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

India, San argues, has a longstanding history of societal inequality, with the caste system being a prominent example. The nation’s tradition of heterodoxy and argumentation may encourage inclusiveness and pluralist toleration. This inclusiveness manifests as the acceptance of various groups with differing beliefs and customs. This acceptance is termed “swīkriti” in Sanskrit, which means acknowledgment of one’s right to lead their life. Swīkriti does not imply equality among different groups; it’s more about the right of “recognition.” India’s diversity has provided a refuge for persecuted groups like Christians, Jews, and Parsees. However, the emphasis on religious and communal identities, fostered by sectarian politics, undermines egalitarian commitments. B. R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of India’s constitution, warned of the disparities between political equality and socio-economic inequalities. Democratic politics can act as a vehicle for addressing these disparities, but its effectiveness is contingent upon active participation and voicing of concerns. The tradition of debate and dissent can aid marginalized groups, but strong democratic processes must back it. Focusing on shared grievances can unite diverse groups against societal inequalities, but this is undermined by divisive caste and religious politics. The fight for justice in India requires active use of the argumentative voice.

Ujjain, a historically significant city in India, was home to notable figures like the poet Kālidāsa in the fifth century. Kālidāsa’s poem, Meghadūtam, paints a vivid picture of the beauty of Ujjain and its women, a sentiment echoed by E. M. Forster during his 1914 visit. Kālidāsa’s writings encapsulate the diversity and charm of India. Similarly, Akbar, the Mughal emperor, recognized India’s cultural variations while attempting to unify them through initiatives like the “Tarikh-ilahi” calendar and the “Din-ilahi” religion. This historical inclination toward understanding and celebrating India’s diversity set the foundation for a pluralistic India before British colonization. Despite partitions in recent history, the subcontinent shares a rich multicultural heritage that is pivotal in building a peaceful South Asia. Civil dialogues, like those initiated by South Asians for Human Rights, play a crucial role in promoting peace and understanding. Inter-country relations, like those between India and Bangladesh or India and Sri Lanka, need a nuanced approach, understanding, and dialogue for resolution. The subcontinent’s dialogic tradition is vital for regional unity and justice, as highlighted by Octavio Paz’s emphasis on dialogue as a conflict resolution tool. Ultimately, the power of discourse is championed to address challenges and uncertainties.

Amartya Sen reminisces about time at Santiniketan, a school founded by Rabindranath Tagore. Here, the teachings of his grandfather, Kshiti Mohan Sen, a distinguished Sanskritist and authority on Hinduism, shaped his perspectives. Kshiti Mohan Sen championed Hinduism’s classical heritage and its devotional poetry. Although their family had strong religious inclinations, they adhered to a more contemplative, non-ceremonial form of Hinduism. Kshiti Sen’s book, which had Amartya’s contributions, underlined Hinduism’s inherent heterodoxy and liberality. Yet, Amartya observes a discord when comparing this liberal view to today’s politically driven, sectarian interpretations, including the Hindutva movement, with its political arm, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Interestingly, despite India’s Hindu-majority demography, the BJP secured only around 22% of votes in parliamentary elections. It isn’t the predominant choice for many Hindus and remains absent from numerous Indian states.

Hindutva’s politics, while embodied by the BJP, is part of a more expansive group of Hindu political entities termed the “Sangh Parivar.” The Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) leads this collective, with other members like the “Vishwa Hindu Parishad” (VHP) and the “Bajrang Dal,” the latter known for its violent escapades. With the BJP being the Sangh Parivar’s official political segment, the author advocates for scrutinizing the intellectual foundations of the Hindutva movement. Although its core advocates are limited in number, they’re bolstered by a larger group of proto-Hindutva supporters who vouch for Hindus’ primacy in India. However, many Hindus don’t align their religious identity with political Hindutva. Historical accounts also challenge a strictly Hindu-centric view since India has been a mosaic of religions for ages.

The narrative also investigates historical Hindu-Muslim dynamics in India, critiquing the Hindutva movement’s tendency to depict Muslim rulers singularly as destructive invaders. Many Muslim rulers, like the Mughal emperor Akbar, integrated seamlessly into India’s cultural tapestry, patronizing arts and celebrating religious diversity. Consequently, painting rulers like Aurangzeb as solely intolerant misses the broader picture. For the Hindutva movement, such historical recalibrations serve to strengthen its ideology, especially for the Indian diaspora. The goal is a Hindu-centric vision of India, intertwining Hindu and Indian identities.

The movement’s attempts to sway school curricula alarmed many, who felt it detached India from its historical anchors. Renowned historians have debunked several claims by Hindutva proponents. The Hindutva narrative, which stresses predominantly Hindu accomplishments, grapples with empirical and conceptual hurdles. It struggles to reconcile with India’s vast history of diverse internal and external interactions. Efforts to connect the Vedas with the ancient Indus valley civilization, renamed as the “Indus–Saraswati civilization” (76), were met with skepticism due to lack of evidence.

The 2004 Indian general elections brought the divisive ramifications to the fore. The BJP’s “India shining!” slogan accentuated economic growth but was criticized for overlooking vast segments, notably the rural poor. This economic disparity, coupled with the BJP’s perceived sectarianism, enabled other political entities to tap into the growing discontent. The BJP’s ties with violent episodes, particularly against Muslims in Gujarat, damaged its reputation. Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee cited these events as pivotal in their electoral loss, a statement that stirred internal party dissent. Emphasizing India’s longstanding tradition of skepticism, the text counters the diluted “soft Hindutva” stance of some secularists. It celebrates India’s heterogeneity and posits that the Hindutva agenda is at odds with the expansive idea of India as envisioned by figures like Rabindranath Tagore. Ultimately, the movement’s efforts risk shrinking India’s vast identity, underscoring the imperative to cherish India’s rich traditions and history.

The Indian diaspora faces a duality––being loyal citizens of their adopted countries while also maintaining ties with India. A prominent point of contention is what aspects of their Indian heritage they should take pride in. The influence of the Hindutva movement, which seeks to align Indian identity with a Hinduized conception, has been notable among the diaspora. This has parallels with other emigrant communities that often adopt a more fervent embrace of their native traditions when abroad. Yet, many diasporic Indians resist such divisive identification, as evidenced by criticisms of extremist actions by the Hindutva movement. Colonial perspectives often undermine India’s intellectual contributions; the under-recognition of Āryabhaṭa’s groundbreaking work is cited as an example.

Colonialism led many Indians to seek dignity and pride in fields where they faced less Western competition, often turning to spirituality and religious practices. This resulted in the neglect of Indian works on reasoning, science, and mathematics. Imperial British leaders, like Winston Churchill, doubted India’s capability for self-governance and overlooked its historical ideas on administration and public reasoning. Upon independence in 1947, India’s democratic constitution discussions recalled its participatory traditions. Jawaharlal Nehru emphasized India’s history of tolerating diverse views. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar explored India’s local democratic governance history, expressing concerns about narrow-mindedness but emphasizing the significance of public reasoning.

It is argued that public discussion is vital for democracy. Emperor Ashoka and Emperor Akbar showed early interests in open discussions and inter-faith dialogues. Early global interactions, evident in the spread of Buddhism and Sanskrit, underscore India’s long-standing tradition of international exchange. Sanskrit’s influence extends across Asia, emphasizing global civilization is a collective heritage, not just isolated local cultures. Indians, both in the homeland and abroad, have grounds to oppose both external alienation and domestic reductionism. The inherent inclusivity of the argumentative culture opposes not just domestic confinement but also a restricted worldview. It is not necessary to accept a lesser vision of India, regardless of the efforts of those who push for such limitations.