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

“Discussions and arguments are critically important for democracy and public reasoning. They are central to the practice of secularism and for even-handed treatment of adherents of different religious faiths (including those who have no religious beliefs). Going beyond these basic structural priorities, the argumentative tradition, if used with deliberation and commitment, can also be extremely important in resisting social inequalities and in removing poverty and deprivation. Voice is a crucial component of the pursuit of social justice.”

The notion of “basic structural priorities” employs metonymy, where these priorities stand in for the fundamental values and principles upon which democratic societies are constructed. This metonymic expression condenses complex political concepts into a tangible form, making the abstract principles of democracy and secularism more accessible and grounded.

The passage concludes with the assertion that “Voice is a crucial component of the pursuit of social justice.” This singular focus on “voice” acts as a synecdoche, using a part (voice) to represent the whole (active participation and expression in democracy). It encapsulates the essence of the entire argument: that individual expression, manifested through debate and dialogue, is integral not only to the functioning of democracy but also to the realization of a just society.

“The nature and strength of the dialogic tradition in India is sometimes ignored because of the much championed belief that India is the land of religions, the country of uncritical faiths and unquestioned practices.”

Juxtaposition is used in the sentence, setting the “dialogic tradition” against the “land of religions,” illustrating an antithesis that contrasts the active exchange of ideas with passive religious acceptance.

The description of India as “the land of religions, the country of uncritical faiths and unquestioned practices” employs a series of clichés to emphasize the stereotypical image often associated with India. This cliché is used to highlight the gap between perception and reality, and it brings attention to the problem of reducing a complex culture to a simplistic image.

“A defeated argument that refuses to be obliterated can remain very alive.”

The resilience of an idea, even in the face of rejection, is depicted through personification and metaphor. The “defeated argument” is personified as if it were a combatant in an intellectual battle, imbuing it with human-like qualities of endurance and presence. This personification brings the abstract concept of an argument to life, suggesting it has a will and tenacity akin to that of a living being.

The metaphor within “refuses to be obliterated” intensifies this personification, implying that the argument possesses a defiance and determination to survive. Obliteration, a term often associated with complete annihilation, is used here to illustrate the extreme effort required to silence a compelling argument, further highlighting its inherent power and durability.

“When, more than half a century ago, independent India became the first country in the non-Western world to choose a resolutely democratic constitution, it not only used what it had learned from the institutional experiences in Europe and America (particularly Great Britain), it also drew on its own tradition of public reasoning and argumentative heterodoxy.”

It starts with a temporal marker “more than half a century ago,” situating the event in a historical context that hints at its long-standing significance and the changes that have unfolded since. This allusion serves not only to date the event but also to emphasize its enduring relevance.

The passage also employs juxtaposition, positioning the “institutional experiences in Europe and America” alongside India’s “own tradition of public reasoning and argumentative heterodoxy.” This creates a contrast between external influences and internal traditions, highlighting that the constitution was a product of both international inspiration and Indigenous intellectual practices. The juxtaposition here elevates India’s agency, illustrating that its democratic identity was not merely adopted but adapted, blended with its own cultural and intellectual ethos.

“The point, rather, is that democracy is intimately connected with public discussion and interactive reasoning. 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 becomes easier to institute and also to preserve.”

The sentence employs metonymy to encapsulate Sen’s take on the essence of democracy. By stating that “democracy is intimately connected with public discussion and interactive reasoning,” the abstract concept of democracy is given a tangible form through its core activities: dialogue and reasoning. This metonymic expression emphasizes the notion that the practical, everyday actions of discussion and reasoning are not just features of a democratic society but its very lifeblood.

“Akbar’s overarching thesis that ‘the pursuit of reason’ rather than ‘reliance on tradition’ is the way to address difficult problems of social harmony included a robust celebration of reasoned dialogues.”

Juxtaposition is featured, placing “the pursuit of reason” against “reliance on tradition.” This contrast sets up a dynamic tension between two approaches to problem-solving, highlighting a preference for one over the other. The juxtaposition serves to underscore the forward-thinking nature of “pursuit” compared to the static connotation of “reliance,” suggesting that active inquiry is more beneficial than passive acceptance.

“Just consider how terrible the day of your death will be. Others will go on speaking, and you will not be able to argue back.”

