EKKENTROS FORUM
The Matter: Report of the proceedings of the discussion held on 9-6-09 (Tuesday)
Venue: Residence of Dr. A.V.Sadanandan, Kavumbagam, tellicherry-670110
Coram: Seven members attended. Dr. Abdulla joined later. Prof Mohanan Nair could not attend as he was out of station.
Subject: Facts in Free Thinking
Dr. Sadanandan: In the discussions here now I propose to follow the line of thinking of J. Krishnamurthy. Human mind is the greatest of all mysteries. The status and stature of the human being in this universe is because of its mind. What one is, is his mind and the mind’s activities. The whole developments, progress, and achievements of the human race is because of its mind. Yet our minds are burdened with our day to day existence too. We are unhappy. We struggle, we crave for security, have fears, anxieties and confusion created by our minds. Should we change, if at all it is possible to change, or simply accept our fate to continue in our mediocre existence of struggles to fit into and conform to the social morality and modes? On accepting the fate and modes we are conditioned. We get biased. Our conditioning to the race, religion, class, nationality or organization, is to seek security. Culture, traditions, own experiences in life, memories of hurt, fear and grief, all, weigh down us from having a new avenue in the mind for Free Thinking. We are conditioned, we are biased. The built up idea of ‘me’ is the most restricting, conditioning. The ‘me’ has to be silent for the free thinking to be possible, or to arise.
We live the way we think. Thought is the tool to act. It is the knowledge, experience, feelings as memory that responds to any challenge. The knowledge, intellect, and intuitive faculties through generations of human existence helped the scientific and technological progress that we see today. There is definitely creative and free thinking involved in this. The story of science is the story of human capability to understand facts, and to develop by imbibing newer ideas through free thinking.
But man’s story of progress or failure is largely dependant on his psychological existence. His thoughts, feelings, emotions and sentiments decide his actions. Our inner psychological nature is reflected in our relationship with ourselves and the society at large. What life is, is our relationship with each other. This psychological nature conditions one’s relationship with the society. And this conditioning has tremendous influence in our social well being. This conditioning doesn’t allow one to relate to another freely and gracefully. So, the real problem is lack of true relationship due to one’s own thoughts, feelings and emotions. But these are all important factors of one’s being. Do we see these as real facts or illusions? We do not see facts, and our life is an emotional circus. If we could see these thoughts and use them only when required, illusions could be subdued.
Psychologically, when thoughts are seen and one is aware inwardly there can be freedom from thoughts. Then there is free thinking, but what is there to think? Outwardly we build up that with understanding of solid facts and inwardly we uncover layers of illusions to see what is.
Dr. Sankarankutty: It appears from what Dr. Sadanandan has put forward that free thinking is never possible. Even if facts are verified and accepted, the bias of conditioning will still be there. Thinking, any thinking, itself is therefore biased by the conditioning.
Sri Kunhikrishnan: Quite true. But if one is aware of the conditioning and the bias, free thinking would still be possible. The illusions are there as fully recognized. But one goes beyond them.
Dr. Sankarankutty: When thought itself is conditioned and one is not conscious of the conditioning, there is no freedom in thinking.

Dr. K.P.Thomas: When we talk of the product ‘free thinking’, we have to take into consideration the raw materials, namely, the brain, experiences, inheritance, present and previous beliefs, decisions already made, and the like. A debating mind can make anything look logical and correct. Therefore a mind like that of justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, though flowery literature, cannot be trusted because of his inconsistent intellectual truthfulness, and attraction to opportunities. Vis-à-vis, Panampally Govinda Menon was, in my opinion, a better debater, and intellectual administrator, full of wit and humor. I compare these two because they were well known debaters and public personalities one time during the same period. We can put some well known personalities in the category of luminaries who are self centered intellectual beings more bothered about their own image and news-making capacity than anything else. I would put Sukumaran Azhikode and Justice Krishna Iyer in this category of public figures.
Free thinking was put to test abrasively during the emergency period of 1975-77. V.P.Ramachandran, the doyen of journalism in Delhi those days was appointed as the censor working for the P.M., Indira Gandhi initially. When he passed a text of news for release without censoring, a junior close to Indira Gandhi reminded him that the PM was interested in censoring that particular text. He censored it accordingly with a light remark jocularly, ‘let the bitch have her way’. This comment was, it appears, promptly relayed back by the junior journalist to Indira with the result that V.P.Ramachandran was sent on transfer to a post with silly responsibility in Madhya Pradesh overnight. Intellectual honesty is always in jeopardy when there is power that is corrupt, and vested with one or few. The streak of a little madness in Nehru runs in Varun also through Sanjay. There was innocence in Achutha Menon, Craftiness in EMS, and popular welfare interest in AKG, all personified.
Twisted facts masquerading as fiction may make our lives worth living. My letter to the Home Minister is a good example, I think. Facts were in fact a little twisted to entertain and titillate the sensitivity of the scores of reading public. Still, even now after over a few months, I get comments from the rank and file of the ‘party’ for the tremendous courage exhibited by me in launching that news story item. Explicit expression of thoughts through pen at the right time may alter the course of our social history. I sometimes wonder how useless the present day communist leaders are, with their lack luster pedantic writings, full of clichés, in their party paper that appeal neither to the intellect nor to the masses. Time alone can prove whether ‘free thinking’ was after all, the right one or not.
The role of visual media and telecommunication has made facts to reach you instantaneously, and hence people are able to give a verdict decisively. For example, in the case of the Karala Governor’s permission to prosecute Pinarayi, instant sms polling showed that 85% of the people who sent sms was in favor of the prosecution. It has therefore become extremely difficult to suppress facts, and information by any government or party. I think that an oligarchic iron curtain, or an iron fisted rule by fascists, or a totalitarian communist governance will not be possible any longer. If the communist party has to survive anywhere, they have to first destroy the media as well as all modern means of communication. Without genuine facts we find that people are not swayed or influenced easily. At present, the party machinery, the PB, and the Government, all are trying to save the career of Penarayi or to save him politically from ‘Banvas’ of fourteen years in court jungles. The present tragicomic situation is the result of globalization which is dooming any dictatorial governance, whether proletarian or not. Iran, South Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq can be said to be some exceptions; only time can prove what will happen to them in future.
Sri.Kunhikrishnan: To illustrate the point of unbiased thinking, the present controversy on the Governor’s permission on the Lavlin case can be a good example. We can understand that politicians are naturally divided according to their party or leanings. But look at the different opinions expressed by legal luminaries and intellectuals! The Governor had said that he gave the permission to protect the interests of the public.
Senior Advocate Ramkumar said that as per Supreme Court decisions in two cases the Governor can take independent decisions against the advice of the cabinet if it is warranted by the apparent bias of the Ministers. Therefore Governor is right.
Sr.Advocate Janardhana Kurup said that there is no provision in the constitution for the governor to take a decision against the decision of the cabinet.
Justice Krishna Iyer also said that the governor has to obey the cabinet. The few exceptions cannot be expanded to suit a different decision in the present case. (Italics mine)
The DG of Prosecution, P.G.Thambi said that Pinarayi should immediately go to the High Court.
The PUCL President P.Chandrasekharan also said that he should go to the court.
Sr. Advocate Kelu Nambiar said that Governor may not be right because he cannot go against the cabinet.
Sr. Advocate Kaleswara Rao said that Governor is right and Government should accept governor’s decision because there are other accused also involved. (unfair to let off Pinarayi alone!)
Former advocate general M.K.Damodaran said that Governor, if he does not agree with the cabinet, should have consulted another legally constituted authority and not any lawyer of his choosing.
These opinions are only some among hundreds. The differences merely show that the matter of giving permission can be argued both ways according to the interpreter’s leanings.
Dr. Sankarankutty: Politicians and bureaucrats are hand in glove and they always escape the arms of the law through loop holes and clever interpretations.
Prof. Hay: It is a fake democracy. Consider the case of Ex-Minister Sukh Ram who had crores of rupees stuffed in his waste baskets! He never got punished, but was again contesting elections with impunity!
Sri. Kunhikrishnan: The interesting part is that in all these discussions and opinions nobody talks of finding the truth. They are bogged down with the technicality of giving permission to prosecute. How can the truth be known unless investigated, prosecuted and tried? After all, prima facie, fraud has happened because others, who were not ministers, are anyway being prosecuted. For all that Pinarayi may be innocent. There should be a way to prosecute without affecting the future or political career of any accused in the meanwhile. The defect of the system lies there.