A meaningful debate is must for better conclusion
Public Debate, Public Responsibility – A Citizen’s Reflection
By Krishna Chandra Das
Press Member
Jurisdiction: Kolkata High Court Only
I was recently watching a debate on Aaj Tak, moderated by the well-known journalist Anjana Om Kashyap. The panel featured two prominent personalities: Sudhanshu Trivedi and Ashutosh.
During the discussion, Ms. Kashyap asked Ashutosh Ji a direct and pointed question regarding public protest—specifically, whether an act such as removing one’s shirt at an international AI Summit strengthens democratic principles.
Ashutosh Ji responded by saying: “Is it wrong to protest in a constitutional manner?”
The moderator then clarified her question: whether such a manner of protest—removing clothes in a public international forum—was appropriate and permissible in India.
However, instead of addressing the core question directly, the discussion was diverted toward the Epstein files, which were not the subject of that particular debate.
Certainly, the Epstein files are a serious matter and deserve a focused debate. But when a debate is centered on a specific issue, it should remain confined to that issue.
Topic diversion weakens the integrity of the discussion and wastes valuable public time.
A debate is not an informal gathering for casual remarks. It is a structured platform meant to inform the public. If panelists shift topics when confronted with difficult questions, it undermines both accountability and public trust.
In this context, I wish to raise a larger question—not only about Ashutosh Ji but also about Sudhanshu Ji. What are their measurable and positive contributions to the nation?
Political rhetoric and narrative-building are common in television debates, but the country deserves more than words. The nation deserves clarity of action, transparency of intent, and tangible contributions.
Ashutosh Ji appeared to defend Rahul Gandhi’s protest against the AI Summit.
That is his political right. However, debate must remain disciplined and focused. If arguments lack substance, changing the topic does not strengthen credibility—it weakens it.
At the same time, impartiality demands that we evaluate Sudhanshu Ji as well. The country does not need blind supporters; it needs responsible representatives.
Therefore, a fair comparison must be made based on facts, conduct, and constructive national contribution.
Public debates should not resurrect irrelevant historical grievances unless absolutely necessary. What has happened in the past cannot be undone. The focus must be on present responsibility and future progress.
Citizens invest their time watching debates with the expectation of insight—not political theatrics.
The public is not foolish. People work hard. They give their time to understand issues. Politicians and panelists must respect that time. Substance must replace spectacle.
My appeal is simple:
Do not divide the country in the name of religion—Hindu or Muslim. The nation belongs to all. Rise above partisan loyalty.
Do not believe blindly in any politician. Use your own judgment. Analyze who speaks with facts and who avoids accountability.
Let those who are truly dedicated to the nation come forward with courage. Expose those who are not. Unite beyond party lines for national progress.
I leave this matter to the wisdom of the people. I wish to see the opinion of the citizens.
With respect to all,
Krishna Chandra Das
Press Member
Dhanyabad.
Link Below :
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1DjMJJjSCE/