Dr Parakala Prabhakar has been in the news recently for his dissenting voice on the issue of separate state. In this article, the general secretary of Visalandhra Mahasabha describes how the T votaries resort to personal attacks and filthy language when confronted with clinical arguments. The T supporters shift the debate continually from one point to another  because they can’t sensibly stick to one, argues Dr Prabhakar.

Traffic on my social networking sites has seen a tremendous surge these day. But alas, a very unhealthy one.

Whatever is my post, people eventually end up venting their spleen against on my stand on the T agitation. I don’t mind a strong dose of criticism on my position. But instead of engaging in a debate or criticism, my facebook ‘friends’ turn aggressive, and abusive. Even the presumably educated ‘netizens’ too resort to filthy language and verbal intimidation. I was amazed at the choice of words by someone who claimed to be a doctor.

Actually, my argument is still eagerly waiting for a fair crack of the whip. But so far, no luck.

Recently I posted a link to an article from the Hoot on the way media makes and breaks icons. It is innocuous and unrelated to the T issue, I thought. But I was wrong. There was a spate of comments. Again about my stand on the T issue. A post giving my impression on the lyric ‘Kolaveri’ also had the same reaction.

A couple of days ago, I told my FB friends in a post that I accept every friend request but some people are taking undue advantage of it and resorting to abuse, filthy language, and intimidation. I told them that it will not take a minute for me to delete them from my list. But I will not like to do that and made a request that they should exercise restraint and not force me to press the delete button.

Well, what do I get? Again, a generous dose of abuse. Of course, several of my friends came to my defence and engaged with those who were intemperate.

T agitators seem to labour under a delusion:  they think that they are a privileged lot and cannot be questioned. They refuse to be engaged in a civilised debate. They don’t submit their views to scrutiny. They don’t want their views to be interrogated.

When I bring in socio-economic data, they say it is not about development. But till just a while ago they talked about backwardness, under-development and exploitation, theft of jobs and water, prevalence of unemployment and every other economic malady.

When economic argument is demolished, they bring in history. When I bring up the historical facts that contradict their claims, they refuse to be drawn into discussion.

Then they say that it is the majority opinion. As though having the support of majority indemnifies an opinion against any scrutiny. It is a different matter, however, that they do not have a majority support by any reckoning.

If I bring up the double standards of a political leader who is currently the loudest champion of their cause, they say their ‘movement’ cannot be reduced to the shenanigans of a political leader or his party.

They get emotional, hyper, and worked up. One person who claims to be an analyst with a leading MNC said on my Facebook wall that they will get Telangana because ‘God is there’.

When someone pointed out that he shouldn’t bring in God into this because God has many other things to do, this analyst (don’t forget that he is employed by a leading MNC) came up with the answer that is a real winner. He said, ‘because God has many other things to do, that’s why you people are doing all this. Otherwise, God would have killed you!’ How is that as an argument?

I’m sure, someone is ready to come up and say that that’s not a bona fide representative T argument.

If economic argument is not, if historical argument is not, if cultural argument is not, if linguistic argument is not, finally even if God’s intervention is also not, then, pray, what IS the argument?

This is the trick that keeps the whole thing going: If one argument collapses, they quickly disown it. And say that’s not the argument. If somebody loses an argument, they quickly disown them. And say they are not representative of the ‘movement’. They put up a new argument, or put up an old argument by a new outfit.

That is how the T argument lurches.

It’s a relay run of the lame. But it pretends to be a marathon.

Dr Parakala Prabhakar is Managing Director, RightFOLIO