The Argumentative Indian

Have started reading Amartya Sen's 'The Argumentative Indian'. Although I've only just begun the book and have only read 50 odd pages, I have come across passages where I felt the need to annotate the margins with my own thoughts about the point being raised by the author. I have done that, infrequently, in the past but always felt like I was in some way vandalizing the book. At other times there wasn't enough space in the margins and I wonder if they could print such books with ample space for you to jot down your own thoughts on the page. In this case since I am reading the book during my daily commute, penning on the margins isn't advisable. I remember as a young teenager when I took my diary along with me on my trip to Shimla with friends. I tried writing my thoughts on the bus and didn't get down more than a few lines. It was so shaky and uncomfortable that I gave up the idea immediately. So with this book I plan to put my thoughts about what Sen has written not on paper but on my laptop instead. Waiting till I finish the book would entail a very long wait and I would forget half of what I had thought of saying by then.

The first two chapters I found somewhat enlightening though not particularly noteworthy. He talks about how we have a long history of dialogue, discussion and toleration of dissent in India, even when it comes to religion. Most of it I knew already, but the story of the sage Javali and how he rebukes Rama for his actions was new.

I found myself disagreeing with parts of his third chapter, where he talks about the BJP and Hindutva. The book was written before the last general elections of course, at a time when the Congress had just regained power after defeating the BJP. In one sentence he seems to imply that the parties allied to the BJP, the 'secular' ones like the AIADMK, the Trinamool, and the TDP fared badly because of their association with the BJP. he doesn't follow it up but just mentions it and walks away. "The voters seem to have been particularly harsh on most of the secular collaborators of the BJP." to quote him. I think this is a misinterpretation of voting trends. Tamil Nadu typically votes overwhelmingly for one party in an election only to shift entirely to the opposite end the next time round. The DMK and the AIADMK have both been alternately swept into power and swept aside in an equally convincing manner. This happened before anyone allied with the BJP and will happen again. The TDP lost because, by popular consesus, Chandrababu Naidu was seen as having focussed all his energies on the Andhra capital and broadly ignoring the vast hinterland, especially the Telangana region (which includes Hyderabad). Agriculture was hit very badly and farmer suicides were in all the news. The Trinamool I won't hazard a guess about since I don't know that much about it but the party has come into prominence only lately following the Singur agitation and other such events. Only after gaining mileage from these has it built itself as a credible alternative capable of defeating the left parties who've held sway in Bengal for over three decades now. So what I want to say is that looking at all this I don't think it was association with the BJP that cot these 'secular' parties their vote share or their seats. In fact, the BJP in power was a much milder version of the virulent ultra-right party that we see now. They were on their 'best boy' behaviour in a manner of speaking. Of course, I might have simply misinterpreted what Sen wrote and maybe he didn't mean it this way; it does seem unlikely I did though, given his left leanings.