Dramatic irony is present in the awareness of the inevitable silence that death brings, contrasting with the ongoing dialogues among the living—a reminder of life’s impermanence and the cessation of one’s voice. The phrase “how terrible the day of your death will be” uses hyperbole to amplify the emotional weight of the concept of death. By characterizing the day as “terrible,” it not only acknowledges the common fear associated with death but also heightens the sense of loss that extends beyond the physical—here, the loss of one’s voice and ability to participate in discourse.

“To acknowledge the long-standing presence of remarkable societal inequality in India, we do not have to endorse radical oversimplifications about cultural—not to mention genetic—predispositions towards asymmetry in India.”

The passage employs litotes, a figure of speech that uses negative terms to express a positive assertion, to emphasize that recognizing India’s societal inequalities does not necessitate agreeing with exaggerated simplifications about cultural or genetic predispositions. By stating “we do not have to endorse radical oversimplifications,” the author subtly reinforces the point that it’s possible to acknowledge the complexities of societal issues without resorting to reductionist explanations.

“The argumentative route has its uses. We can try to out-talk the ‘unknown’—and dumb—power of Fate.”

Personification is used, attributing the ability to talk to the abstract concept of “Fate.” Fate is typically understood as a predetermined course of events beyond human control, yet here it is given a human-like quality that can be challenged through argument. The use of personification here serves to diminish the power of Fate, suggesting that through human discourse and reason, what is often deemed uncontrollable can be engaged with and perhaps even mastered.

“The reach of Indian traditions, including heterodoxy and the celebration of plurality and scepticism, requires a comprehensive recognition. Cognizance of India’s past is important for an adequate understanding of the capacious idea of India.”

The use of the word “reach” personifies Indian traditions, suggesting they have the capability to extend, influence, or touch various aspects of life, much like a person might reach out with their hand. The phrase “the celebration of plurality and scepticism” employs metonymy, a device where something is not called by its own name but by the name of something intimately associated with that thing or concept. Here, “celebration” refers to the active practice and embrace of these qualities within Indian culture, suggesting that these are not just passive features but actively acknowledged and valued aspects. Moreover, the term “capacious idea of India” is a metaphor that likens the concept of India to a large container that can hold a vast amount of content. This metaphor underlines the breadth and inclusiveness of the Indian identity, capable of encompassing a wide variety of beliefs, traditions, and perspectives.

“Important as history is, reasoning has to go beyond the past. It is in the sovereignty of reasoning—fearless reasoning in freedom—that we can find Rabindranath Tagore’s lasting voice.”

The phrase “sovereignty of reasoning” uses a metaphor, likening the act of reasoning to a sovereign entity that rules or governs. By doing so, it emphasizes the supreme authority and independence reasoning should have in our decision-making processes. This metaphor extends to suggest that reasoning should be the guiding principle in people’s thoughts and actions, unfettered by external influences or past precedents.

The phrase “fearless reasoning in freedom” employs alliteration with the repetition of the “f” sound. This not only adds a rhythmic quality to the phrase, enhancing its memorability, but also underscores the significance of the concepts being discussed. “Fearless” and “freedom” both start with the same sound and together convey the idea that reasoning should be conducted without fear and with complete liberty.

“I would argue that this stance does not take adequate note of the dialectical aspects of the relationship between India and the West and, in particular, tends to disregard the fact that the external images of India in the West have often tended to emphasize (rather than downplay) the differences—real or imagined—between India and the West.”

Metaphor is found in the phrase “dialectical aspects of the relationship,” which likens the interaction between these cultures to a dialogue, implying a dynamic and reciprocal exchange rather than a static or one-sided influence. This metaphor suggests that the relationship is characterized by a back-and-forth movement akin to a conversation, with each side influencing and being influenced by the other.

Furthermore, Sen hints at irony by noting the West’s emphasis on the differences between India and itself. The irony lies in the fact that while the West may perceive itself as promoting a universal culture, it simultaneously reinforces the distinctiveness and separateness of Indian culture through its external images of the country. This irony challenges reconsideration of any preconceived notions about the cultural interactions between India and the West.

“It is not enough to continue to have systematic elections, to safeguard political liberties and civil rights, to guarantee free speech and an open media. Nor is it adequate to eliminate famine, or to reduce the lead of China in longevity and survival. A more vigorous—and vocal—use of democratic participation can do much more in India than it has already achieved.”

The opening phrase “It is not enough” establishes an anaphora, a device that repeats a word or sequence of words at the beginnings of neighboring clauses, conveying a sense of accumulation and urgency regarding the actions that have been taken. This repetition underscores the need for more than just the status quo in democratic practices. The use of the conjunction “nor” in “Nor is it adequate” continues the anaphoric structure, reinforcing the insufficiency of current efforts and setting up a contrast for what is to come.

The adjectives “systematic,” “political,” “civil,” “free,” and “open” provide a cumulative effect, creating an asyndeton by omitting conjunctions between the terms. This omission streamlines the sentence, making the list of democratic features rapid and impactful, which enhances the urgency of the argument.

“Second, it is necessary to widen the focus of attention from women’s well-being, seen on its own, to women’s agency (including, inter alia, its association with women’s well-being but taking on, along with it, very many other aspects of society).”

The use of the term “women’s agency” juxtaposed with “women’s well-being” introduces a dichotomy, a literary device that presents two contrasting concepts. This contrast emphasizes the difference between mere existence (well-being) and the ability to act and make decisions (agency), advocating for a more comprehensive approach to understanding women’s roles.

The parenthetical inclusion, “(including, inter alia),” introduces a Latin phrase that means “among other things.” The use of a Latin language term adds a formal and scholarly tone to the sentence and works to broaden the scope of “women’s agency” beyond just well-being, implying that the issue is multifaceted and complex.

“Perceptions can deceive. It has to be asked whether powerful weapons in general and nuclear armaments in particular can be expected—invariably or even typically—to strengthen and empower their possessor.”

The opening statement, “Perceptions can deceive,” is an aphorism—a concise statement that delivers a general truth. It’s a cautionary note suggesting that what seems apparent might not reflect reality, especially regarding complex issues like nuclear armament and national power.

The second part of the sentence, “whether powerful weapons in general and nuclear armaments in particular can be expected—invariably or even typically—to strengthen and empower their possessor,” contains a chiasmus. The structure of the sentence inverts the general concept of “powerful weapons” with the specific instance of “nuclear armaments,” highlighting the critical examination of the true impact of such weapons on a nation’s strength and agency.

“Strengthening of Pakistan’s stability and enhancement of its well-being has prudential importance for India, in addition to its obvious ethical significance. That central connection—between the moral and the prudential—must be urgently grasped.”

The phrase “Strengthening of Pakistan’s stability and enhancement of its well-being” uses parallel structure, which balances the two elements that are crucial for Pakistan according to Sen. The repetition of gerunds (“Strengthening” and “enhancement”) underscores the continuous and active process required in supporting a neighboring country’s welfare.

“W. B. Yeats wrote on the margin of his copy of The Genealogy of Morals, ‘But why does Nietzsche think the night has no stars, nothing but bats and owls and the insane moon?’”

In this reflection on W. B. Yeats’s marginalia, the use of rhetorical questioning and imagery serves to critique Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy. The rhetorical question “But why does Nietzsche think the night has no stars, nothing but bats and owls and the insane moon?” employs metaphors to contrast differing philosophical perspectives. The night sky, typically a metaphor for vast possibilities and the unknown, is stripped of its stars—often symbols of guidance and hope—in Nietzsche’s view, according to Yeats. This absence suggests a bleak or nihilistic worldview, where the usual sources of light and navigation in the intellectual “sky” of philosophy are absent.

The mention of “bats and owls” invokes animals that thrive in darkness, representing a navigation through the “night” of human existence without the light of traditional moral guides. These creatures, with their nocturnal connotations, could symbolize alternative ways of seeing the world, possibly alluding to Nietzsche’s challenge to conventional morality. The “insane moon” personifies the celestial body, attributing “madness” to it, which could reflect the chaos and irrationality that Yeats might have felt in Nietzsche’s moral landscape, devoid of the traditional “stars” of moral certainties.

“Jonathan Glover, an Oxford philosopher, argues in his recent and enormously interesting ‘moral history of the twentieth century’ that we must not only reflect on what has happened in the last century, but also ‘need to look hard and clearly at some monsters inside us’ and to consider ways and means of ‘caging and taming them.’”

The use of metaphor is prominent here, as Glover describes the darker aspects of human nature as “monsters inside us.” This metaphor transforms the abstract concept of human capacity for wrongdoing into a more tangible and ominous image, suggesting that these negative impulses are not just inherent but also potentially uncontrollable and dangerous. The choice of verbs “caging and taming” furthers this metaphorical framing by drawing upon the language typically associated with wild animals, indicating that these internal “monsters” require active, rigorous efforts to manage and subdue.

“The West is seen, in effect, as having exclusive access to the values that lie at the foundation of rationality and reasoning, science and evidence, liberty and tolerance, and of course rights and justice.”

The use of parallelism in the series of paired values (“rationality and reasoning, science and evidence, liberty and tolerance, and of course rights and justice”) not only creates a rhythmic and emphatic flow but also contrasts the diversity and richness of global intellectual and ethical traditions with the narrowness of the claim being critiqued. This parallel structure reinforces the idea of equality and interconnectedness among these values, countering the notion of their supposed Western exclusivity.

“Reason has its reach—compromised neither by the importance of instinctive psychology nor by the presence of cultural diversity in the world. It has an especially important role to play in the cultivation of moral imagination. We need it in particular to face the bats and the owls and the insane moon.”

The phrase “reason has its reach” is a metaphor and a personification, where the abstract concept of reason is given the human attribute of being able to extend or stretch out to influence or touch something. This metaphorical use suggests that reason has a domain or sphere of influence that extends far and wide, capable of impacting various areas of human endeavor and understanding. The same phase can also be interpreted as metonymy, where “reach” stands in for the influence or effectiveness of reason. This metonymic expression highlights the expansive capability of reason to extend beyond limitations, suggesting it has power and applicability in various aspects of human life, including moral and ethical considerations.

There’s also an allusion to W. B. Yeats’s response to Nietzsche, invoking the literary and philosophical discourse about human nature’s complexities. Yeats’s reference, embedded within Sen’s text, provides a historical and cultural context that enriches the argument about the enduring necessity of reason, even amid instinct and diversity.

“The winter of our discontent might not be giving way at present to a ‘glorious summer,’ but the political abandonment of secularism would make India far more wintry than it currently is.”

Metaphor is employed to juxtapose the seasons with the political climate, conveying a mood and suggesting change—or the lack thereof. The phrase “the winter of our discontent” metaphorically represents a period of unhappiness or dissatisfaction, possibly referring to the current struggles within the political landscape. By contrasting winter with the potential for a “glorious summer,” which symbolizes a time of happiness and contentment, the text uses seasonal change to represent the hope for a positive transformation in the political atmosphere.

The allusion to Shakespeare’s Richard III (“Now is the winter of our discontent / Made glorious summer by this son of York”) implies that, just as in the play, where the line speaks to a change in fortune, there is a yearning for a shift from a time of difficulty to one of prosperity and peace.

“What is under attack is not only some ‘modern’ notion of secularism born and bred in post-Enlightenment Europe, or some quintessentially ‘Western’ idea brought to India by the British, but a long tradition of accommodating and integrating different cultures which had found many articulate expressions in India’s past—partly illustrated by India’s calendrical history as well.”

The passage utilizes juxtaposition, placing “modern” notions and “Western” ideas of secularism against the rich tapestry of India’s own tradition. This highlights the contrast between the external perceptions of secularism as a foreign concept and the internal historical evidence of its indigenous presence.

Allusion is another key device used here, subtly referencing the broader historical and cultural conversations around the Enlightenment and colonial periods, inviting consideration of the wider contexts that inform the current discourse on secularism.

“It is, in particular, important to distinguish between the inclusionary role of identity and the exclusionary force of separatism. To want to do something in the interests of a country is not the same thing as wanting the country to be distanced from the rest of the world, or to be isolated from it.”

The quote leverages a clear antithesis to draw a contrast between two concepts: inclusion and exclusion, specifically within the context of national identity and separatism. The device of antithesis is evident in the juxtaposition of “inclusionary role” and “exclusionary force,” emphasizing the divergent paths that the recognition of identity can lead to in a socio-political context.