The Argutentative Indian

There is something disturbingly simplistic and naive about academicians even when they speak the gospel truth that simple men do not understand. Take the case of Amartya Sen's "The Argumentative Indian and Other Essays," which I read recently from off a friend's bookshelf. A well-written book for the most part and considerably enlightening, but also employing a certain tenacious tentativeness and an assertive defensiveness with heavily apologetic rhetoric in some places.

One of the key complaints one can raise about Dr. Sen's book is his ready knowledge of certain obscure texts and customs and his introduction of such into the argument to make what would otherwise have been an indefensible point. Take, for example, his patent knowledge of the Vedic and post-Vedic schools of philosophy, and his repeated insistence on the allowance made for skepticism in the Vedic religion. Granted Carvaka is a name not to be dismissed lightly in the history of Indian philosophic thought, but no sensible observer of the practical Hindu religion would deem him a figure of considerable significance in the mainstream consciousness. Even all the mantras from the scriptures that he quotes to substantiate his claim of a substantial respect for skepticism in Hinduism are merely taken out of context without reference to the apparent resolution of all doubts that follows in the text. To claim for the average Christian the doubts of Sabellius and Tertullian would be as pertinent as the claims Sen makes for the average Hindu as the inheritor of the heritage of doubt explored in the Upanishads and other scriptures. In sum, the mainstream Hindu consciousness is more a hereditary and cultural construct than a logical religious one and Dr Sen brings a few bookmen to the busy street to prove the existence of certain obscure and mostly irrelevant-to-the-average-Hindu ideas.

Another important 'fact' for Sen is the prevalence of the argumentative tradition in the Indian ethos. While it would be mere snobbishness to deny the possibility and the primitive presence of the dialogue mechanism in the Indian plurality, Sen falls into the opposite error of wishful thinking of the kind of people with the 'bright pebbly eyes of the Theosophists,' to quote Sen quoting Chesterton. Here, he reminds one of Marx, who believed the modern, enlightened workman would spend his toiling hours busy in the factory and come back home to entertain himself with Shakespeare or the philosophers. The sad fact is that the rural Indian, and even the urban Indian in most parts of India, has little time and inclination to involve themselves in public debate of any form. There are pockets where activism has rendered the democratic process of inclusive debate effective but this is not as widespread as one would gather from the text. Agian, it is not the possibility of debate that is in question but the inclination towards, and the readiness for it, in a useful sense, in current-day India. Extrapolating from this state of affairs to the past, it is inconceivable to think that the rural Indian of the past had much say in matters of governance either, the panchayat being an elitist and, often, a hereditary or class-oriented group of people with some voice lent to select elite groups within each village. And the repeated emphatic mention of Asoka's and then Akbar's measures to conduct public debates and communal interactions tends to make one forget the tradition of the agoras and the Forum and other institutions that the West remembers well. In the final analysis, whereas democratic elements were present in Indian governance, the idea is inherently Western, if it should be assigned a pedigree.

Other ideas presented in the analysis of calendars, the India-China interaction etc., seem plausible but far-fetched and his veneration for Tagore, while well-founded, clouds his judgement. It is a fact that non-mainstream writers are ignored in the long run and Tagore chose to remain in the shadows. His contributions to literature might parallel those of Bharati, the Tamil poet, but one does not see in Sen even a recognition of the many other stalwart writers from obscure corners of the country who have been ignored as much as Tagore has been, in spite of the Nobel he managed to win.

There is also a curious reluctance to go beyond the obvious condemnation of the fundamentalists in his political rhetoric. While the RSS umbrella organizations come in for stick, there is a want of the equanimity required to see in the political machinery flaws in all its components. The Congress and other parties escape any admonition by the mere fact of being secular and yet, as Sen himself acknowledges, it is not merely communal rhetoric that is damaging the fabric of our society. Cultural divides run deep and even if healing elements too run into those fissures, all political parties share the blame for exacerbating the situation.

The merits of the book are patent and what one may learn from it too and hence I will refrain from the obvious paeans to the patient collection and analysis of pertinent data, the penetrating critiques on certain issues and the overall usefulness of the book; but the flaws run a concurrent course too and, while this is expected in any work of such magnitude and scope, a suspicion of schoolman rhetoric is not easy to avoid.