The Argumentative Indian (Amartya Sen)

Faring forward means going ahead in action even if one ignores the consequences; it is Krishna’s view in the *Gita*, where duty should be done irrespective of results. Faring well means paying attention to the human consequences of action—avoiding suffering, destruction and injustice as far as possible. Sen argues that Krishna’s stress on duty is important, but it must be supplemented by Arjuna’s concern for what actually happens to people.

The basis of the parallel is that in both cases there is a conflict between technical or dutiful success and moral reflection on consequences. Arjuna worries about the slaughter caused by war, while Oppenheimer, after the nuclear test, reflected on the destructive outcome of what was technically successful. In both cases, the question is not only whether one can do something as a duty or technical achievement, but also whether one should, given the terrible consequences.

Sen uses Maitreyī’s question to show that wealth alone cannot give the highest human fulfilment. Just as wealth cannot bring immortality, economic growth by itself does not guarantee development. So Sen’s concept of development is not simply growth of income or GDP, but the expansion of real freedoms and capabilities—the ability to live long, live well, and do what we value.

Sen cites many examples showing that argumentative traditions crossed social barriers:

- Gender: women such as Gargi, Maitreyī, Draupadī, Sarojini Naidu, Nellie Sengupta, Mira Bai, Andal, Daya-bai, Sahajo-bai, and Ksema.
- Caste/class: socially disadvantaged or non-elite thinkers such as Kabir (weaver), Dadu (cotton-carder), Ravi-das (shoemaker), and Sena (barber).
- Community/religion: the Bhakti and Sufi traditions, and the questioning of barriers between Hindus and Muslims in the medieval mystical poets.
- Other examples of challenge to orthodoxy: Buddhism and Jainism, and the anti-caste arguments in the *Mahābhārata* and the *Bhaviṣya Purāṇa*.

Sen sees Krishna and Arjuna as representing two reasonable but different moral positions. Krishna stands for duty: one must do one’s assigned duty and not be distracted by consequences. Arjuna stands for consequential reasoning: one must consider the suffering, destruction, and moral cost of action. Sen does not treat Arjuna as defeated; he suggests that Krishna’s view is only part of the truth and that Arjuna’s doubts remain powerful.

The three major issues are:

1. The Krishna-Arjuna debate in the *Gita* and the contrast between duty and consequences.
2. The role of women in India’s argumentative tradition.
3. The crossing of caste and class barriers in Indian debates, including challenges to orthodoxy and inequality.

Sen says two misconceptions must be avoided:

1. The idea that democracy is merely a gift from the West that India simply accepted.
2. The opposite idea that India is uniquely or naturally suited to democracy in some special way.

He argues instead that democracy is connected to public reasoning, a tradition found across the world and especially strong in India.

According to Sen, the tradition of public discussion and interactive reasoning has helped democracy in India by making heterodoxy normal, strengthening public life, and supporting the growth and preservation of democratic practices. Because people are used to argument, debate, and questioning, democracy has had firmer roots and has been easier to establish and sustain.

Sen sees argumentation as a positive value because it helps question orthodoxy, includes different voices, and strengthens democracy through public reasoning.