The Argumentative Indian Summary and Line by Line Explanation
CBSE Class 12 English (Elective) Non Fiction Chapter 5 – The Argumentative Indian Summary, Explanation along with Difficult Word Meanings from Kaleidoscope Book
The Argumentative Indian Summary – Are you looking for the summary, theme and lesson explanation for CBSE Class 12 English (Elective) Non Fiction Chapter 5 – The Argumentative Indian from English Kaleidoscope Book. Get Lesson summary, theme, explanation along with difficult word meanings
CBSE Class 12 English (Elective) Non Fiction Chapter 5 – The Argumentative Indian
Amartya Sen
In “The Argumentative Indian,” Amartya Sen highlights India’s rich tradition of public debate and intellectual discourse as central to its identity and democracy. He emphasizes that Indian history is characterized by constant questioning and engagement rather than mere acceptance.
- The Argumentative Indian Summary
- The Argumentative Indian Summary in Hindi
- The Argumentative Indian Theme
- The Argumentative Indian Explanation
Related:
The Argumentative Indian Summary
Amartya Sen’s essay, ‘The Argumentative Indian’, looks at India’s history of dialogue and argumentation, focusing on the Mahabharata and the Bhagavad Gita. It also examines issues of gender and social inequality in participation.
The Dialogue of Duty and Consequences
Sen highlights the role of dialogue in Indian culture, especially the moral dilemmas in the Mahabharata. He points out India’s long tradition of questioning and debating. In the Mahabharata, particularly in the Bhagavad Gita, there is a debate between duty and the consequences of actions. Arjuna’s doubts about the righteousness of war show the importance of thinking about the results of one’s actions. Krishna argues for duty over consequences, a viewpoint that connects to various philosophical ideas, including those of T.S. Eliot.
J. Robert Oppenheimer’s thoughts on the atomic bomb reflect Arjuna’s dilemma, as he questions whether destructive actions can be justified. Sen calls for a balanced view that considers both Krishna’s focus on duty and Arjuna’s concerns about the outcomes, relevant to current global issues. He argues for a better understanding of moral debates that goes beyond the Gita’s simple message. Sen critiques Krishna’s stance, encouraging respectful discussion about the complexities of moral choices in both history and modern life.
Gender and Class in Indian Argumentation
Sen addresses the roles of gender, class, and caste in India’s tradition of argumentation, highlighting the involvement of women. Although men have often led this tradition, women have also played important roles in politics and intellectual fields. For instance, Sarojini Naidu was the first woman President of the Indian National Congress in 1925, fifty years before Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister in the UK. Ancient texts like the Upanishads include women, such as Gargi and Maitreyi, who asked deep questions and engaged in debates.
The Mahabharata shows women’s impact through characters like Draupadi, who pushes her husband, Yudhisthira, to seek justice. Disadvantaged groups have historically used argumentation to challenge established beliefs, helping spread Buddhism and Jainism. Poets from medieval times, like Kabir and Mira Bai, came from humble backgrounds and rejected social barriers, promoting equality. This tradition of argument continues to be important in addressing modern inequalities in Indian society, emphasizing the voices of the less privileged. Sen believes that strong arguments often come from the disadvantaged, contrary to the idea that argumentation only benefits the privileged.
The Role of Argument in Indian Democracy
Sen underscores the significance of public argument in shaping India’s democracy and cultural diversity. He claims that India’s tradition of public reasoning has greatly shaped its democratic development and secular values. The roots of democracy in India are closely linked to its tradition of public debate, not just to British influence. Sen insists that democracy involves public discussion and reasoning, which exists worldwide, not just in the West. He aims to dispel myths that view democracy in India as merely a Western import or that suggest India is uniquely suited for it. The tradition of interactive reasoning has helped establish and maintain democracy in India, highlighting its unique position in the non-Western world.
Summary of the Lesson The Argumentative Indian in Hindi
अमर्त्य सेन का निबंध, ‘द आर्ग्यूमेंटेटिव इंडियन’, महाभारत और भगवद गीता पर ध्यान केंद्रित करते हुए भारत के संवाद और तर्क के इतिहास को देखता है। यह भागीदारी में लैंगिक और सामाजिक असमानता के मुद्दों की भी जांच करता है।
कर्तव्य और परिणामों का संवाद
सेन भारतीय संस्कृति में संवाद की भूमिका, विशेष रूप से महाभारत में नैतिक दुविधाओं पर प्रकाश डालते हैं। वे सवाल पूछने और बहस करने की भारत की लंबी परंपरा की ओर इशारा करते हैं। महाभारत में, विशेष रूप से भगवद गीता में, कर्तव्य और कर्मों के परिणामों के बीच बहस है। युद्ध की धार्मिकता के बारे में अर्जुन के संदेह अपने कार्यों के परिणामों के बारे में सोचने के महत्व को दर्शाते हैं। कृष्ण परिणामों पर कर्तव्य के लिए तर्क देते हैं, एक दृष्टिकोण जो T.S. सहित विभिन्न दार्शनिक विचारों से जुड़ता है। एलियट।
