Don't know if you noticed but I certainly did. Edward de Bono, who has expounded at some length on the dangers of linear thinking, came up with an argument which appears suspiciously linear (and meanier, if I may say so). Indians are very argumentative, he pronounced recently, going on to add that “argument is a very primitive way of discussion”. How dare he suggest, first of all, that the epistemological discussions on existential dilemmas that the One Billion Plus of us routinely engage in — on the streets and out of it, in newspapers and on television screens, in parking lots and railway stations, over issues ranging from whether it is okay to throw a banana peel on the pavement to whether God exists — is merely primitive expression that is just one register higher than wielding the old-fashioned cudgel. In fact, I would have liked to have had a good argument with the man. Alright, we as a people may not even get around to agreeing on what we should be arguing about — whether it is the ASI affidavit, the existence of Ram, or bridge engineering, for instance. But that has never stopped us from carrying on our argument. True, every good argument, as far as we are concerned, is about give and take. We give the argument, they take it. We are reasonable folk, always ready to meet our opponents half way, provided they admit that they are wrong. And, in this fashion, we finally come to terms. Our terms, that is. Which, of course, leads logically to a whole new cycle of old arguments, because we believe in re-cycling our arguments in order to create new ones, instead of wastefully discarding them like the rest of the world and moving on. Take Indian politics, for instance. It has, to date, never ever resolved a single issue of national importance once and for all. Instead, once our politicians have exhausted themselves arguing on one particular theme, they carefully put it aside and take up another issue, until they are ready for something else. In this pattern, you may notice, no argument great or small is ever wasted. It is just neatly put away for another day, like schoolchildren do their wads of chewed up chewing gum. Okay, I admit that we sometimes fail to behave like Plato in the conduct of an argument — listening politely to the other point of view before coming up with a reply, and that sort of thing — but why should that be a problem when we happen to be right? Take Delhi motorists. It has been scientifically established that 90 per cent of deaths of motorists in the city are caused, not from accidents, but from parking lot brawls. Nah, I’m just making this up — but, seriously, one in two motorists in Delhi are high on high-octane arguments, and sometimes even spontaneously self-combust before your eyes. But this should not lead de Bono to conclude that they are engaging in primitive activity. They are merely arguing in defence of their right to lateral mobility — and immobility. Of course, ever so often we argue in chorus as part of a big, fat Indian mob that has all the characteristics of a gaggle of Neanderthals. I would concede that a lively mob composed of articulate, intelligent, argumentative Indians — say of the kind that made news in Bihar lately — can engage in a rigorous cycle of argument and counter-argument that can sometimes reach life-threatening proportions. But do not conclude from this that brute unreason has got translated into brute force. On the contrary, such action is in fact driven by the need to maintain the highest levels of law, order and justice delivery — something that Bihar’s chief minister and his bureaucrats are too busy arguing over, to be able to do anything about. So who is de Bono to tangle with us argumentative Indians? I want to tell him, here and now, that we may not agree with what he says, but will defend to death our right to say it. Also, please note, I’m not arguing with de Bono, I merely wish to inform him that while I am driven by conviction, he, in contrast, is driven by rank prejudice. And I hope that with this I have pronounced the last word on this matter.
