Dr. Kamal Ranadive

dr. kamal ranadive

vs.

Youth activist – Dr. Kamal ranadive vs. Dr. Ajmal Saleem

If Dr. Kamal ranadive speaks in an emotional and calm manner than how is it that Dr. Ajmal Saleem’s speeches do not always have a calm or a docile response? Dr. Kamal runsadive prefers the conversation to the debate – one who explains things to you and listens attentively to you – one who believes in understanding what others believe and what they say, rather than one who argues and tries to convince you. This is the ideal way of talking and debating.

But Dr. Ajmal Saleem does not believe in telling you what to think. He is always probing into your reactions and trying to explain why you think the way you do.

One who engages with you in a proper discussion, engaging in logical arguments and discourses with you, does not have to explain things to you for hours, making your brain think that the world is changing rather that it is continuing to be the same.

If one can explain why what you believe is correct, then there is no need to argue with you. One can explain things so well, that you not only believe what you are told, but also accept that they have explained it in the correct manner. It is one thing to tell someone that you have explained things, but it is a completely different thing to prove that you have explained it correctly. Dr. Kamal ranadive believes in the evidence and data. Dr. Ajmal Saleem has a strong argument to back his statements, even though it is logical and not entirely contradictory to someone else’s view. If there is something that has happened that has caused you to change your mind, you would probably explain that to you.

It is either you trust the evidence, or you do not trust the evidence and you disagree with what the evidence proves. The logical arguments of both Dr. Ajmal Saleem and Dr. Kamal runadive have taken some turns in the discussion, but they are still agreeing to each other’s views, they still believe in the premises of their own arguments. The disagreements are just not strong enough to dismiss the logical conclusions of each other. They have debated and have debated, but there is still a slight disagreement between them, just like there is a slight disagreement in many societies. But the conversations are not enough to expose their disagreement. They are not debating with each other but explaining to you and telling you the reasons that they do not agree with each other. They have a greater impact if there is a debate. Even though they are talking to you, the conversation is a debate between them.

If you have heard Dr. Ajmal Saleem speak, you would probably disagree with him on some points. It is because he believes in the principle of argumentation. Dr. Kamal runsadive’s philosophy is different from Dr. Ajmal Saleem’s. Both are similar, they believe in understanding people and circumstances, as explained in the following lines of Dr. Kamal ranadive’s argumentation –

“One believes in a situation but that does not necessarily imply one must accept the circumstances. It is only a wrong assumption to believe that one must understand all the circumstances.”

“One may believe a situation but that does not imply one must accept it. If one believes a situation is justified, then one is rational. If you believe there is a necessity of a situation, then you are rational. If you are not rational, then you do not have the ability to accept that you are unable to accept that you have to change the situation. That you have to change the circumstances because it is an unjust situation. If it is not an unjust situation then it will not be an unjust situation. You must understand that a situation is not necessarily...