परमाणु बम पर जे. रॉबर्ट ओपेनहाइमर के विचार अर्जुन की दुविधा को दर्शाते हैं, क्योंकि वह सवाल करते हैं कि क्या विनाशकारी कार्यों को उचित ठहराया जा सकता है। सेन एक संतुलित दृष्टिकोण का आह्वान करते हैं जो कृष्ण के कर्तव्य पर ध्यान केंद्रित करने और परिणामों के बारे में अर्जुन की चिंताओं दोनों को वर्तमान वैश्विक मुद्दों के लिए प्रासंगिक मानता है। वह नैतिक बहसों की बेहतर समझ के लिए तर्क देते हैं जो गीता के सरल संदेश से परे है। सेन इतिहास और आधुनिक जीवन दोनों में नैतिक विकल्पों की जटिलताओं के बारे में सम्मानजनक चर्चा को प्रोत्साहित करते हुए कृष्ण के रुख की आलोचना करते हैं।
भारतीय तर्क में लिंग और वर्ग
सेन भारत की तर्क की परंपरा में लिंग, वर्ग और जाति की भूमिकाओं को संबोधित करते हैं, जिसमें महिलाओं की भागीदारी पर प्रकाश डाला गया है। हालाँकि पुरुषों ने अक्सर इस परंपरा का नेतृत्व किया है, लेकिन महिलाओं ने राजनीति और बौद्धिक क्षेत्रों में भी महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभाई है। उदाहरण के लिए, मार्गरेट थैचर के ब्रिटेन में प्रधानमंत्री बनने से पचास साल पहले, 1925 में सरोजिनी नायडू भारतीय राष्ट्रीय कांग्रेस की पहली महिला अध्यक्ष थीं। उपनिषद जैसे प्राचीन ग्रंथों में गार्गी और मैत्रेयी जैसी महिलाएं शामिल हैं, जो गहरे सवाल पूछती थीं और बहस में शामिल होती थीं।
महाभारत द्रौपदी जैसे पात्रों के माध्यम से महिलाओं के प्रभाव को दर्शाता है, जो अपने पति युधिष्ठिर को न्याय पाने के लिए प्रेरित करती है। वंचित समूहों ने ऐतिहासिक रूप से स्थापित मान्यताओं को चुनौती देने के लिए तर्क का उपयोग किया है, जिससे बौद्ध धर्म और जैन धर्म के प्रसार में मदद मिली है। कबीर और मीरा बाई जैसे मध्ययुगीन काल के कवि विनम्र पृष्ठभूमि से आए थे और उन्होंने समानता को बढ़ावा देते हुए सामाजिक बाधाओं को खारिज कर दिया था। तर्क की यह परंपरा भारतीय समाज में आधुनिक असमानताओं को दूर करने में महत्वपूर्ण बनी हुई है, जो कम विशेषाधिकार प्राप्त लोगों की आवाज पर जोर देती है। सेन का मानना है कि मजबूत तर्क अक्सर वंचितों से आते हैं, इस विचार के विपरीत कि तर्क से केवल विशेषाधिकार प्राप्त लोगों को लाभ होता है।
भारतीय लोकतंत्र में तर्क की भूमिका
सेन भारत के लोकतंत्र और सांस्कृतिक विविधता को आकार देने में सार्वजनिक तर्क के महत्व को रेखांकित करते हैं। उनका दावा है कि भारत की सार्वजनिक तर्क की परंपरा ने इसके लोकतांत्रिक विकास और धर्मनिरपेक्ष मूल्यों को बहुत आकार दिया है। भारत में लोकतंत्र की जड़ें सार्वजनिक बहस की इसकी परंपरा से निकटता से जुड़ी हुई हैं, न कि केवल ब्रिटिश प्रभाव से। सेन इस बात पर जोर देते हैं कि लोकतंत्र में सार्वजनिक चर्चा और तर्क शामिल हैं, जो न केवल पश्चिम में बल्कि दुनिया भर में मौजूद है। उनका उद्देश्य उन मिथकों को दूर करना है जो भारत में लोकतंत्र को केवल एक पश्चिमी आयात के रूप में देखते हैं या जो सुझाव देते हैं कि भारत इसके लिए विशिष्ट रूप से उपयुक्त है। अंतःक्रियात्मक तर्क की परंपरा ने भारत में लोकतंत्र को स्थापित करने और बनाए रखने में मदद की है, जो गैर-पश्चिमी दुनिया में इसकी अनूठी स्थिति को उजागर करती है।
The Argumentative Indian Themes
Diversity and Inclusivity
Sen looks at India’s special kind of secularism, which allows different religions and cultures to coexist. He emphasizes that India’s diversity and pluralism are strengths that help the country thrive. Sen believes that discussions should include a wide range of voices, especially from marginalized communities.
Critique of Western Perceptions
Amartya Sen critiques Western views of India, arguing that they often overlook the country’s intellectual depth and argumentative heritage, while Indian women participated in debate earlier than the women from western countries.
Argumentative Tradition
India has a strong tradition of debate and discussion that has shaped its history and culture. This tradition plays a crucial role in India’s intellectual and political life. It connects to the country’s democratic processes and highlights the value of public discussion in developing policies and making decisions. The essay underscores the need for public reasoning and critical thinking to tackle modern issues and advance social justice.
The Argumentative Indian Lesson Explanation
Passage – Prolixity is not alien to us in India. We are able to talk at some length. Krishna Menon’s* record of the longest speech ever delivered at the United Nations (nine hours non-stop), established half a century ago (when Menon was leading the Indian delegation), has not been equalled by anyone from anywhere. Other peaks of loquaciousness have been scaled by other Indians. We do like to speak.
This is not a new habit. The ancient Sanskrit epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, which are frequently compared with the Iliad and the Odyssey, are colossally longer than the works that the modest Homer could manage. Indeed, the Mahabharata alone is about seven times as long as the Iliad and the Odyssey put together. The Ramayana and the Mahabharata are certainly great epics: I recall with much joy how my own life was vastly enriched when I encountered them first as a restless youngster looking for intellectual stimulation as well as sheer entertainment. But they proceed from stories to stories woven around their principal tales, and are engagingly full of dialogues, dilemmas and alternative perspectives. And we encounter masses of arguments and counterarguments spread over incessant debates and disputations.
