[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Persisting doubts

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, BIDENDU BANERJEE wrote:

> The rules of debates say that when I contest a particular point I have
> to suggest an alternate, and for all particular matters a better, idea.
> But a general statement like "We shall further the cause of unity and
> brotherhood of all mankind", even though quite impractical and a distant
> dream, has little to be contested. What about the nitty gritty details
> of unity, secularism, the Hindu-Muslim problem etc. ? Where should those
> go ? 

a) The rules of debate do not require you to only offer alternative
to existing points. New points do not have any restrictions on them.

b) You must have noticed that 4 levels (at least) of debate.  Some points
are essential and intrinsic (even then, they do require to be recorded);
these go into the Preamble. A slightly deeper category of points go into
the Manifesto; some actual activities that need to be done, based on the
points in the Manifesto, go into the Agenda, and finally, for each
particular agenda point, there would be a Policy Framework which would
require a much more elaborate set of actions which are needed. In reality,
the government operates at an even deeper level, well beyond the Policy
Framework level. Something on that level cannot be attempted, perhaps, in

It is for you to suggest at what level you are debating. If you are
debating at the Manifesto level, it is assumed that you agree with the
principles  in the Preamble. If you are debating at the Agenda level, it
is assumed that you agree with both the Preamble and the Manifesto. And so
on. In other words, if you debate the economic system you will have to
focus on the Preamble and not suddenly raise the issue while discussing
some Agenda level point. 

I hope this helps.

I will put up all the questions asked by new members so far (and the
responses) into a welcome letter on the web, in the coming week.