Customer Reviews

The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

According to Indian tradition, a dialogue can be of three types: 'vaad', or a discussion, which seeks to understand the opponent's point of view and explain one's own in order to reach the truth; 'vivaad' or an argument, which seeks to impose one's own point of view over that of the other; and the third, 'vitandavaad', which merely seeks to demolish the other person's views, without really offering any alternative system. Mr. Sen has, therefore, titled the book quite accurately, except that unwittingly he has thus revealed his own self-perception. An argumentative intellectual - not seeking the truth, but merely propagating his own views.

Mr. Sen seeks to demonstrate that India is a multi-hued society of many shades and composite cultures. It is also wrongly seen as primarily a spiritual culture, as it has many other talents as well. This is quite elementary. In order to do so, he ranges over a vast number of topics, and offers extremely interesting information about a number of them. He has a typically wry sense of humor, which is rather appreciable. He also has an axe to grind, which keeps making a screeching distraction throughout.

That axe is his grudge against the hard-line Hindu politics, particularly the BJP, RSS and its assorted allies. This keeps getting in his way, and he keeps making short raids to take pot shots at them. This becomes irritating after a little while. In reality, BJP / RSS do not influence or define Indian culture to the extent that we must become obsessed with them to the point of distraction. One also finds that this grudge leads him to constantly twist arguments and facts, in order to enable him to take a better shot at his arch-enemies: BJP/RSS.

Coming back to his argumentativeness, we find that he repeatedly mentions Javali, and his advice to Lord Rama in Valmiki's Ramayana. On page xi-xii, he mentions that Javali, who was critical of Lord Rama, has been given a lot of space in Ramayana. Then again on page 26, he gives him a full para, describing Javali's advice in great detail. We meet Javali again on page 47, and are told that he called Lord Rama's actions as 'foolish'. Javali pops up again on page 159, with the same advice.

Two issues arise out of Mr. Sen's treatment of Javali: 1. He does not mention the context in which Javali made these statements. Javali has come to the forest to persuade Lord Rama to return to Ayodhya and assume Kingship after his father's death. 2. He does not mention Lord Rama's subsequent reasoned rebuttal of Javali's arguments, and Javali's hasty and abject turn-around (in his anger, Rama concludes by suggesting that atheists such as Javali should be put to death).

Javali then says that he was merely making up these arguments, in order to persuade Lord Rama to return to Ayodhya - he goes on to mention that this is permitted as a tactic to achieve a desirable end, and Rama should not think poorly of him.

To continue: Mr. Sen approvingly emphasizes that Ramayana gives a lot of space to Javali, who is propounding a counterview to the main argument of Ramayana. Mr. Sen's thesis also is that India is a land of many cultures, and all people have a right to voice their views and be heard. However, Mr. Sen himself is unable to hold up this great tradition of `poorva paksh' and `uttara paksh' (roughly prior-view and post-view). He does not present or reproduce the arguments of his opponents at all. And when he mentions these, he does it in such disparaging and value-loaded terms that you do not at all get an idea of what their argument was.

This, in my view, is a definite demonstration of his approach and objective: to impose his own views over that of others. This is the objective of an argument - where the other person is not convinced, he merely shuts up, unable to counter it properly, in the face of superior intellect or argumentative skills.

Let us now look at his facts, as presented in 'India through Its Calendars'. He tells us that the Saka era is the most widely used indigenous calendar in India: it is not. It is used mainly in some Southern parts of India and Maharashtra. Northern and Central states, as also Gujarat, use the Vikram era, which is also used in Nepal. Bengal uses the Bangla era.

Then he goes on to set up a straw man of the Kaliyuga calendar dating based on Whitaker's almanac. Mr. Sen states that according to Whitaker's Alamanac, Gregorian year 2000 corresponded with Year 6001 in the Kaliyuga calendar. Actually, according to Whitaker's, it corresponded with Year 5101 (see Hindu_calendar - Regional_variants at Wikipedia.org). He then devotes considerable space to first proving that this was right, as this is the 'official date of the Kaliyuga calendar'. Here he makes an elementary arithmetical error referring to Calendar Reform Committee and making it sound as if 5055+46 is rightly equal to 6001! Then he goes on to prove that the calendar is off - it should actually be Kaliyuga 5101 !! This, I suspect, was done in order to hurriedly get into position to take a pot-shot at `Indian chauvinists' (p.322, 323, last para). Unfortunately, he seems to have shot himself in the foot (or put his foot in the mouth, to mix the metaphors a little).

