The Argumentative Amartya?

National issues of import that Farzana bibi addressed :

Amartya Sen is politically correct...

Laloo bared the hypocrisy that exists amongst us.....His rise is what real democracy is in India...

Media is making a mockery of the Muslim Qaum in India by covering the Gudiya episode (Never mind that media is now covering the Sarabjit`s family feud)...

Why are we trying at all to get Sarabjit free...

Kashmiri Pandits living in habitable conditions...

Kashmiri Pandits not staying put in Kashmir when they were being butchered....

Vaginas and breasts..

Oh… Amartya must be peeing in his pants reading this autopsy of his life long work. I am always amazed to see the extent of how far some Indians will go to challenge and criticize those deemed accomplished even beyond limits imposed on the accomplished. E.g., it is very “fashionable” to scorn Gandhi among upper crust and semi intellectual Indians, both living in India and elsewhere. More power to Indian critics, and as it is said that “it is easier to Poke fun of Jesus than to twinkle the nostrils of Ayatollah”. Be happy that you are not Amartya. When I adopted a puppy, I couldn’t decide between calling him Amartya or Keynes. I ended up naming him Neo-Classical.

My theory is this, chowk will print anything that comes from Muslim woman.

When was the last time she wrote anything that was positive in light?

Anybody.....

These are very convenient sentiments when you are a green-card holder in Uncle Sam’s land, teach at tony universities, and make annual trips to your roots to check how much further down the poverty line has slipped and return to your ‘naturalised home’ with these inspirations.


He`s as Indian as people living @ Malabar Hill/bhuleshwar and drinking 80Rs cups of coffee...and he`s actually given India some free publicity...

what`s your contribution to India, other than your ``Kashmiris were asking for it`` screen in that paragon of journalism, Mid-Day?

Although I don`t know much abt prof sen`s work, however, i have one generic problem with the one of the above arguments... and you said ...

``Some people do well because of their sanity. Whereas insane people -- and I use the term to include those with idiosyncrasies -- succeed because they do not care whether they do or don’t. It must be taxing to spend a large part of your life wondering whether you will be rewarded or not for something that the prize-giving world will not even be aware of. ``


well.... due the linguistic limitations .... we do not have separate words to define the levels within brilliance... Dostoevsky, Maupassant, Sylvia Plath, Ayn Rand, and Ghalib, all these ppl you compared with prof. sen are at a much higher level of brilliance...and one cannot compare a normal Nobel laureate with these ppl ...prof sen could represent the usual Nobel laureate community ... which are creative but at the same time could be politically correct and there would be many example of such kind

washingtonpost.com
A Passage to India
A Nobel Prize-winning economist explores his homeland`s rich and quarrelsome heritage.

Reviewed by Shashi Tharoor
Sunday, October 16, 2005; BW03



THE ARGUMENTATIVE INDIAN

Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity

By Amartya Sen

Farrar Straus Giroux. 409 pp. $26


If you laid all the economists in the world end to end, the old joke goes, you would never reach a conclusion. So it`s all the more remarkable that it is as a practitioner of the ``dismal science`` that Amartya Sen won the Nobel Prize in 1998. Sen is a man of conclusions; he is also brilliant at marshalling, with both extensive research and empirical evidence, the arguments that justify his conclusions. The Argumentative Indian -- a collection of 16 essays, many reworked and expanded from lectures and previously published articles -- is an intellectual tour de force from an economist who can lay equal claim to the designations of sociologist, historian, political analyst and moral philosopher. It is a magisterial work, except that the adjective is not one of which Sen would approve.

That is because Sen uses it, along with ``exoticist`` and ``curatorial,`` to describe the three perspectives from which the West has tended to view India (each of which he dissects and discredits with precision and finesse). He is particularly critical of the Western overemphasis on India`s religiosity at the expense of any recognition of the country`s equally impressive rationalist, scientific, mathematical and secular heritage, fields treated by Orientalists as ``Western spheres of success.``

``There is certainly a need for some emendation here,`` Sen adds dryly. Emendation he provides, in capacious detail. Sen convincingly demonstrates that Asian (and specifically Indian) traditions of rationality and scientific liberalism go further back than Western ones and have been just as important as the religious or mystical strains in shaping India`s heritage. There is none of the economist`s propensity to theorize on the basis of airy assumptions here; Sen`s arguments are grounded in a keenly felt, deeply empathetic reading of Indian history and culture, augmented by a breadth and depth of research (extensively footnoted) that is breathtaking in its range and scholarly eclecticism. The essays are also informed by Sen`s passionate concern for the impoverished, undernourished and marginalized, especially women. The Nobel citation lauded him for restoring ``an ethical dimension to the discussion of vital economic problems,`` and a strong moral sense is never absent from his prose.