Word meanings
Prolixity: the state of being unnecessarily wordy or long-winded, often to the point of being boring or tedious.
delegation: the act of empowering to act for another; the delegation of responsibilities
loquaciousness: the quality or state of being very talkative or chatty.
colossally: extremely or very much, often implying a degree of greatness, size, or importance that is awe-inspiring.
modest: unassuming in the estimation of one’s abilities or achievements.
enriched: to make rich or richer especially by the addition or increase of some desirable quality, attribute, or ingredient.
stimulation: encouragement of something to make it develop or become more active.
dilemmas: a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially ones that are equally undesirable.
counter arguments: an argument or set of reasons put forward to oppose an idea or theory developed in another argument.
incessant: continuing without pause or interruption.
disputations: debate or argument.
Explanation of the above passage—Prolixity, or talking at length, is common in India. Indians are known for their ability to speak extensively. Krishna Menon set a record for the longest speech at the United Nations, lasting nine hours without a break. This record, established over fifty years ago when Menon led the Indian delegation, still stands unmatched. Other Indians have also demonstrated great verbosity. People enjoy expressing themselves. This tendency to speak a lot is not new. The ancient Sanskrit epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are much longer than Homer’s works, the Iliad and the Odyssey. The Mahabharata alone is about seven times longer than both of Homer’s epics combined. Both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are significant stories. The narrator remembers how his life was greatly enriched when he first read them as a curious young person seeking knowledge and entertainment. These epics tell many stories and include engaging dialogues, dilemmas, and different viewpoints. They are filled with arguments and counterarguments, leading to ongoing debates and discussions.
[* Krishna Menon was India’s Defence Minister from 1957 to 1962. He led the Indian delegation to the United Nations, and on 23 January 1957 delivered an unprecedented 9-hour speech defending India’s stand on Kashmir]
Passage
Dialogue and Significance
The arguments are also, often enough, quite substantive. For example, the famous Bhagavad Gita, which is one small section of the Mahabharata, presents a tussle between two contrary moral positions —Krishna’s emphasis on doing one’s duty, on one side, and Arjuna’s focus on avoiding bad consequences (and generating good ones), on the other. The debate occurs on the eve of the great war that is a central event in the Mahabharata. Watching the two armies readying for war, profound doubts about the correctness of what they are doing are raised by Arjuna, the peerless and invincible warrior in the army of the just and honourable royal family (the Pandavas) who are about to fight the unjust usurpers (the Kauravas).
Arjuna questions whether it is right to be concerned only with one’s duty to promote a just cause and be indifferent to the misery and the slaughter—even of one’s kin—that the war itself would undoubtedly cause. Krishna, a divine incarnation in the form of a human being (in fact, he is also Arjuna’s charioteer), argues against Arjuna. His response takes the form of articulating principles of action— based on the priority of doing one’s duty—which have been repeated again and again in Indian philosophy. Krishna insists on Arjuna’s duty to fight, irrespective of his evaluation of the consequences. It is a just cause, and, as a warrior and a general on whom his side must rely, Arjuna cannot waver from his obligations, no matter what the consequences are.
Word meanings
substantive: having a firm basis in reality and so important, meaningful, or considerable.
tussle: a vigorous struggle or scuffle, typically in order to obtain or achieve something.
profound: very great or intense.
invincible: too powerful to be defeated or overcome.
usurpers: a person who takes a position of power or importance illegally or by force.
slaughter: kill (animals) for food.
incarnation: a person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit, or quality.
articulating: pronounce (something) clearly and distinctly.
waver: become weaker; falter.
obligations: an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment.
Explanation of the above passage—The arguments in this text are important. The Bhagavad Gita, a key section of the Mahabharata, shows a struggle between two different moral views. On one side, Krishna emphasizes the importance of doing one’s duty. On the other side, Arjuna wants to avoid bad outcomes and create good ones. This debate takes place just before a major war in the Mahabharata.
Arjuna, a brave warrior fighting for the just Pandavas against the unjust Kauravas, has doubts about going to war. He questions whether it is right to focus only on duty to a just cause while ignoring the suffering and death, even of family members, that the war will cause. Krishna, who is both a divine being and Arjuna’s charioteer, disagrees with Arjuna.
Krishna explains that Arjuna must prioritize his duty to fight, regardless of the consequences. He insists that because the cause is just and Arjuna is an important warrior, he cannot hesitate or waver from his responsibilities, no matter what happens.
Passage – Krishna’s hallowing of the demands of duty wins the argument, at least as seen in the religious perspective. Indeed, Krishna’s conversations with Arjuna, the Bhagavad Gita, became a treatise of great theological importance in Hindu philosophy, focusing particularly on the ‘removal’ of Arjuna’s doubts. Krishna’s moral position has also been eloquently endorsed by many philosophical and literary commentators across the world, such as Christopher Isherwood and T. S. Eliot. Isherwood in fact translated the Bhagavad Gita into English. This admiration for the Gita, and for Krishna’s arguments in particular, has been a lasting phenomenon in parts of European culture. It was spectacularly praised in the early nineteenth century by Wilhelm von Humboldt as ‘the most beautiful, perhaps the only true philosophical song existing in any known tongue’. In a poem in Four Quartets, Eliot summarises Krishna’s view in the form of an admonishment: ‘And do not think of the fruit of action! Fare forward’. Eliot explains: ‘Not fare well/But fare forward, voyagers’.
And yet, as a debate in which there are two reasonable sides, the epic Mahabharata itself presents, sequentially, each of the two contrary arguments with much care and sympathy. Indeed, the tragic desolation that the postcombat and post-carnage land—largely the Indo-Gangetic plain—seems to face towards the end of the Mahabharata can even be seen as something of a vindication of Arjuna’s profound doubts. Arjuna’s contrary arguments are not really vanquished, no matter what the ‘message’ of the Bhagavad Gita is meant to be. There remains a powerful case for ‘faring well’, and not just ‘forward’.*
Word meanings
hallowing: honour as holy.
treatise: a written work dealing formally and systematically with a subject.
theological: relating to the study of the nature of God and religious belief.
eloquently: in a fluent or persuasive manner.
endorsed: declare one’s public approval or support of.
philosophical: relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
spectacularly: in an impressive, dramatic, or eye-catching way.
