I have written 26 pieces thus far under this column, which is slightly over the halfway mark for the number of pieces I have committed to. Now is a good time to pause for a bit, think and share a few general and generic thoughts. In the process of writing under this column, I have realised that writing on diverse topics, especially on subjects which are way outside one’s professional comfort zone, is a very different ballgame even if one fundamentally enjoys and has an aptitude for diverse reading. While I would say with measured confidence that constitutional law falls within my areas of core competence, approaching it from a civilizational perspective by applying the lens of decoloniality has required me to read up on subjects and frameworks in which I am not formally trained. In an age of super-specialization, that’s a risk I have consciously assumed in the hope that it actually helps me understand these subjects with a fresh pair of eyes and a mind that is willing to be informed as opposed to seeking confirmation of pre-existing biases, of which I am sure I have quite a few, both of the conscious and unconscious varieties, like any other person.
Apart from my own research, I have benefitted immensely from the meaningful, eye-opening and thought-provoking conversations I have had with some brilliant individuals, some of whom are scholars and scholars-in-the-making. They have helped me wade my way through the literature and have also exposed me to several layers of nuance. Thanks to this experience, I am convinced more than ever before that notwithstanding the pandemic and its devastating impact on the survival of humanities departments across the world, there has perhaps never been a more critical period in human history which has direly needed meaningful and dedicated investment in the humanities. This conclusion does not come from the self-styled and exaggerated importance that every generation imputes to itself. Instead, it comes from the genuine belief that nuance is losing its relevance both in private and public conversations and even in specialist conversations, and the only way to bring it back is by underscoring the importance of humanities. Just as we are being told that all of us must learn coding if we are to remain relevant professionally in the future regardless of one’s field of activity, I am of the view that a de minimis exposure to humanities is warranted across the broad regardless of our professional specializations. The hope is that such exposure will ultimately sharpen and elevate the conversations we have and the debates we engage in both within and outside specialist circles, and I say this without condescension given that I am a learner myself.
Critically, I have realised is that while all of us love conversations or at least claim to, the fact is that we have our own positions. For some reason, for a generation that claims to hold rebellious positions and celebrates diversity of thought, speech and action, there is very little openness to understand a diametrically different position. By openness to understand, I don’t mean acceptance, I mean engagement to thrash out differences or at least arrive at a respectable and civil disagreement. And funnily enough, this lack of confidence or openness to engage with a different perspective runs parallel to proclamations of love for “conversations” and “dialogues”. So, who do we wish to have these conversations with? Those who agree with us? To what end? To congratulate each other and pat ourselves on the back for being broad-minded?
As a consequence, words such as “conversations” and “dialogues” have become fashionable talking points to lend a façade of openness while not being truly open. Every election, local or global, and public controversy tests our much vaunted proclamations of openness and ends up betraying our deep-seated need to convince the other of our point of view and our personal investment in matters of public importance. Let me hasten to clarify that I am all for personal investment in matters of social importance and while I do prefer conversations, I would any day prefer an honest disagreement over a dishonest veneer of dialogue and a half-hearted attempt at “Can we all just get along?”. People don’t need to and usually don’t get along on everything, and that’s perfectly normal. I, in fact, respect that candour which says that the twain shall never meet between two positions and I can live with that. That way, at least one would know where the other truly stands and notwithstanding the impossibility of a middle ground, one would have at least engaged honestly with the other, which is way more important according to me. As someone who wishes he had acquired formal training in the humanities, I do sincerely hope that humanities teach people to engage with honesty and have the courage to accept genuine disagreements and live with them.
J. Sai Deepak is an Advocate practising as an arguing counsel before the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi.