The Argumentive Human

Hi,

"The Argumentive Indian" is a book written by Nobel-laureate Amartya Sen, which has topped the best-seller list for quite some time now. I haven't read it as yet; however the title itself was enough to set off a chain of thought.

Here am jotting down a few points as regards arguments & debates.

1. There are many issues on which our opinions are formed almost at a subconscious level, without ever thinking intentionally about it.

A good example in this case would be of Bajirao Peshwa, the second. General perception about him is that he was a useless ruler, spent most of his time in luxuries and was primarily responsible for the decline & fall of Maratha Empire.

Not being a historian, I do not know how much of this is true or false. The point here is not whether doosra Bajirao was a good ruler or not, but that a majority of people tend to blame him without having the vaguest idea why they are saying so.

2. As thinking animals, human beings are supposed to arrive at the conclusion after following a logical line of reasoning. However, many a times people first stake out one view-point or other and then seek only those arguments which would support their stand.

A good example in this case would be Narmada Bachao Andolan in particular or environmentalists in general. These people have already decided in their minds that modern technology is bad. So an open dialogue is impossible [in most cases]. It's just like gravitational lensing ... things look distorted when looked thru any kind of lens.

3. Some people have an incorrigible habit of going against conventional views. They get hailed as 'creative minority'. Nothing wrong with it, as long as it has some sound basis. But in most cases, people resort to it just to 'stand out from the rest of them.' Only because someone is saying something different from majority opinion doesn't mean he is right or what he is opting for is good, unless proved so. Till that is done, he ought to be treated only as being 'different'.

4. And then, there are people who just have to say something to everything that you say. Never mind that it may have nothing what-so-ever to do with the point under consideration; they just gotta have the last word in discussion.

For example, you say that " Chitale bakarwadi tastes really good." A representative of above-mentioned breed will say, "But Kaka Halwai shreekhand is even better." You may wonder how two dis-similar products can be compared... but that's beside the point. He has said something and that's all that matters. Another example .. You may say " Sachin Tendulkar is a great batsman." and the reply would be, "Don Bradman was even better."

Note that what they have said isn't essentially wrong, but they have side-tracked the original issue.

Yours,

-G.