Quartets: a set of four people or things.
admonishment: a firm warning or reprimand.
voyagers: travelers who undertake long journeys, particularly by sea or into space, often to unknown or distant lands or regions.
sequentially: by forming or following a logical order or sequence.
desolation: a state of complete emptiness or destruction.
postcombat: happening or situated after a period of combat.
post-carnage: the aftermath or period following an event characterized by violence and widespread destruction, especially involving the killing of large numbers of people
vindication: the action of clearing someone of blame or suspicion.
vanquished: defeat thoroughly.
Explanation of the above passage—Krishna’s emphasis on duty influences the argument, especially from a religious viewpoint. His talks with Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita have become important in Hindu philosophy, as they focus on clearing Arjuna’s doubts. Many thinkers and writers, like Christopher Isherwood and T. S. Eliot have supported Krishna’s moral stance. Isherwood translated the Bhagavad Gita into English. The respect for the Gita and Krishna’s points has been a significant part of some European cultures. Wilhelm von Humboldt praised it in the early nineteenth century as the most beautiful, perhaps the only true philosophical song existing in any known tongue. In his poem Four Quartets, Eliot captures Krishna’s message when he says to not think of the fruit of action! Fare forward. Eliot added that it is not important to fare well but fare forward, voyagers.
However, the Mahabharata presents two reasonable sides to the debate. It carefully shows both arguments with empathy. The sadness felt after the battle, especially in the Indo-Gangetic plain, supports Arjuna’s deep doubts. Arjuna’s arguments are not completely defeated, despite the Bhagavad Gita’s intended message. There is still a strong case for “faring well,” not just “forward”.
* As a high-school student, when I asked my Sanskrit teacher whether it would be permissible to say that the divine Krishna got away with an incomplete and unconvincing argument, he replied: ‘Maybe you could say that, but you must say it with adequate respect.’ I have presented elsewhere a critique—I hope with adequate respect—of Krishna’s deontology, alongwith a defence of Arjuna’s consequential perspective, in ‘Consequential Evaluation and Practical Reason’, Journal of Philosophy 97 (Sept. 2000).
Passage – Robert Oppenheimer, the leader of the American team that developed the ultimate ‘weapon of mass destruction’ during the Second World War, was moved to quote Krishna’s words (‘I am become death, the destroyer of worlds’) as he watched, on 16 July 1945, the awesome force of the first nuclear explosion devised by man. Like the advice that Arjuna had received about his duty as a warrior fighting for a just cause, Oppenheimer, the physicist, could well find justification in his technical commitment to develop a bomb for what was clearly the right side. Scrutinizing—indeed criticising—his own actions, Oppenheimer said later on: ‘When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success.’ Despite that compulsion to ‘fare forward’, there was reason also for reflecting on Arjuna’s concerns: How can good come from killing so many people? And why should I seek victory, kingdom or happiness for my own side?
These arguments remain thoroughly relevant in the contemporary world. The case for doing what one sees as one’s duty must be strong, but how can we be indifferent to the consequences that may follow from our doing what we take to be our just duty? As we reflect on the manifest problems of our global world (from terrorism, wars and violence to epidemics, insecurity and gruelling poverty), or on India’s special concerns (such as economic development, nuclear confrontation or regional peace), it is important to take on board Arjuna’s consequential analysis, in addition to considering Krishna’s arguments for doing one’s duty. The univocal ‘message of the Gita’ requires supplementation by the broader argumentative wisdom of the Mahabharata, of which the Gita is only one small part.
Word meanings
compulsion: the action or state of forcing or being forced to do something; constraint.
contemporary: living or occurring at the same time.
indifferent: having no particular interest or sympathy; unconcerned.
manifest: clear or obvious to the eye or mind.
epidemics: a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time.
gruelling: extremely tiring and demanding.
consequential: following as a result or effect.
univocal: having only one possible meaning; unambiguous.
supplementation: the addition of an extra element or amount to something.
argumentative: given to arguing.
wisdom: the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgement; the quality of being wise.
Explanations of the above passage— J. Robert Oppenheimer led the American team that developed the atomic bomb during World War II. He quoted Krishna’s words that he has become death, the destroyer of worlds, as he witnessed the first nuclear explosion on 16 July 1945. Oppenheimer felt justified in creating the bomb because he believed he was on the right side of the war, much like Arjuna, the warrior who received guidance about his duty. Oppenheimer later reflected on his actions, saying that when one sees something that is technically sweet, they go ahead and do it, and they argue about it only after they succeed. Despite this drive to proceed, he also pondered Arjuna’s worries about how can the result of killing so many people be good and why he should seek victory and happiness for his own side.
These questions are still important today. People need to be strong in their duty, but they must also think about the consequences of their actions. As they consider the serious issues in their world today like terrorism, wars, violence, epidemics, insecurity, and poverty. India’s specific challenges with economic development, nuclear threats, and regional peace, one should remember Arjuna’s focus on the results. People should take into account both Krishna’s advice on duty and the wider lessons found in the Mahabharata since the Gita is just one part of it.
Passage
Gender, Caste and Voice
There is, however, a serious question to be asked as to whether the tradition of arguments and disputations has been confined to an exclusive part of the Indian population—perhaps just to the members of the male elite. It would, of course, be hard to expect that argumentational participation would be uniformly distributed over all segments of the population, but India has had deep inequalities along the lines of gender, class, caste and community (on which more presently). The social relevance of the argumentative tradition would be severely limited if disadvantaged sections were effectively barred from participation. The story here is, however, much more complex than a simple generalisation can capture.