To reduce such a richly diverse book to a couple of main themes is a disservice, for there is much here to reward the careful reader (notably two startlingly educative essays on the ancient roots of relations between India and China). Particularly pleasurable is Sen`s masterly reclaiming of Rabindranath Tagore`s reputation from the unjust misjudgment of him in the West as a mediocre mystic poet rather than the rationalist and humanist genius and polymath Sen convincingly depicts. But -- disservice aside -- two principal arguments emerge from this collection: an affirmation of India`s political and cultural heterogeneity, and of the ``reach of reason`` in India`s intellectual traditions. Even an essay on the films of Satyajit Ray (the only Indian director to win an Oscar for lifetime achievement) affirms Sen`s case for India`s absorptive culture. ``In our heterogeneity and in our openness lies our pride, not our disgrace,`` Sen writes. ``Satyajit Ray taught us this, and that lesson is profoundly important for India. And for Asia, and for the world.``

Sen`s argument for his idea of India is constructed not just in opposition to Western stereotyping but also to the homegrown Hindutva (``Hindu-ness``) movement, which in recent years has sought power on a platform asserting that India is a Hindu nation that ought to be a Hindu state, while defining Hinduism in crudely sectarian terms, both as a religion and as a badge of cultural and political identity. In several of the essays in this collection, Sen demolishes each of these ``narrow and bellicose`` premises of Hindutva, along with Western religious reductionism. Sen reminds us that even the sacred epic the Ramayana , much beloved of today`s Hindu revivalists, features the skeptic Javali, who advises the god-king Ram that ``there is no after-world, nor any religious practice for attaining that. . . . [Religious] injunctions . . . have been laid down in the [scriptures] by clever people, just to rule over [other] people.`` India`s skeptical tradition is as old as the Rigveda , composed around 1500 B.C., when most Europeans were clad in animal skins. ``Who really knows?`` it asks about creation. ``Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it produced?. . . perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not -- the one who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only he knows -- or perhaps he does not know.``

I love that final ``or perhaps he does not know.`` The reach of rationality in Indian thinking goes far; Hinduism is the only major religion with an explicit tradition of agnosticism within it. Equally important is the tradition of secular tolerance practiced by such rulers as the Buddhist Emperor Ashoka and the Muslim Emperor Akbar some 1,800 years apart.

Sen points out that Ashoka`s edicts promoted the human rights of all in the 3rd century before Christ, a time when Aristotle`s writings on freedom explicitly excluded women and slaves, an exception the Indian monarch did not make. At a time when the Catholics of Europe were tyrannizing each other, persecuting Jews with the Inquisition and burning heretics at the stake, Akbar was proclaiming in Delhi that ``no man should be interfered with on account of religion, and anyone is to be allowed to go over to a religion that pleases him.`` Unlike in the West, Indian secularism has tended not to be about the separation of church from state and the prohibition of religious activities but about tolerance of a profusion of religions, none of which is privileged or favored by the state. To Sen, ``the Hindutva movement has entered into a confrontation with the idea of India itself.``

The essays are not merely celebratory of Sen`s ``capacious idea of India.`` In hailing the Indian argumentative tradition, Sen does not overlook the need for discourse to be politically effective, and his chapter on Indian democracy is both reasoned and critical, calling for ``broadening the force and range of political arguments and social demands.`` While hailing Indian democracy`s success in preventing the famines that occurred with depressing regularity under British colonial rule, he stresses that this does not mean the problem of chronic and endemic hunger (``a much more complex task``) has been solved. His demolition job on the Indian nuclear tests of 1998 is all the more effective for being couched in the language of reasoned discourse.

Sen is a cosmopolitan and an Indian -- and he, of course, would see no contradiction in those terms. Educated at Rabindranath Tagore`s experimental school, Shantiniketan (where the earlier Bengali Nobelist prophetically dubbed Sen ``Amartya,`` or ``immortal``), and at Cambridge University, the first non-English Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, the holder of two named professorships at Harvard, film buff, cricket fan and voracious reader, Sen embodies the yearning for heterodox learning.

