the interest was great, indeed and we gathered together in large numbers in expectation of a highly exciting debate.
On the due date, classes were suspended some time before and students filled into the college hall and took their seats. It was apparent that a great deal of lobbying had already taken place. The supporters and the opponents of the resolution occupied opposite parts of the hall. The neutral took their seats as they liked.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The mover was allowed fifteen minutes to speak in support of his resolution. He had come prepared and he spoke concisely and pointedly. He pointed out that India was a ‘Multilingual State’ that many of our languages were highly developed, and their users were proud of their mother tongue. He cited the example of Canada, Switzerland, and Russia, to show that a national languages was not essentially necessary for national unity. He made a difference between State Language and National Language; the latter will give an edge and mileage-predominance, to the people whose languages are selected. Thus is harmful to national unity.
His was a balanced speech. But that was not the speech of the seconder. It was a fiery oration, full of personal attacks and scathing criticism. And with that the atmosphere suddenly became electrified. Words were bandied about; noisy interruptions provoked stinging retorts; cries of “withdraw; withdraw” were met with louder cries of “shame, shame”.
However, particular praise must be reserved for the leader of the Opposition. He was calm logical and persuasive. The function of a National Language was two-fold; inter communication between the people and communication with the rest of the world. The President, I must say, did his job admirably. He kept down the rising tempers with a timely jest; in relaxing the prescribed time-limit for speakers, he wisely followed the sense of the House.
After a full two-hours debate, he mover was called upon to reply to the criticisms made. From the manner in which he disposed of the arguments that have been raised against him, it was clear that he was trained speaker. He made a most favourable impression, even on his opponents. An overwhelming majority voted for the resolution, which was declared, carried.