I begin with gender. There can be little doubt that men have tended, by and large, to rule the roost in argumentative moves in India. But despite that, the participation of women in both political leadership and intellectual pursuits has not been at all negligible. This is obvious enough today, particularly in politics. Indeed, many of the dominant political parties in India—national as well as regional—are currently led by women and have been so led in the past. But even in the national movement for Indian independence, led by the Congress Party, there were many more women in positions of importance than in the Russian and Chinese revolutionary movements put together. It is also perhaps worth noting that Sarojini Naidu, the first woman President of the Indian National Congress, was elected in 1925, fifty years earlier than the election of the first woman leader of a major British political party (Margaret Thatcher in 1975).* The second woman head of the Indian National Congress, Nellie Sengupta, was elected in 1933.
Word meanings
disputations: debate or argument.
generalisation: a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases.
rule the roost: be in complete control.
Explanation of the above passage—There is an important question about whether the tradition of debating has been limited to a select part of the Indian population, particularly the male elite. It is hard to expect that everyone would participate equally in arguments, but India has serious inequalities related to gender, class, caste, and community. If the disadvantaged groups cannot participate, the significance of this argumentative tradition is greatly reduced. However, the situation is more complex than it might seem.
The narrator focuses on gender. Generally, men have dominated discussions and debates in India. However, women have also made significant contributions to politics and intellectual fields. This is especially clear in today’s political landscape. Many major political parties, both national and regional, are currently led by women and have been doing so in the past. For instance, during the national movement for Indian independence, the Congress Party had many women in key roles, more than in the revolutionary movements of Russia and China combined. It is also notable that Sarojini Naidu became the first woman President of the Indian National Congress in 1925, which was fifty years earlier than when Margaret Thatcher became the first woman leader of a major British political party in 1975. The second woman to lead the Indian National Congress, Nellie Sengupta, was elected in 1933.
[* The Presidentship of the Congress Party was not by any means a formal position only. Indeed, the election of Subhas Chandra Bose (the fiery spokesman of the increasing—and increasingly forceful—resistance to the British Raj) as the President of Congress in 1938 and in 1939 led to a great inner-party tussle, with Mohandas Gandhi working tirelessly to oust Bose. This was secured—not entirely with propriety or elegance—shortly after Bose’s Presidential Address proposing a strict ‘time limit’ for the British to quit India or to face a less nonviolent opposition. The role of the Congress President in directing the Party has remained important. In the general elections in 2004, when Sonia Gandhi emerged victorious as the President of Congress, she chose to remain in that position, rather than take up the role of Prime Minister.]
Passage – Earlier or later, these developments are products of relatively recent times. But what about the distant past? Women’s traditional role in debates and discussions has certainly been much less pronounced than that of men in India (as would also be true of most countries in the world). But it would be a mistake to think that vocal leadership by women is completely out of line with anything that has happened in India’s past. Indeed, even if we go back all the way to ancient India, some of the most celebrated dialogues have involved women, with the sharpest questionings often coming from women interlocutors. This can be traced back even to the Upanisads—the dialectical treatises that were composed from about the eighth century BCE and which are often taken to be foundations of Hindu philosophy.
For example, in the Brihadaranyaka Upanisad we are told about the famous ‘arguing combat’ in which Yajnavalkya, the outstanding scholar and teacher, has to face questions from the assembled gathering of pundits, and here it is a woman scholar, Gargi, who provides the sharpest edge to the intellectual interrogation. She enters the fray without any special modesty: ‘Venerable Brahmins, with your permission I shall ask him two questions only. If he is able to answer those questions of mine, then none of you can ever defeat him in expounding the nature of God.’
Even though Gargi, as an intellectual and pedagogue, is no military leader (in the mode, for example, of the Rani of Jhansi—another feminine hero—who fought valiantly along with the ‘mutineers’ in the middle of the nineteenth century against British rule—one of the great ‘warriorqueens’ of the world, as Antonia Fraser describes her), her use of imagery is strikingly militant: ‘Yajnavalkya, I have two questions for you. Like the ruler of Videha or Kasi [Benares], coming from a heroic line, who strings his unstrung bow, takes in hand two penetrating arrows and approaches the enemy, so do I approach you with two questions, which you have to answer.’ Yajnavalkya does, however, manage to satisfy Gargi with his answers (I am not competent to examine the theological merits of this interchange and will refrain from commenting on the substantive content of their discussion). Gargi acknowledges this handsomely, but again without undue modesty: ‘Venerable Brahmins, you should consider it an achievement if you can get away after bowing to him. Certainly, none of you can ever defeat him in expounding the nature of God.’
Word meanings
interlocutors: a person who takes part in a dialogue or conversation.
pedagogue: a teacher, especially a strict or pedantic one.
valiantly: with courage or determination.
mutineers: a person, especially a soldier or sailor, who rebels or refuses to obey the orders of a person in authority.
strikingly: in a way that attracts attention by reason of being unusual, extreme, or prominent.
militant: favouring confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause.
penetrating: able to make a way through or into something.
theological: relating to the study of the nature of God and religious belief.
substantive: having a firm basis in reality and so important, meaningful, or considerable.
modesty: the quality or state of being unassuming in the estimation of one’s abilities.
Venerable: accorded a great deal of respect, especially because of age, wisdom, or character.
expounding: present and explain (a theory or idea) in detail.
Explanation of the above passage—Sooner or later, these advancements are the results of comparatively recent times. But the narrator questions how this relates to the far-off past. The conventional role of women in debates and discussions has undoubtedly been less prominent than that of men in India, which is also true for many countries across the globe. However, it would be erroneous to assume that women’s vocal leadership is entirely inconsistent with India’s historical context. In fact, when we look back to ancient India, some of the most renowned dialogues included women, with the most incisive inquiries often coming from female participants. This can be traced back to the Upanisads—the philosophical dialectical texts created around the eighth century BCE, often regarded as the foundational works of Hindu philosophy.