There is only one problem with his rich and instructive book: He constructs his essays with such meticulous reasoning and expresses his point of view in so courteous a tone that this Indian found it difficult to pick an argument with him. A future edition will need a less contentious title. ·

Shashi Tharoor is the author of ``India: From Midnight to the Millennium`` and eight other books, including most recently ``Bookless in Baghdad: Reflections on Writing and Writers.``

I never thought I will say this - but I agree with a few points FV raised here in her usual cr@ppy wiritng.......

I never understood what is big deal about Amarty Sen...... And I have always been wary of ``intellectuals`` from Bengal.....

Farzana

You sure know how to criticize! You’ve hit the beehive with a danda.


HP, #7

The list you pointed to is the most politically-correct list I’ve ever seen...it pleases everyone around the globe!


Aisha, #8

Other than for natural sciences, Nobel is just a political game. Naipaul got his right after World Trade Center blowout. It has been said that if Sears Tower were blown by Muslim terrorists, Salman Rushdie would have been next to get the Nobel in Literature!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

YYYYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNN

Correction: in the Subcontinent, it would be ``woodoo economics`` :-)

Dear Farzana

This is loaded article.

What is happening to you Farzana. There is a saying in Punjabi ``Anna kutta hava nu bhonkay?``. A blind dog barks at the wind.

If you don`t mind and I know it is going to be a great challange for you, Can you please write about anything nice, refreshing or exhilarting you find in your motherland or your fellow citizens ?

If you will write that artcle then in anticipation of that article I am quoting Ghalib

Kee jo meray qatal ke bad, usne jaffa se tauba
Hay us jood-pashe-e-ma ka pash-e-ma honaa

Ref aisha_sarwari #8

[How could this guy get a prize for being within the parameters of being non-offensive?]

Amartya Sen came up with some theory in economics for which he got the Nobel Prize not for being inoffensive or non-offensive. I am sure his theory pissed off quite a few academics.

And no, Jinnah wasn`t denied a Nobel Prize just because he was the most offensive person on earth.

Dear Farzana,

``Can a politically correct individual ever be brilliant? Would he not be shackled by his own need to work within the circumference of logic and rationality and miss out on many original thoughts?``

Well said, I tend to agree. One may only live expressively and face the wrath of getting booted off various clicks, from people who would rather not rock the boat of fragile status quo statuses upon which they build their identities.

I am having trouble living because I speak...and I haven`t even spoken my complete mind yet. How could this guy get a prize for being within the parameters of being non-offensive?

I am jealous.

Aisha Sarwari

Just a month ago Foreign Policy asked for a list of top five public intellectuals out of a chosen hundred.
Sen and Sunita Narain were the only Indians on that list.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3249

Here is the final list.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3260

Interestingly the person most hated by the Indian rightist nutcases, Arundhati Roy made it in the top five write ins. My favorite Richard Dawkins was picked at No. 3.

Top Write-in Votes 1 Milton Friedman 2 Stephen Hawking 3 Arundhati Roy 4 Howard Zinn 5 Bill Clinton.
I know the nutcase Indian crowd (DM and Sadna types) would have loved to have Modi on the list at number one probably.

Forget that I am not surprised at Sen’s thesis “… famines have never afflicted any country that is independent, that goes to elections,”

Lets take an example from India itself.

“There is plenty of precedent in South Asia for natural catastrophes being the harbinger of wars and revolutions. The great Bengal famine of 1943 cost the lives of 2 million to 4 million people. Historians agree the main cause of the huge death toll was a combination of complacency, incompetence, and lack of compassion by British wartime officials who were criminally negligent in waking up to the scale of the disaster. But the immediate political result was to destroy Hindu-Muslim community relations in Bengal with many people in each community convinced the other one was hoarding food and deliberately increasing their suffering.

Within four years, Bengal was torn apart by ferocious Hindu-Muslim clashes at independence in 1947 that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

Could such a thing have happened if India had a representative government in 1943? Did anyone ever try to analyze the impact of Bengal famine on Pre-partition Indian politics?”

Interestingly, just about 27 years later in 1970, a natural disaster in East Pakistan led to Bangladesh and you know what Pakistan had no democracy either.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041231-021606-3143r.htm