We are also told that the Indian calendars were mainly secular calendar systems, which were used for all purposes, including religious ones. This is quite a confusing statement. In the Indian tradition, secularism had no place or need. The king also had religious advisers, who guided him on all political as well as religious affairs. Secondly, these calendars were designed and maintained mainly by Brahmin priests, who used them to identify correct times for various religious rituals, as well as to predict auspicious moments for important business and state matters.

Then we are told that the `mala masa' (extra month) is added to correct the calendar shifting that creeps in due to error in value of days in a solar year (365.25875 days instead of the correct 365.24220 days). Actually, the mala masa is added every three years to reconcile the lunar calendar with the solar calendar.

He is also under the impression (p.331) that Indian calendars are solar calendars - actually mostly these are composite calendars, where the lunar and the solar passage is tracked side by side. In fact, there are five aspects in all, which are tracked and reconciled simultaneously, hence the name 'panchang' (having five parts) is used for Indian calendars.

Mr. Sen offers copious notes and references. Some of these are themselves quite interesting, though a great many tend to be from Left-oriented perspective, or commentators. This is acceptable and discountable, once we know and accept Mr. Sen's own political preferences. Quite a few of the references tend to be to his own writings or to that of his own family members, which sounds a bit like plugging.

For page references, I have used the hardcover Penguin edition published under the Allen Lane banner. The book has been bound nicely, has a beautifully illustrated cover and is printed well. However, the paper is rather like newsprint, and tends to absorb ink, if you like making notes in the margins. The book is also quite large - you can't carry it with you on trips, so it may be a good idea to go for the paperback.

After reading both 'Identity and Violence' (Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny (Issues of Our Time)), and 'Argumentative Indian', it is reasonably clear that the political animal in Mr. Sen is more wily than the intellectual in him. Treat his historical, cultural books as engaging, interesting but carefully disguised polemic, and you will be quite fine.

Amartya Sen's dispassionate, closely reasoned and utterly convincing essays reveal an India that should be much better known: a civilization with a long history of public debate and vibrant heterodoxy that goes back at least to the Vedas, and that informs many aspects of civic life today in the world's largest democracy.

Sen's Argumentative Indian argues against Western interpretations of India as a land of airy mysticism and religious speculation whose democratic traditions were imposed by the British; at the same time, with a firm but even hand he corrects the more recent Hindu fundamentalist view that wants to impose a narrow, `miniaturized' version of the nation that excludes the contributions of Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Jews, and thinkers of no particular religious persuasion at all.

Sen addresses the fact that this cultural predilection for argument and debate (along with a healthy respect for opposing points of view) has done little to change the vast social inequalities in India. But his book isn't so much about looking backward as it is about finding a usable past that Indians can take pride in as they look forward to a more global future. Along the way, Sen makes a lucid and compelling case for pluralism in all its forms in a century where fundamentalisms, East and West, are sadly on the rise. Sen's India is one I think the rest of the world could learn a lot from.

How do you encapsulate nearly 5000 years of known/spoken/written history of a billion people into nearly 360 pages and still come up with some coherent conclusions? Amartya Sen has managed to do that brilliantly.

This is an excellent book, and the only reason I will focus on the minor quibbles is that I cannot add any more to the positive praise this book has received from so many other quarters - most of which I agree with.

Sen does seem to have strong political views - which at times distract from his otherwise even handed approach to most of the material he presents.

All generalisations are no more than 50%-70% accurate(including this one). At times Sen does appear to draw a long bow. Given that only people profiled in the book at two Bengalis (Tagore and Satyajit Ray), and most of the examples are also based on thought and discourse in Bengal - this book could be more appropriately named The Argumentative Bengali.