For instance, in the Brihadaranyaka Upanisad, there is a famous ‘arguing combat’ in which Yajnavalkya, a distinguished scholar and educator, faces questions from a gathering of pundits, and here it is a female scholar, Gargi, who adds the most critical edge to the intellectual examination. She enters the debate without any particular modesty and asks permission from the Respected Brahmins to pose only two questions. If he can answer these, then none of them can ever beat him in explaining the nature of God.
Although Gargi, as an intellectual and educator, is not a military leader, unlike the Rani of Jhansi, another notable feminine figure who fought bravely alongside the ‘mutineers’ against British rule in the mid-nineteenth century, one of the legendary ‘warrior queens’ of history, as highlighted by Antonia Fraser. Gargi’s choice of language is notably combative when she asks Yajnavalkya, about the two inquiries for him. She is like a leader from Videha or Kasi [Benares], descending from a valiant line, who prepares his unstrung bow, grasps two sharp arrows, and moves towards the enemy, she comes to him with two questions that he must answer. Yajnavalkya, however, can satisfy Gargi with his responses as he is not qualified to assess the theological significance of this exchange and will abstain from commenting on the substantive content of their dialogue. Gargi acknowledges this generously, yet again without excessive modesty, by acknowledging the Esteemed Brahmins; they should consider it a feat if they can leave after bowing to them. Certainly, none of them can ever surpass him in elucidating the nature of God.
Passage – Interestingly, Yajnavalkya’s wife Maitreyi raises a profoundly important motivational question when the two discuss the reach of wealth in the context of the problems and predicaments of human life, in particular what wealth can or cannot do for us. Maitreyi wonders whether it could be the case that if ‘the whole earth, full of wealth’ were to belong just to her, she could achieve immortality through it. ‘No’, responds Yajnavalkya, ‘like the life of rich people will be your life. But there is no hope of immortality by wealth’. Maitreyi remarks: ‘What should I do with that by which I do not become immortal?’
Maitreyi’s rhetorical question has been repeatedly cited in Indian religious philosophy to illustrate both the nature of the human predicament and the limitations of the material world. But there is another aspect of this exchange that has, in some ways, more immediate interest. This concerns the relation—and the distance—between income and achievement, between the commodities we can buy and the actual capabilities we can enjoy, between our economic wealth and our ability to live as we would like.* While there is a connection between opulence and our ability to achieve what we value, the linkage may or may not be very close. Maitreyi’s worldly worries might well have some transcendental relevance (as Indian religious commentators have discussed over many centuries), but they certainly have worldly interest as well. If we are concerned with the freedom to live long and live well, our focus has to be directly on life and death, and not just on wealth and economic opulence.
Word meanings
rhetorical: (of a question) asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information.
predicament: a difficult, unpleasant, or embarrassing situation.
immortality: the ability to live forever; eternal life.
transcendental: relating to a spiritual realm.
opulence: great wealth or luxuriousness.
Explanation of the above passage—Yajnavalkya’s wife, Maitreyi, asks an important question during their discussion about wealth and its role in human life. She wonders if having all the wealth in the world could help her achieve immortality. Yajnavalkya replies that even with great wealth, one cannot gain immortality. Maitreyi then questions the worthiness of it, which cannot make her immortal.
Maitreyi’s question has been quoted in Indian philosophy to show the challenges of human life and the limits of material wealth. However, another important point from their conversation focuses on the relationship between income and true achievement. This includes how what people can buy relates to their actual abilities and desires. While wealth may help them reach certain values, the connection is not always strong. Maitreyi’s concerns have both spiritual and practical significance. If they care about living well and for a long time, they should focus on life and death, not just wealth and luxuries.
[* Maitreyi’s central question (‘what should I do with that by which I do not become immortal?’) was useful for me to motivate and explain an understanding of development that is not parasitic on judging development by the growth of GNP or GDP; see my Development as Freedom ( New York: Knopf, and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. I.]
Passage – The arguments presented by women speakers in epics and classical tales, or in recorded history, do not always conform to the tender and peace-loving image that is often assigned to women. In the epic story of the Mahabharata, the good King Yudhisthira, reluctant to engage in a bloody battle, is encouraged to fight the usurpers of his throne with ‘appropriate anger’, and the most eloquent instigator is his wife, Draupadi.
In the sixth-century version of this dialogue, presented in the Kiratarjuniya by Bharavi, Draupadi speaks thus—
For a woman to advise men like you
is almost an insult.
And yet, my deep troubles compel me
to overstep the limits of womanly conduct,
make me speak up.
The kings of your race, brave as Indra,
have for a long time ruled the earth without a break.
But now with your own hand
you have thrown it away,
like a rutting elephant tearing off
his garland with his trunk…
If you choose to reject heroic action
and see forbearance as the road to future happiness,
then throw away your bow, the symbol of royalty,
wear your hair matted in knots,
stay here and make offerings in the sacred fire!
It is not hard to see which side Draupadi was on in the Arjuna-Krishna debate, which deals with a later stage of the same sequence of events, by which time Yudhisthira had made his choice to fight (rather than embrace the life of a local hermit, mockingly assigned to him by his wife, with unconcealed derision).
Word meanings
usurpers: a person who takes a position of power or importance illegally or by force.
compel: force or oblige (someone) to do something.
rutting elephant tearing off his garland with his trunk: act reflecting the elephant’s heightened sexual and aggressive activity during the rutting period.
heroic: grand or grandiose in scale or intention.
forbearance: patient self-control; restraint and tolerance.
hair matted in knots: hair that is densely tangled and knotted together, forming clumps or mats that are difficult to separate with normal brushing or combing
sequence: a particular order in which related things follow each other.
hermit: a person living in solitude as a religious discipline.
derision: contemptuous ridicule or mockery.
