Nuanced argument RIP
“I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to my last breath your right to say it”
François-Marie Arouet, aka Voltaire
The liberalisation of the economy brought with it a fresh wave of thinking—one that was unfettered by historic baggage. That, however, proved to be a flash in the pan as one now risks being branded by ideology, or, rather, by the lack of it. So, being a communist implies a deeprooted suspicion of anything that originates in the US— maybe things wouldn’t be so bad for them if they only added two more alphabets, S and R, to the abbreviation. The nuclear deal is bad for the country only because it’s with the US. The current global financial crisis, as our communist friends gleefully point out, signals the death of capitalism. Counter that argument that it’s not capitalism that is dead but a diseased clone of it, which is being given the final farewell, and you are just a twitch short of being branded an enemy of the people.
The communists, though, do have illustrious company— regional chauvinism as manifested by the hoodlums let loose by Raj Thackeray, who is desperately searching for a political base as elections loom large. Interestingly, he’s gone a step ahead of Bush—you can only be with him in his Marathi Manoos campaign. Going against him means risk to life and limb. Surprisingly, Thackeray Junior appears to have found support from expatriate Maharashtrians in the US—who would be well advised to remember that they, too, are living in somebody else’s land and could face the wrath of Americans staring at possible job losses. That Maharashtrians residing elsewhere in the country could end up paying for Thackeray’s indiscretions is an argument lost on the MNS Chief, who equates a shrill voice with political bravado.
Then, of course, there’s the whole secularismversus-terrorism debate, where defending members of a particular minority “implies” support to terrorist elements while contemplating the thought that a few members of that community could be involved in bloody crimes will get you instant gratification from the fascist brigade, and opprobrium from the “secular-liberals”. Defend your religious beliefs and the “liberals” will once again pounce on you, labelling you orthodox and ultraradical. Criticise or debate on them, and you’ll get a religious edict issued against you.
For a nation that prides itself on being the largest democracy— just by the sheer numbers inhabiting our square footage—we certainly deserve the epithet of a faux democracy, and not just because leaders here are nominated on the basis of their loyalty rather than their electoral popularity. Opposition to dearly-held beliefs is simply not tolerated, and verbose arguments are dispensed with in favour of physical ones.
As a nation that regularly stakes claim to being the leading light of the infant century that we are living in, it will, perhaps, be better to drill into our collective psyche that disagreements do not necessarily imply mortal enmity. The nuanced argument, so important for rational discourse, has died out, at least in the public domain, and its place has been taken by doctrinaire and politically-motivated positions. Voltaire’s thoughts, penned three centuries ago, hold as much promise and hope today as they did in his lifetime. Heeding them might just prevent us from turning into a nation of caricatures.
