A societal structure exists of narratives and counter-narratives, which ultimately lead to a person choosing freely what they wish to believe in. While the structure should ideally support itself and bring forth an age of liberal individuals, some nuances to these narratives deter society from attaining this age.
Children do not develop the cognitive skills necessary for reasoning until the age of 8 on average. This entails that they rely solely on any information passed to them by their immediate family and mentors. Although it does seem like something unavoidable, at worst and harmless, at best, this information doesn’t relate to mathematical or scientific objective truths. This information is far more subjective in nature and often covers subjects like religion, sexuality, and morality. What it really accomplishes is that creates a very strong impression on the child, almost to the extent that the child could never think of questioning these ideas.
While it still seems unavoidable, the issue could easily be tackled in a case where the child is subjected to alternative views and opinions. But why would a young adult who has spent his entire life believing in an idea, reinforced by his closest relatives, abandon that idea at the word of a stranger?
That is where it is necessary to clearly understand what discourse means and entails. Let us consider a simple example. Two people firmly believe in very distinct ideas. One believes that the hard-working should be rewarded so abundantly that it creates a shock value for the non-performing group of individuals to work hard. The other believes that the non-productive individuals must be motivated suitably to build their self-esteem so that they voluntarily chose to work hard. Both these individuals may be partially correct. Therefore, the discourse aims at not changing the views of any one of them but rather aims at two things: first, that the individuals gain a better understanding of their own belief by way of providing an alternative logic and second, to facilitate the acceptance of another belief or parts of it by way of logically deducing that it is better.
As a result, one thing becomes extremely clear, that all people have biases and beliefs passed down to them which can be corrected by way of open discussions. Taking the best-case scenario, it may even manifest in reality assuming all citizens are open to discussions on matters as personal as Religion.
The major problem that comes now is the state banning all counter narratives in the society in the name of ‘maintaining peace’ and ‘public good’.
Looking at the case of Kanhaiya Kumar, the government clamped down on him on grounds of anti-nationalism. Irrespective of the fact whether Kumar was right or not, he should be allowed to freely express his opinions as sedition isn’t just an essential element of democracy itself but also because suppressing his opinions leads to more harm than good. Once you spread this narrative in the society that one cannot speak against the government, either people resort to violent means or the general public itself brands those speaking against the nation as anti-nationals. Even if we absolutely assume Kumar to be wrong, suppressing his views further isolates him and he propagates the same ideas within echo chambers wherein he never even realizes he is wrong. The people so influenced by his speech would also never speak up and create a population that now believes in that sinful idea.
Moving further from sedition, let us also examine the case of Hardik Pandya. Patriarchy and toxic masculinity are elements that have existed in the art, language, and culture of the nation itself. Irrespective of the fact that Koffee with Karan is essentially a show that exploits toxic masculinity, Hardik Pandya made a lewd remark about his sexual relations with women. Despite the huge backlash and proposed penalties, there is quite a lot of deliberation about whether Hardik Pandya is guilty of promoting such cultures. The fact is that though his opinions are counterproductive in society, him coming up on a forum and talking about it and getting backlash and critique in the society actually furthers the way for feminism and gender equality. But we cannot discount the fact that he holds with him a privilege and an influence, and therefore he was wrong to not take cognizance of the repercussions of his words.
Discourse, therefore, can be both productive and counterproductive, but the citizenry must engage in healthy discourse to attain a society formed on logic and deliberation.
Divyam Gupta
AlumniDuring his tenure in the F&IC, Divyam served as the VP of Operations and as one of our Chief Advisors.
Impact of Political Instability in Bangladesh on India: A Detailed Analysis of Economic, Political, and Security Dimensions…
Introduction: Bangladesh, one of India’s closest neighbors, is currently facing a deep political crisis that…
SME & Scheme
In this week’s newsletter, we talk about shady SME IPOs, money lessons from cinema and…
The Rising Prices of the Football Transfer Market
A transfer in football sees a player who is under contract with one club move…
Essilor Luxottica
Historical Appraisal of the Company Leonardo Del Vecchio, an entrepreneurial genius and visionary, saw the…
4,300 millionaires leaving India in 2024, concerning or normal?
The report of 4,300 millionaires leaving India: The recent headlines on every major news article…
Union Budget 2024: Navigating the Priorities for the Quest of Sustainable Growth
The Union Budget 2024, presented by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, represents a pivotal moment in…