Explanation of the above passage—The arguments made by women in epics, stories, and history do not always match the gentle and peaceful image often associated with them. In the Mahabharata, King Yudhisthira, who does not want to fight in a war, is pushed to confront those who took his throne, by his wife, Draupadi.
In the sixth-century work Kiratarjuniya by Bharavi, Draupadi says that for a woman to advise brave men like Yudhisthira is almost disrespectful. Yet, her serious troubles make her break the rules of how women should act and speak up. The Yudhisthira clan, strong like Indra, has ruled smoothly for a long time. But now, he has given it up himself, just like an elephant tearing off a garland with its trunk. If he refuses to take action and thinks that patience will lead to happiness, then he should put down his bow, the sign of a king, wear his hair in knots, and stay here to make offerings in the fire.
It is clear which side Draupadi supports in the argument between Arjuna and Krishna. By this point, Yudhisthira had decided to fight instead of living like a local hermit, a life his wife mockingly suggested.
Passage – If it is important not to see the Indian argumentative tradition as the exclusive preserve of men, it is also necessary to understand that the use of argumentative encounters has frequently crossed the barriers of class and caste. Indeed, the challenge to religious orthodoxy has often come from spokesmen of socially disadvantaged groups. Disadvantage is, of course, a comparative concept. When Brahminical orthodoxy was disputed in ancient India by members of other groups (including merchants and craftsmen), the fact that the protesters were often quite affluent should not distract attention from the fact that, in the context of Brahmin-dominated orthodoxy, they were indeed distinctly underprivileged. This may be particularly significant in understanding the class basis of the rapid spread of Buddhism, in particular, in India. The undermining of the superiority of the priestly caste played quite a big part in these initially rebellious religious movements, which include Jainism as well as Buddhism. It included a ‘levelling’ feature that is not only reflected in the message of human equality for which these movements stood, but is also captured in the nature of the arguments used to undermine the claim to superiority of those occupying exalted positions. Substantial parts of early Buddhist and Jain literatures contain expositions of protest and resistance.
Movements against caste divisions that have figured repeatedly in Indian history, with varying degrees of success, have made good use of engaging arguments to question orthodox beliefs. Many of these counterarguments are recorded in the epics, indicating that opposition to hierarchy was not absent even in the early days of caste arrangements. We do not know whether the authors to whom the sceptical arguments are attributed were the real originators of the doubts expressed, or mere vehicles of exposition of already established questioning, but the prominent presence of these anti-inequality arguments in the epics as well as in other classical documents gives us a fuller insight into the reach of the argumentative tradition than a monolithic exposition of the so-called, ‘Hindu point of view’ can possibly provide.
Word meanings
orthodoxy: authorized or generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice.
undermining: the action or process of lessening the effectiveness, power, or ability of someone or something, especially gradually or insidiously.
levelling: give a flat and even surface to.
exalted: at a high or powerful level.
sceptical: not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
exposition: a comprehensive description and explanation of an idea or theory.
prominent: important; famous
anti-inequality: measures and approaches aimed at reducing or eliminating disparities and differences in status, rights, and opportunities between people or groups.
Explanation of the above passage— It is important to recognize that the Indian tradition of argument is not only associated with men. Women have also played a role in argumentative discussions. These debates often cross the boundaries of class and caste. People from socially disadvantaged groups have often challenged religious traditions.
The disadvantage is a relative idea. In ancient India, when members of groups like merchants and craftsmen questioned Brahminical authority, they were often quite wealthy. However, in the context of Brahmin-dominated society, they were still considered underprivileged. This context is crucial for understanding why Buddhism spread quickly in India. The challenge to the priestly caste’s superiority was significant for early movements like Buddhism and Jainism, which promoted equality among humans.
These movements often argued against the privileged positions held by some individuals, and their writings included protests and resistance. Throughout Indian history, movements against caste divisions have used effective arguments to challenge traditional beliefs. Many of these counterarguments are found in the epics, which show that opposition to social hierarchy existed even in early caste systems.
We may not know if the authors of these sceptical arguments were original thinkers or just presenting established ideas. However, their presence in classical texts suggests that the tradition of argumentation is richer than what a single Hindu point of view might imply.
Passage – For example, when, in the Mahabharata, Bhrigu tells Bharadvaja that caste divisions relate to differences in physical attributes of different human beings, reflected in skin colour, Bharadvaja responds not only by pointing to the considerable variations in skin colour within every caste (‘if different colours indicate different castes, then all castes are mixed castes’), but also by the more profound question: ‘We all seem to be affected by desire, anger, fear, sorrow, worry, hunger, and labour; how do we have caste differences then?’ There is also a genealogical scepticism expressed in another ancient document, the Bhavisya Purana: ‘Since members of all the four castes are children of God, they all belong to the same caste. All human beings have the same father, and children of the same father cannot have different castes.’ These doubts do not win the day, but nor are their expressions obliterated in the classical account of the debates between different points of view.
To look at a much later period, the tradition of ‘medieval mystical poets’, well established by the fifteenth century, included exponents who were influenced both by the egalitarianism of the Hindu Bhakti movement and by that of the Muslim Sufis, and their far-reaching rejection of social barriers brings out sharply the reach of arguments across the divisions of caste and class. Many of these poets came from economically and socially humble backgrounds, and their questioning of social divisions as well as of the barriers of disparate religions reflected a profound attempt to deny the relevance of these artificial restrictions. It is remarkable how many of the exponents of these heretical points of views came from the working class: Kabir, perhaps the greatest poet of them all, was a weaver, Dadu a cottoncarder, Ravi-das a shoe-maker, Sena a barber, and so on.* Also, many leading figures in these movements were women, including of course the famous Mira Bai (whose songs are still very popular, after four hundred years), but also Andal, Daya-bai, Sahajo-bai and Ksema, among others.