Brilliant discourse on a range of topics connected to India and Indians. More Indians should read this to appreciate how inclusive India has historically been, to understand how Tagore was much more than a poet, and to be amazed by the level of intercourse of ideas over two millenia between India and China. More westerners should read this to shatter their illusions, fed in great measure by the "simplicist" Samuel Huntington, about India being some sort of homogeneous "Hindu" civilization, and to appreciate that science, tolerance and democracy are not creations of the west. Sen is bound to make many enemies among his compatriots, though, with his implicit support for the "Aryan Invasion Theory" and his staunch secularism - but then as he points out himself - less than 25% of Indians over the last few general elections have voted for a certain political party.

This book starts off with fascinating chapters detailing how India is the world's great example of a truly functioning mulitcultural society. Sen shows that many commonly accepted ideas on India are simply the result of right wing Hindu and Western colonial propaganda. His chapters on Tagore and his exploration of Buddhist and Muslim contributions to Indian civilization should be required reading for anyone interstes in Indian history.

But what starts off as a potential classic, loses all cohesion as Sen starts throwing in revised essays and lectures, some dating back from as 10 years ago. A good read becomes a textbook, dreary, pedantic, and even tedious. A disjointed effort, but worth a look nontheless. Check it out at the library, or wait a few years for the price of a used copy to come down just a bit more.

Of course, Amartya Sen is one of the great scholars to comment on Indian history, culture and identity. While every Indian knows how diverse Hinduism is in terms of different deities, different customs, different festivals etc playing diverse roles in diff parts of India, not everyone is fully aware of the very diverse schools of philosophy. Prof. Sen does a good job in pointing this out. My favorite example is Madhava Acharya's Sarvadar'anasa''graha which presents sixteen different schools ranging from atheism to Advaita Vedanta with almost equally deep scholarship and intellectual depth, even though Madhava Acharya himself is a follower of Advaita Vedanta. This clearly portrays a very vibrant and tolerant tradition in which there is ample space to agree to disagree, and still respect others' viewpoint. Another nice example when it comes to diversity of beliefs is that of Rama: Sen is so right when he says Rama, who was suddenly given this special status by some Rathayatras and all, is considered to be a hero of an epic (and usually strongly disliked by lot of women) and not a god in Bengal.

However, I thought one point that Sen makes kind of forcefully is practically redundant for most Indians: For most believing Hindus, the Indian identity is very important. Just as an example, most of the stalwarts of Indian Classical music are Muslims: who in their right senses consider Ali Akbar Khan a Muslim only and not one of the gods of Hindustani classical? As a fan of Md. Rafi, I can't see my life complete without his songs. I mean simply millions of girls are k-k-krazy about Shahrukh Khan. May be an extreme fringe of Hindu right does look at religious label before listening to a song or watching a movie, but do those people really deserve this much attention from a scholar of the stature of Prof. Sen?

Also, while Prof. Sen rightly says that such a diverse country has to be secular in its political sphere, I expect him to shade more light on what secularism means. For most people secularism means separation of religion and state. Banning "The Hindus: Alternative History" is not secular (in practice this book is not banned though, despite demands from some groups), but banning of "Satanic verses" is not secular either. Vandalizing M.F. Hussain's studio is ridiculous, but so is driving out Taslima Nasreen from the country because of some people rioting and issuing fatwas. Most Indians who have any sympathy towards the BJP and all, are not sympathetic towards the extreme ideology of the RSS or some such organizations, but they are simply disgusted with vote bank politics and creepy double standards in the name of "secularism". Putting everything under the carpet by simply bashing "those obnoxious fundamentalists" doesn't serve the purpose (to be fair, Sen does talk about Rajiv Gandhi's govt in Shah Bano case though). The fact is in "secular" India sometimes there is just no option of voting for a secular party and that's really unfortunate.

