The Fallacy of the “Two Sides” - Part VII

Part VI

The two sides of a cause, or a narrative, or an ideology are like the two sides of the same coin, which has no value without either of them. But still one thinks it’s superior to the other and the other dismisses it as though its existence is inconsequential. But one thing that comes about, seen holistically, is that both the sides are adamant, arrogant and insensitive to each other. The reality is that, one exists because of the other and if one hadn’t been there perhaps the other wouldn’t be there too. There’s a “Bhakt”, only because there’s also a “Sickular”. There’s a “Sold Media” because there’s also a “Modia”. And in the melee, the coin seems meaningless.

To give an example, let’s go through a conversation between “Any One” and “Other One”, who represent the two sides. They both are friends and come from similar backgrounds. But still they are on the two sides and here goes their conversation, about the recent CAA, Citizenship Amendment Act.

Any One: Good points. I recently read Vikram Sampath's biography of Savarkar. That was useful for me. As was Ambedkar's exchanges with Gandhi. By the way, there’s a funny story. Baba went to Bombay while he was in first year at college. The guy who was hosting him lived in the same building as Savarkar. He dropped by his house, and my father was told, pronam koro. So he did. Now he can tell the story of how he touched Savarkar's feet, the man who likely inspired Godse. Yes, I agree that a unidimensional impression of any of these people is a huge injustice to each of them.

Other One: Interestingly, in the leftist narrative of Savarkar, at least in the history text books we read in [the] Bengal board, Savarkar was shown as a great hero and there was no mention of his two nation theory or anything. Gokhale introduced Ganapati festival which Tagore also introduced in Bengal and unknowingly that alienated the Muslims to a great extent, might be more than what Savarkar did. In fact, I really doubt how much alienation of the Muslims in India happened due to Savarkar, or for that matter Godse. Of the so huge Tagore’s work, how many [have] Muslim characters could again be a bone of contention and perhaps that’s the reason why he’s now being condemned by [a section of] the radicalized Bangladesh. Tagore wrote so widely about the Vedas and the Upanishads, but I haven’t come across anything about Muslim [theology]. And the same holds good for Swami Vivekananda. But that doesn’t make them communal. But if someone wants to say, from one angle both Swamiji and Tagore could be seen as communal.

Any One: Yes, but it's also not fair to judge these people by 21^st century social norms. By that argument Gandhi was a racist. The reason social norms change is because of forward looking thinkers like them.

Other One: It’s all about one sided narratives that creates a chasm between two sides. The leftist narrative of India for the first 50-60 years after independence did the most harm in creating the chasm. Yes, you’re correct, that’s my point also – you can’t say Gandhi a racist or Swamiji a communal, but a narrow agenda based narrative could paint them like that. And that’s what has happened in India in many ways. What we see today is a bad retaliation of that – the reaction to looking down and demonizing one side.

Coming to Vikram Sampath, do you support how everyone left him out of the Bangalore lit fest just because he had a different ideology or because he didn’t support the Award Wapsi? So what’s the difference between bigots and the people who raise their voices against bigots? That’s what makes the other side very suspicious of the people who raise voices. There are tons of other similar examples. None of those voices comes openly in support of Taslima Nasreen. And everything is reciprocal. The moment the other side becomes powerful the reciprocation becomes more vigorous. But who created the Frankenstein? The same voices who now fight against the Frankenstein. So, at the end of the day, it’s like [a] poem by Annada Shankar Roy, I read long time back – it goes something like this: Mukherjee is the King, Mukherjees are the people; Mukherjee is the government, Mukherjees are the opposition; Mukherjees are the protest, Mukherjees are the police... You know what he means and I see the same thing here too. It’s all the same people on either sides.

Any One: Yes. I don't support Vikram Sampath being disinvited. It's as bad as how Ambedkar was disinvited from his last lecture. I too have a few friends who are on other sides of the spectrum including you. No good can come out of stopping dialogue. Positions will only get hardened. It's important to keep explaining to each other with rational arguments.