In dealing with issues of contemporary inequality, the relevance and reach of the argumentative tradition must be examined in terms of the contribution it can make today in resisting and undermining these inequities which characterise so much of contemporary Indian society. It would be a great mistake in that context to assume that because of the possible effectiveness of well-tutored and disciplined arguments, the argumentative tradition must, in general, favour the privileged and the well educated, rather than the dispossessed and the deprived. Some of the most powerful arguments in Indian intellectual history have, in fact, been about the lives of the least privileged groups, which have drawn on the substantive force of these claims, rather than on the cultivated brilliance of welltrained dialectics.
Word meanings
profound: very great or intense.
genealogical: relating to the study or tracing of lines of family descent.
scepticism: a sceptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.
obliterated: destroy utterly; wipe out.
mystical: inspiring a sense of spiritual mystery, awe, and fascination.
exponents: a person who supports an idea or theory and tries to persuade people of its truth or benefits.
egalitarianism: the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
disparate: essentially different in kind; not able to be compared.
heretical: believing in or practising religious heresy.
dispossessed: deprive (someone) of land, property, or other possessions.
substantive: having a firm basis in reality and so important, meaningful, or considerable.
dialectics: the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions.
Explanation of the above passage— In the Mahabharata, Bhrigu tells Bharadvaja that caste divisions come from differences in physical traits, such as skin colour. Bharadvaja counters by pointing out that there are many skin colour variations within each caste. He asks that if the different colours of skin mean different castes, then all castes should be mixed. He also raises a deeper question that all people feel desire, anger, fear, sorrow, worry, hunger, and labour, so what is the use of having caste differences. Another ancient text, the Bhavisya Purana, shows scepticism about caste too. It says that since all castes are children of God, they are same. All human beings have the same father, and children of the same father cannot have different castes. These doubts didn’t turn out to be victorious, even if they did not change the main beliefs of the time, their expressions aren’t wiped out from the classical account of debates.
Looking at a later period, medieval mystical poets emerged around the fifteenth century. They were influenced by the Hindu Bhakti movement and Muslim Sufis, both of which promoted equality and questioned social barriers. Many poets came from humble backgrounds and challenged class and religious divisions. Notable figures like Kabir, a weaver; Dadu, a cotton carder; Ravi-das, a shoemaker; and Sena, a barber, all spoke against social restrictions. Many key figures in these movements were women, including the famous Mira Bai, whose songs remain popular, as well as Andal, Daya-bai, Sahajo-bai, and Ksema.
Today, people should examine how these past arguments can help them address current inequalities. It is a mistake to think that strong arguments only benefit the educated and privileged. Some of the most impactful ideas in Indian history focus on the lives of the least privileged. These ideas often draw strength from the experiences of these groups rather than just from skilled debate.
[* On this, see Kshiti Mohan Sen, Medieval Mysticism of India, with a Foreword by Rabindranath Tagore, trans. from Bengali by Manomohan Ghosh (London: Luzac, I930)].
Passage
Democracy as Public Reasoning
Does the richness of the tradition of argument make much difference to subcontinental lives today? I would argue it does, and in a great many different ways. It shapes our social world and the nature of our culture. It has helped to make heterodoxy the natural state of affairs in India; persistent arguments are an important part of our public life. It deeply influences Indian politics, and is particularly relevant, I would argue, to the development of democracy in India and the emergence of its secular priorities.
The historical roots of democracy in India are well worth considering, if only because the connection with public argument is often missed, through the temptation to attribute the Indian commitment to democracy simply to the impact of British influence (despite the fact that such an influence should have worked similarly for a hundred other countries that emerged from an empire on which the sun used not to set). The point at issue, however, is not specific to India only: in general, the tradition of public reasoning is closely related to the roots of democracy across the globe. But since India has been especially fortunate in having a long tradition of public arguments, with toleration of intellectual heterodoxy, this general connection has been particularly effective in India. 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 is very important to avoid the twin pitfalls of (1) taking democracy to be just a gift of the Western world that India simply accepted when it became independent, and (2) assuming that there is something unique in Indian history that makes the country singularly suited to democracy. 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.
Word meanings
heterodoxy: deviation from accepted or orthodox standards or beliefs.
persistent: continuing firmly or obstinately in an opinion or course of action in spite of difficulty or opposition.
emergence: the process of becoming visible after being concealed.
secular: not connected with religious or spiritual matters.
temptation: the desire to do something, especially something wrong or unwise.
pitfalls: a likely mistake or problem in a situation
Explanation of the above passage— Sen questions whether the rich tradition of argument in the Indian subcontinent matters in people’s lives today. He believes it does and in many ways. It shapes people’s social interactions and cultural identity. This tradition has made diverse ideas a normal part of life in India, where ongoing debates are key to their public life. It strongly affects Indian politics and is crucial for the growth of democracy and the development of secular values in India.
People should think about the historical roots of democracy in India, especially because they often overlook how public debate plays a role in it. Many attribute India’s commitment to democracy only to British influence. However, other countries that were part of empires have not developed in the same way. The link between public reasoning and democracy exists globally, not just in India. India benefits from a long history of public debate and acceptance of different viewpoints, which strengthens this connection here. When India became independent and chose a democratic constitution, it combined lessons from European and American experiences with its own tradition of open discussion.
It’s important to avoid two common mistakes: first, believing that India simply received democracy as a gift from the West, and second, thinking that something in Indian history makes it uniquely suited for democracy. Instead, democracy relies on public discussion and reasoning. Traditions of open debate exist worldwide, not only in the West. The presence of such a tradition helps make democracy easier to establish and maintain.
Conclusion
The Argumentative Indian by Amartya Sen highlights India’s rich tradition of public debate and intellectual discourse as central to its identity and democracy. Students can take help from this post to understand the lesson and also learn the difficult word meanings to get a better grasp of the chapter. This lesson includes the summary of The Argumentative Indian which will help students of class 12 to get a quick recap of the story.