Not Subramanian Swamy, but his ideas should be under public scrutiny

How to engage in a democratic polity with politicians like Subramanian Swamy? The best way to do so is by contesting “what Swamy says,” not “what Swamy is” or “what Swamy means (aims at)”. It is not that what he “is” or “means” is not important for getting a proper perspective, but that should not be the core of one’s argument; the core is “what he says”. As long as his content goes unchallenged, Swamy will remain relevant in Indian politics. That is why we require to read more of the pieces like Subramanian Swamy is wrong on facts about Arvind Subramanian’s US testimony  that was published on Firstpost. Likewise, we should read more on whether Swamy was also wrong on his premise and facts that outgoing Reserve Bank of India Governor Raghuram Rajan is hurting the Indian economy and halting India’s development. But this is not happening. Because, Swamy as a person, instead of his ideas, is under scrutiny in our public discourse. [caption id=“attachment_2854370” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] File photo of Subramanian Swamy. PTI[/caption] Swamy is not alone in receiving this treatment. If one analyses carefully the nature of our public discourse in the recent years, it is increasingly becoming obvious that people tend to challenge the character or motives of a person who has said some something or floated an idea, rather than the idea itself or what he or she has said. So just because it is Swamy, he has to be wrong. This is what is called argumentum ad hominem. Here, we malign the character of a person we do not like, even if he or she speaks the truth. As in Swamy’s case, we often hear something like this – “We all know Swamy is a liar and blackmailer; so why should we believe anything he says?" It is also argumentum ad hominem when someone’s arguments are discounted merely because he or she is supposed to benefit from the policy that he or she is advocating. In Swamy’s case, it is presumed that by attacking senior officials in the Finance Ministry, he is really targeting Finance Minister Arun Jaitley whom he wants to replace when Prime Minister Narendra Modi reshuffles his Council of Ministers. There are other examples too. We get suspicious when a Brahmin argues against the reservations or a Yadav argues for reservations or a Muslim opposes the idea of a uniform civil code. The correct way in all these cases should be to judge the merits of the argument and not who makes the argument. There is also an extreme version of this phenomenon when people tend to put words into mouth of the person they do not like by saying the person has said something, which in fact was not said. In most of such cases, they justify their version of what their targeted person has “said” on the basis of their own interpretations. But then interpretation is not a fact; although by repeating it many times this interpretation is eventually made into a “fact”. This is called argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repetition). One may give two prime examples in this regard. One is Prime Minister Modi’s much-talked about interview to a foreign news agency in 2013 (then Chief Minister of Gujarat). While asked on whether he was sorry for the communal riots of 2002, Modi had said , “Another thing, any person if we are driving a car, we are a driver, and someone else is driving a car and we’re sitting behind, even then if a puppy comes under the wheel, will be painful or not? Of course, it is. If I’m a chief minister or not, I’m a human being. If something bad happens anywhere, it is natural to be sad.” But this was interpreted by Modi’s political opponents and a section of intelligentsia that he compared Muslims to dogs. “For Modi, the life of a Muslim is not more than a life of a puppy”, so ran the news headlines. And this “interpretation”, repeated consistently, became a “fact” in the global media. The other example is that of Minister of State of External Affairs General VK Singh. Asked persistently by a news channel on what the central government was doing after two Dalit children were killed in a village of Faridabad last October, the minister apparently had said that it was a local matter, that it involved a property dispute, that the caste angle should not be cited, and that the state government was doing what was necessary to punish the guilty. But that did not satisfy the reporter and the minister was again asked about the role of the central government. To this General VK Singh had replied, “The Centre cannot be blamed if somebody throws a stone at a dog.” He explained that he did not intend to draw an analogy between the Faridabad incident and stoning of a dog, but that was precisely what the critics piled on. In fact, the Opposition demanded that a criminal case be registered against the former Army Chief, under the Prevention of Atrocities on Scheduled Castes Act as he has said that “Dalits are dogs”! In other words, what we know to be “reality” in our media or public discourse is often nothing more than interpretation driven by beliefs, values and attitudes. The “truth” here is nothing more than the familiar expression of habit, which, in turn, is because of things repeating themselves. And what is more, the habit is so strong that we do not even wonder “what if?” or “what else?” or “why not?” As a result, we unthinkingly categorise some politicians or analysts as communal, casteist and reactionaries or Left radical, anti-nationalists and anarchists. Accordingly, we treat what they say with utter contempt. As a result, what we are told to be “realities” actually becomes a roadblock to our own growth. The way the likes of Swamy, Modi and Singh have often been projected in our public parlance makes it obvious that more than seeking the truth, our debates are essentially about ensuring that our viewpoints or impressions prevail. The same can be said when we deal with Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. Depending on whether we love or hate Kejriwal, his demands for more power to govern Delhi efficiently are either supported blindly or dismissed contemptuously. And that is unfair. This is not to suggest that these gentlemen are paragons of virtues, but to make the point that they too have a right to be heard without any distortion. Hearing them does not mean endorsing them.