Since there were no avowed literary theorists among the official participants, let me begin with their perception and the ongoing debate in the field of theory on “nature”. The theorists who make much of the ‘linguistic constructedness of reality’, when, they, take a look at “nature” what do they see – the wild forests, the sublime scenes of beauty as in waterfalls, the countryside of hamlets nestling within the edges of groves or the domesticated picturesque parks? In all of these, is there an unconstructed (linguistically) pure nature out there? Or all of it, whichever way we conceive it, is a matter of how we have come to perceive it, or construct it ourselves in and through the language we have acquired, or, have been brought up to see reality through? While the literary and critical theorists position would be in the affirmative, needing a deconstruction inorder to get to the bottom of whatever truth there may be to the claim for ‘nature’; the opponent, with a scientific bend of mind, on the other side of the debating table would make the claim based on the ‘hole spotted in the ozone layer’ and measured by the scientific evidence; the latter would then be no mere linguistic construct, but rather, the hard veritable ‘reality’ out there. There is indeed a reality out there, irrespective of the manner in which we have been brought/taught to perceive by the advertising companies and market forces. ‘Nature’, therefore, ought to be taken care of and that very concern has brought us together.