Also, it's important to recognize that religion (whichever it is) is not the only source of dogma but political ideology (like Marxism) is also another source. Prof. Sen is probably too blinded by his socialist and humanist philosophy to see that his friends in the Marxist camp have corrupted every academic institution in Bengal by hiring professors/teachers not on the basis of academic credential but on the basis of allegiance to the party. Saffronizing history is truly bad, but so is painting every institution red-- both have the same effect of indoctrinating young minds in not exactly a pluralistic/tolerant/argumentative tradition. In fact, if one looks at it carefully, even the Hindu right votes for Kalam as president of India, even Congress (I) in their years of corruption and feudalistic politics didn't corrupt the scholarly environment of the Presidency college/ Calcutta university, but the Marxists simply destroyed these once-great institutions by their petty politics. Too bad that a scholar of Prof. Sen's status can not see this ground reality in his home state. While writing a beautiful book like this, I wish Prof Sen could have followed Madhava Acharya and write a dispassionate and objective analysis even though he, just like everyone of us, is entitled to an opinion.

This book presents the same old rehashed arguments against Hindutva. Like several other "liberals" in India, Sen too goes for the soft targets instead of discussing the real issues. Here are some core issues that Sen conveniently ignores, instead focussing on the obvious blunders of the BJP/Sangh Parivar such as the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, Gujarat riots in 2002 and attempts to revise school textbooks:

1) Why nearly the first 40 years of uninterrupted rule by the "secular" Congress party didn't resolve the Kashmir problem. Instead it has led to an ethnic cleansing of minorities in 1989 out of the Kashmir Valley into other parts of India, an event Indian "liberals" give curiously little attention to.

2) Why we still continue to have a temporary article in the Indian constitution nearly 50 years after it was drafted, that gives special privileges to the only Muslim-majority state in the country: Jammu and Kashmir, essentially isolating the rest of the country from interacting with it. And of course, this article is hugely popular in J&K. Seems that the people in Kashmir Valley do not share the same sense of "heterodoxy" of Indian culture that Sen does.

3) Why a common civil code doesn't exist? This makes a mockery of secularism in India. Essentially, seperate laws exists for people of different minority religions in India with regard to marraige, divorce, inheritence rights, etc. Efforts to adopt a common civil code have been outrightly refuted by Muslim leaders in the country arguing that they would lose their sense of identity. Apparently, again these self-appointed voices of the Muslim community in India do not share the same sense of "heterodoxy" of Indian culture that Sen does.

What solution does Sen have for these? None of course.

You know, the common man who does get swayed by the arguments of Hindutva doesn't really care whether an Indus Valley clay tablet with a symbol of a horse exists or not, or if Hinduism came from within India or was brought by the Indo-Europeans. Sen goes after these wild goose chases in his section on Hindutva while ignoring the real, pertinent communal issues that exist in India today, a few of which I mention above.

There is also another subtelty to the Hindutva movement that Sen and less discerning liberals fail to see.
Most level-headed Muslims the world over would condemn the way terrorists go about their business in the name of their religion and freedom struggles in various parts of the world. However, they would still support, say the Palestinian struggle, or the struggle of Chechens against Russia, or Kashmiris against Indians.
Similarly, most level-headed Indians won't support the violence that is covertly or overtly supported by BJP & Co, but that does not discredit the major issues which brought this party into power in the first place.

There are other factual errors as well. The major reason why the BJP lost, unlike what Sen likes to believe, is that economic prosperity didn't reach the rural poor.

It should also be noted that the party that is viewed as secular in India today, the Congress is as culpable for communal violence as any other party in India including BJP & Co. One only needs to remember the carnage instigated against Sikhs after death of Indira Gandhi. This violence was primarly carried out by the members of the congress party. This too, like the woes of Kashmiri Pandits, is conveniently swept aside by the likes of Sen, Arundhati Roy and any number of English language newspapers in India that have a left-leaning bias.

In a sense, the right and left in India are not unlike the Republicans and Democrats in the United States. The right in India, like in the US, generally makes a bigger mess of things of the situation than before they involved themselves, and the left, like in the US, simply oppose without providing a coherent alternative solution.


This book will get high marks from Westerners impressed with Sen's command over the English language and his use of accents and diacritical marks for Sanskrit giving his notes an authentic appearance.

I have long maintained that American tourists and business leaders must be careful not to view India through Western eyes. That point is also well made by author and Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen in his thoughtful overview of India entitled "The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity."

