The dissent of man

Book review of Voices of Dissent

Voices of Dissent

Author: Romila Thapar

Publisher: Seagull Books

Pages: 168

Price: Rs 499

“The study of dissent is essential to understanding how civilizations evolved, for there cannot be any advance in knowledge without a questioning of the world we live in,” writes historian Romila Thapar in her new book Voices of Dissent . If the aim of critical enquiry is to illuminate our understanding of the continuities between past and present, why does dissent set off alarm bells? What kind of subversive potential does it hold? How is regulated, contained or quashed? Who orchestrates this threat to freedom of speech?

Before investigating these questions, Professor Thapar ventures to define what she means by dissent. This precision is useful because dissent is often unhelpfully conflated with anarchy, sedition, even terrorism. She writes, “Dissent is, in essence, the disagreement that a person or persons may have with others, or, more publicly, with some of the institutions that govern their patterns of life. People have disagreed since time immemorial; they have argued, or agreed to disagree, or eventually arrived at an agreement. That is all part of life, of living.”

Is there anything new in what she is saying here? The purpose of this book is not to present fresh insights but to clear the fog of misunderstanding since fake news has begun to masquerade as history. Professor Thapar challenges the argument that “dissent itself was imported into Indian society from the West.” According to her, this line of thinking visualises “the Indian past as free of blemishes and therefore not requiring dissenting opinions.” She acknowledges that dissent can take a violent turn, but her focus here is on nonviolent forms of dissent.

Voices of Dissent has been put together from two lectures Professor Thapar delivered in 2019 — the Nemi Chand Memorial Lecture titled “The Presence of the Other: Religion and Society in Early India”, and the V M Tarkunde Memorial Lecture titled “Renunciation, Dissent and Satyagraha”. She has integrated them in a manner that reflects a continuity of thematic concerns, looking at key moments in Indian history from Vedic times to the Civil Disobedience Movement, up until protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2019 in Shaheen Bagh.

She writes, “Dissent is not a modern concept, but recognizing it in its various forms is new, as is the fact that, in a truly liberal, democratic society, such questioning is not frowned upon but, rather, encouraged and explored through discussion. The right to question is now public, open, and can be exercised by any citizen. Earlier, only the powerful had this right, but today it extends — in theory at least — to all citizens.” This right is protected by the Constitution of India.  Why does it extend to all only in theory? Unfortunately, Professor Thapar does not address this issue.

Where this book shines is in its discussion of how dissent often arises from within cultures, and not from the outside, restructuring social relations and enabling mutation of knowledge through the questioning of institutions. Professor Thapar examines at length the emergence of the Jainas, Buddhists and Ajivikas — collectively called the Shramanas — in opposition to Vedic Brahmanism. “Brahmanical literature refers to the Shramanas categorically as  nastika, the non-believers, the astika being the believers,” she writes.

The author looks at two kinds of responses in this context: One, wherein “the Buddhists and Jainas, described as heretics and dissidents in the Puranas of the early centuries AD, began to experience persecution” and another, wherein competition with Shramanism catalysed Puranic Hinduism’s induction of local deities and embrace of languages other than Sanskrit to bring within its fold those who were excluded. “This would be an example of dissent helping to engineer a new formulation of an existing religion,” she writes.

The book raises some significant questions, not only for the political establishment but also for dissenters. Does dissent seek resolution of conflict, sharing of power, annihilation of tradition, or merely a recognition of plurality in thought? Under what conditions can dissent can be addressed through dialogue rather than violent suppression? When does dissent serve to strengthen orthodoxy rather than dismantle it? If dissent gives way to accommodation, is that a win-win situation or a selling out? Can ideological purity coexist with political pragmatism?

Building on Professor Thapar’s arguments in this book, it is worth reflecting on whether the state alone is responsible for curbing dissent. Literature festivals cancel speaking slots for public intellectuals with strong political views that might jeopardise corporate sponsorship. Publishing houses pulp books when they face the ire of social media influencers, religious leaders and ideologues. Television anchors run campaigns against activists to tarnish their reputations and label them anti-national.

These desperate efforts to hold on to power and bulldoze everyone who comes in the way point to a more elemental fear of change. A democracy without dissent seems unimaginable. Dissent, after all, is an indication of a citizenry that is alive, committed and engaged.