Of “Argumentative Indians” and “Functional Anarchy”

This post is really an extract from a discussion on one of the Yahoo! groups I subscribe to. The discussion was triggered by an email from Prof. Michael Witzel in which he wrote (amongst other things):

….I know that whatever I say will be distorted to no end by “argumentative Indians” (per Amartya Sen).

In response, Ashok-ji Chowgule wrote the following comment which I found worth sharing (emphasis mine).

If one were to read Prof Amartya Sen properly, he is actually saying that this concept of ‘argumentative’ is a positive one. Issues are discussed within the society, and different points of view are brought to the table. The problem is that the word ‘argumentative’ is generally considered to be a negative one, and to that extent Prof Sen has done a disservice.

It reminds me of another such disservice, this time by Prof John Kenneth Galbraith, who, I think, had a very high regard for India and its culture. he coined the phrase ‘functioning anarchy’ in the early 1960s.

It was some 40 years ago that he had an opportunity to explain what exactly he meant by the term.

He said: “There are some things you say to attract attention. I wanted to emphasise the point, which would be widely accepted, that the success of India did not depend on the government. It depended on the energy, ingenuity and other qualifications of the Indian people. And the Indian quality to put ideas into practice. I was urging an obvious point that the progress of India did not depend on the government, as important as that might be, but was enormously dependent on the initiative, individual and group – of the Indian people. I feel the same way now (as I did some forty years ago) but I would even emphasise it more. We’ve seen many years of Indian progress, and that is attributable to the energy and genius of the Indian people and the Indian culture.” [Galbraith, John Kenneth, in an interview in Outlook, August 20, 2001.]

Prof Sen, of course, has no empathy to the civilisation of his ancestors. And those who distort the terms (‘argumentative Indian’ and ‘functioning anarchy’) have even less.

***

If you enjoyed this post, pl. consider subscribing to my blog or have it delivered by email.

UPDATE: Pl. also read this post by Rajeev Srinivasan that talks about the “Hindu Rate of Growth

B Shantanu

Political Activist, Blogger, Advisor to start-ups, Seed investor. One time VC and ex-Diplomat. Failed mushroom farmer; ex Radio Jockey. Currently involved in Reclaiming India - One Step at a Time.

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Khandu Patel says:

    Prof Sen epitomizes the Hindus of India who as a rule do not generally subscribe to the dictum “my country right or wrong”. Prof Sen has been an apologist for everyone else but his own people, and mirrors many other so called Indian intellectuals such as Lord Desai in the UK. These luminaries do not exist such traits which appear to the outside world as arguementative Indians without good reason. They are inherent in our inclusive Hindu philosophy and society. Which other society in the world would welcome peoples and ideas that have been destructive of their own commonwealth than Hindus. The latest manifestation is that China harbours hope that reinstatement of their ancient rule which they enjoyed under the Kushan Empire. Any hope of aligning India to meet the many challenges does not exist under the present political leadership of the country. Even if China does not manage to subjugate India, and it has no good reason to expend treasures in doing so, it can help India on its way to its self-destructive end.

  2. B Shantanu says:

    Somewhat related bit on the “Hindu Rate of Growth”. Excerpts from a recent post by Rajeev Srinivasan:

    so how could it (2% – 3%) be the “hindu rate of growth”? this was a racist and insulting term coined by a communist, raj krishna, for whom this is his 15-min — and sole — claim to fame.

    as a paper that does not believe in equal-opportunity denigration of religions, you should stop using this horrible term forthwith. after all, i have read your paper for decades, and i have never seen you refer to pakistan’s or somalia’s growth rate as the “islamic rate of growth”, or rwanda’s or haiti’s as “the christian rate of growth”.

    and we have good reason to believe (see angus maddison) that the historical and actual “hindu rate of growth” was the highest in the world — after all, india was the richest country in the world till around 1700.

    …once again, let me request you to abjure the offensive phrase “hindu rate of growth” in your writing. it is demeaning, it is not historically accurate, and it is racist.

  3. Khandu Patel says:

    The label Hindu rate of growth stuck to the India Nehru and Gandhi bequeathed. Even under Nehru, India’s machine tools industry was world class but then again it was overtaken by the tiger economies. India’s economic performance was so poor that the world India measured its performance against had raced ahead by leap and bounds. Singh removed the fetters but for more than a decade the rate of growth following Singh’s liberalisation led PM Gowda to cry out in his frustration that more could not be done for the economy. Even under the BJP 4-5% was considered a credible performance relative to the past but they laid the foundation for the growth India is now enjoying. In comparison to China’s robust performance, India is struggling to attain its lower growth rate target of 8%. The dark clouds for India has always been the huge debts which has capped India’s leadership in the world’s recovery story. The best and only chance India has of putting China in its place is to assume the commanding height of the world economy. The Hindu approach is still one of caution and risk averse. If history has taught one thing, it is that the winner is the one that has sweated their assets in the unity of vision for their country. The MBA luminaries amongst readers should know that creative destructionism applies as much to nations as it does to enterprises competing in the world space. The world will ruthlessly deal with India’s failed businesses but nothing seems to able to shift the shit India is knee deep in of the political morass. Chest thumping may provide a temporary uplift of the spirit, but it does nothing to deal with the political impasse that prevents Indians from achieving their full potential to take on the world in not only the business space but every other endeavour.

  4. Sporetee says:

    Ills of India in my analysis:

    1. A little “chest thumping” (to borrow from Khandu Patel @3) satisfies the Indian so very easily — a Jai Ho oscar win, a cricket win here or there. This is true of most all Indians. I may think that cube roots are stuff for pickles while boasting to the world that ‘0’ was invented by an Indian.

    2. The more educated Indian is argumentative for the sake of being argumentative ! He/She too seems pleased with himself/herself, having argued long enough and loud enough. There is no intent to translate anything to practice !

    3. Absolute inaction by the so-called educated masses. The moment the argument is bundled up, it is put away. None of that translates to practice. Voting on community/caste/religious lines is rampant.

    4. The filth in public life. This is partly because of #3 — we as Indians tolerate too much, “anything goes”, “chalta hai”.

  5. B Shantanu says:

    Test Comment – Pl. Ignore

    ***

    The site had a “blackout” for a few minutes earlier today. This was due to a stupid mistake I made while doing some house-keeping this afternoon (In short, I managed to delete *all* the files needed to make the blog work).

    Thanks to the super folks at Bluehost, I am back in action.

    In case such a situation arises in the future, please keep an eye out on my alternative blog:
    http://hindudharma.wordpress.com/