The Wrong Argumentative Indian
Amartya Sen, in his 2005-book, The Argumentative Indian, says that Indians are known for argumentative nature. He adds that we do not easily settle on a decision without arguing about it. This tendency of questioning has long been there in our tradition, and has ever since had its impact on our culture, politics, and history.
Well, does the image of this 'argumentative Indian' ring true even in the 21st century? Are we still argumentative in nature? Undoubtedly, yes. But are we argumentative in the right perspective?
Let us take a stock of some of the incidents that have taken place both in the state (Andhra Pradesh)- and national-level in the recent past.
A few days ago, Priyanka Chopra came in for a lot of flak about the way she dressed herself up when she called on the Prime Minister of India, Mr Narendra Modi, in Berlin, during the latter's four-nation trip. That's not all. The Internet also trolled her for the way she sat in front of Mr Modi. Apparently, neither her dress nor the way she sat was suggestive of defiance of acceptable protocol. Indian media was abound in debates and discussions on the issue for two days that followed the incident. Well, fortunately, most of the debates were in support of Ms Chopra. However, there were a good number of people, especially from the hindutva groups, who accused Ms Chopra of making a deviation from the acceptable norms of behaviour.
What is acceptable behaviour, and what is not? If an Indian woman arrives at a party in a skirt, is it a deviation from our dress code or an assertion of the right of her personal choice? Can we question a woman's modesty just by considering what she wears? In this case, has Ms Chopra deviated from the norm or has asserted her independence? According to me, she asserted her independence. Instead of appreciating Ms Chopra's efforts to succeed on the international ground, most of us have seemed to question and argue about her personal choice in a narrow-minded way.
The second incident that brought out the wrong argumentative Indian was from my state, Andhra Pradesh. Last evening, some people from the Brahmin community of my state accused the makers of a forthcoming Telugu movie of misusing a few Vedic chants of Lord Shiva in a song. They also expressed that the song "hurt" their feelings, and approached the Censor Board about the issue.
A careful attention to the song will reveal that the lyrics were least suggestive of hurting the religious or Brahminical feelings. Then, what was the protest for? Was it worthy protesting? Should we not consider a film as a film? Should we read a lot of things into it?
We argue about killing the cow, but we least argue about thousands of cows which die every year of eating hazardous plastic carrier bags. We argue about girls wearing the western outfit, but we do not argue in favour of asserting their rights and freedom of choice. We also argue about criminalising Section 377, but we do not argue about embracing and accepting different sexual orientations.
When are we going to graduate from the stage of narrow-minded questioning and arguing?
Well, does the image of this 'argumentative Indian' ring true even in the 21st century? Are we still argumentative in nature? Undoubtedly, yes. But are we argumentative in the right perspective?
Let us take a stock of some of the incidents that have taken place both in the state (Andhra Pradesh)- and national-level in the recent past.
A few days ago, Priyanka Chopra came in for a lot of flak about the way she dressed herself up when she called on the Prime Minister of India, Mr Narendra Modi, in Berlin, during the latter's four-nation trip. That's not all. The Internet also trolled her for the way she sat in front of Mr Modi. Apparently, neither her dress nor the way she sat was suggestive of defiance of acceptable protocol. Indian media was abound in debates and discussions on the issue for two days that followed the incident. Well, fortunately, most of the debates were in support of Ms Chopra. However, there were a good number of people, especially from the hindutva groups, who accused Ms Chopra of making a deviation from the acceptable norms of behaviour.
What is acceptable behaviour, and what is not? If an Indian woman arrives at a party in a skirt, is it a deviation from our dress code or an assertion of the right of her personal choice? Can we question a woman's modesty just by considering what she wears? In this case, has Ms Chopra deviated from the norm or has asserted her independence? According to me, she asserted her independence. Instead of appreciating Ms Chopra's efforts to succeed on the international ground, most of us have seemed to question and argue about her personal choice in a narrow-minded way.
The second incident that brought out the wrong argumentative Indian was from my state, Andhra Pradesh. Last evening, some people from the Brahmin community of my state accused the makers of a forthcoming Telugu movie of misusing a few Vedic chants of Lord Shiva in a song. They also expressed that the song "hurt" their feelings, and approached the Censor Board about the issue.
A careful attention to the song will reveal that the lyrics were least suggestive of hurting the religious or Brahminical feelings. Then, what was the protest for? Was it worthy protesting? Should we not consider a film as a film? Should we read a lot of things into it?
We argue about killing the cow, but we least argue about thousands of cows which die every year of eating hazardous plastic carrier bags. We argue about girls wearing the western outfit, but we do not argue in favour of asserting their rights and freedom of choice. We also argue about criminalising Section 377, but we do not argue about embracing and accepting different sexual orientations.
When are we going to graduate from the stage of narrow-minded questioning and arguing?
As long as we continue arguing about the wrong reasons, we continue to be a pack of wrong argumentative Indians.
Nice article. I've enjoyed reading your post.
ReplyDelete