Sen recruits reason as a sharp weapon to dispel the Western myths that India is a land of mysticism whose democratic traditions were imposed by the British. The author rightly observes that the Indians love for argument and debate has slowed efforts to tackle the immense social inequalities in India.

But he also points out that India is a pluralistic society that embraces into its culture Buddhists, Muslims, Jews and Christians as well as other religious groups. Sen challenges Westerners to understand that India is a pluralistic rather than a fundamentalist society and in so doing delivers a great service in convincing others that India's greatness lies in its diversity and tolerance of all creeds, color, and castes.

Sen also offers an insightful look at India's history. I recommend this book highly for anyone who wants to understand what makes India what it is today.

By Gunjan Bagla
Author of Doing Business in 21st Century India

The author brings out effectively the Indian tradition of peaceful debate on matters of social importance from ancient times till now. This tradition of positive argumentativeness seems to be the strength of Indian democracy's success inspite of some sectarian politics rampent now. Indian pluralism will survive Dr. Sen says by this nature of Indian minds. A very good book boldly written.
MKV

The Argumentive Indian
by Amartya Sen

Is mankind free to speak his mind? Does differing opinion add value to civilized society? The argument begins millennia ago with creation. It finds only argument on these questions with no real prejudice placed on either side. Oddly enough at the root of much of the debate is religion where the same balance goes with the need or not, to subscribe to any religious orthodoxy; hence heterodoxy best describes the Argumentive Indian. By page four I found argument with Sen. Having read the Bhagavad-Gita I came away with a different scenario on allegorical portrayal of a principle. That of non attachment to the physical world is central to the Gita, I was impressed that it was Arjuna making the argument for fate. It was Krishna doubting the reason for war. It was Arjuna rationalizing on the separation of body and soul, making material outcomes not important. Oddly enough My argument is only technical in merit an so, why should I argue. None the less, surely I the reader must make way to the well studied author; a modest degree of skepticism shadowed my reading of this book. When you think of it do not skepticism and argument find them selves bookends to leaves of theories put to the test of debate.

Basically the book is a collection of essays that Sen has written over the course of his career as an author, amongst many other accomplishments, including a Nobel Prize. His main thrust is that giving man the power to freely debate his views is the reason for hope in a future for man kind. He makes clear that fertile ground for debate is democracy. The reader becomes keenly aware that India is now the world's largest democracy. To make sure the reader appreciates this Sen demonstrates that democracy is intimately connected with public discussion and interactive reasoning where Indian history is rich with evidence. Lesson learned; traditions of public discussion exist across the world, not just in the West. And to the extent that such a tradition can be drawn on, democracy is easier to institute and also to preserve. As I read through this book I was always looking for a that evidence supporting a general theme and characteristic in Sen's argument. Upon entering my last foot note I landed on it. This last foot note is an example of Sens many posed arguments, where he sites two antonym notions and finds congruency in the application of their outcomes. Just when you have caught on to one side of an argument he would reverse the strategy. It paints a complex picture, where there is always room for two winning sides of an argument and therefore unity through politics.

Hinduvta having roots in Hindu is a recent movement, relatively speaking, in what appears to be an effort to attach a religious identity to India. Accidentally or on purpose, Hindu's characteristics in doctrine are one that brings unity to people by accepting all walks of life. Hinduvta is actually a heterodoxy faith and the root of Indian Democracy. To qualify Sen's views one must appreciate that he is Bengali, a culture with strong Muslim influence. Yet he himself is a secularist with acceptance of all and at the same time no real attachment to any religion. Ironically, a prime tenant of Hindu is non attachment. The aforementioned makes Hindi a religion different from the major religions, yet it does practice a belief in one god.

Sen makes a lengthy argument against the Hindutva movement basically because of his secular orientation. He advocates heterodoxy separate from a Hindu policy which seems to me superfluous. Why argue about things that don't need argument. I wrap with one anecdotal question on this. Please do a keyword search on Argumentative Indian, cigarroomofbooks.blogspot and see the full review with my wrap.