Debates: India And America

There is a marked difference between nature of the public discourse in India and America.

While in India tendency of participants is to reach a compromise and arrive at some common ground, the Americans more often than not tend to take extreme point of views. Even conceding the fact that US at present is highly polarized between liberals and conservatives; I think that this type of polarization and heated debates are the rule, rather than exception.

While I think that any form of deliberation is going to be a mixed bag, I prefer American way.

The problem with Indian way is that the only purpose of the discourse remains somehow to arrive at consensus just for the sake of it, and fails to address the concerns or provide an insight into the issues involved.

One example is debate about economic reforms, one of the most used terms is “reform with human face”, and yet so far there is no understanding, hardly anyone knows what it means least of all those who repeat it.
Such circumlocution, while admirable in advertising and door to door selling does nothing really to articulate the issues.
From what I understand this “human face” is nothing but an excuse for “tax and spend” welfare state, now even though I am not an expert on economics, past experience with socialism makes me skeptical of the notion of welfare state. As usual it is a case of showing our collective “asinine faces”.

Another is debate on “secularism”, much effort is made to distinguish between “secularism” and “pseudo-secularism”, the implication that while secularism is a “holy grail”, it is this pseudo thing which is the curse.
And yet I think this is a most dishonest depiction. I will post in detail about secularism at a later date, but let me say that while in west secularism may mean much, in India due to historical and philosophical reasons, secularism is a concept of limited utility, even redundant one.
I for one do not consider myself to be secular or for that matter consider it to be a badge of honour. Further in my opinion the terms of this debate are incorrect in first place and can be discussed as well in terms of “vote bank politics” and “good old demagoguery”.

But the most important is this consensus about Foreign policy. First this consensus and status quo means that India remained stuck to “third world” and NAM past their utility (that they had any in the first place is itself questionable).

Fortunately we are over that (here I accept that Indira Gandhi for her all faults, was more pragmatic that her father). But more than status quo, this atmosphere of consensus and agreement makes us complacent, for example since UPA government came to power there is a tendency towards communalization of foreign policy (Iran issue or Cartoon protest), and yet there is no sense of urgency. Instead of concern, there is a collective “shrugging off”.

And at risk of sounding paranoid, most of the cataclysmic events start not with a bang but with a whimper. If detected at that stage, it is easier.

However the American way is far from perfect.

After a point, shrillness and one-upmanship overcomes any serious attempt to analyze any issue.
One case in point is the “vitriolic” debate over abortion rights.
The debate is complicated involving conflicting issues of individual right, sanctity of life and social responsibility and yet it has for most part devolved to,
“OMG, NeoCons are trying to control my womb”! I mean, get real for God’s sake. !

All said and done, while democracy remains the safest and the best option for individual and civilization, it is hardly the easiest. Any public discourse if it has to succeed demand responsibility from participants. The market of idea or in fact market of any nature while impervious to honest mistakes of actors, is nevertheless susceptible to deliberate fraud and malice. To say, that an outside agency (law and order) can ensure compliance at all times is incorrect, as strictly speaking none of the human institutions are isolated from each other.