'Arguments can't check corruption'

The nobel laureate is excited about his latest book, The Argumentative Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity, that was released by the PM recently.

What inspired you to come up with this compilation of essays?
Three things. First, I have always been very interested in India's past. I have spent a lot of time studying Indian history. I always wanted to come to terms with my own understanding of India's past in relation to the present.

Second, I kept thinking there was a real problem with understanding India's past, for example its rationalist past, which has been ignored. Besides, there was this sense that most people seemed to find ancient India a bit of an embarrassment. This is largely because the proponents of Hindutva have mistakenly taken a very narrow view of ancient India.

Third, there are certain systematic biases that I can deal with and to some extent change. But this is not a political book.

Why hasn't the argumentative voice weeded out corruption at all levels?
Corruption is a worldwide phenomenon. It affects most countries. India is no exception. One cannot eliminate corruption through arguments alone. Engaging arguments can make a big contribution but you also need an institutional structure where corruption receives its penalties. It is not adequate to criticise people for being corrupt if they know that nothing will happen to them other than criticism. So we need an institutional structure and that we don't have.

Nevertheless, argumentative tradition can make a big contribution to eliminate corruption, provided it is guided in the right direction, which has to include a sense of appreciation that corruption need not be a normal state of affairs. The argument has to recognise that it is not necessary to live in a corrupt society.

Why have we failed to do so?
When a result depends on a number of causes, you need all of them. The presence of one doesn't mean that it will automatically come about. Argumentative tradition can contribute in two ways: one, it is part of the bigger package, which requires institution too. Secondly, the institutional changes that are needed can be incorporated into the argumentative tradition. And that tradition can help create a congenial atmosphere.

It requires a broadening of the issue. Politics, media and public discussion can play a vital part. I feel discussion is a good way of tackling gender problems, and many issues traditionally have been tackled well with the argumentative tradition, in which women have played a big part.

Has India been unjust to its minorities? Why is it becoming a hotbed of Islamic terrorism?
First, the vast majority of Indian Muslims are not involved in terrorism. Second, when some people get into terrorism, one has to distinguish between seeing them in terms of the identity of religion as opposed to their identity as criminal terrorists. Terrorism is a law and order issue. To say these acts of terrorism were carried out by Muslims would be unjust. The third part is that Islamic terrorists have been able to move people across the world. It is a matter of pride that we have 145 million Muslims and extremely few terrorists.

How do we weed out terrorism with the argumentative tradition?
I don't think one should look at it only as weeding out terror. It's a question of taking a fuller and more just view of the world. It requires elimination of other kinds of monstrosities. Part of the problem in dealing with this so-called war on terror is to isolate the problem of terrorism from the other concerns.