Introduction

Every news channel nowadays has laid special emphasis on debates by way of allotting special slots to it and we all are witness to shouting and table thumping panelists who vehemently try to defend their point of view at any cost. It is regrettable that debates have been metamorphosed in the battle, they are not arranged to find out a truth but to impose the ideology on panelists and viewers alike. Debates are fought tooth and nail merely to defeat the other side. In case it is difficult to win over the opposition, obfuscation tactics are employed frequently with an intention to keep the issue inconclusive so as to avoid any defeat. The panelists in the media seem to be convinced with only one point of view and rest of the views are scoffed at as anti-rational, Sanghi, anti-national etc. The another oft-seen phenomenon in the cotemporary debates is ‘shoot and scoot’, wherein merely allegations are leveled without any substantial evidence and sometimes with an intention to wander off from the nub of issue. We therefore need to delve into the concept and tradition of “Discourse” in ancient India in order to find out how sages and savants organized discourses, which rules had they evolved to have meaningful debates and how they produced seminal works like Upanishads.

Concept of Purva- paksha and Indic perception of Debate

In our Guru- Shishya tradition, dialectic was the bedrock and it was followed meticulously by Guru and Shishya both to arrive at truth. Guru never hammered students with his point of views and students were free to discuss, question and arrive at conclusion which might be at variance with the opinion of Guru. The evolution of Upanishda was the culmination of the Vaad or dialogue between scholars.

Purva paksha is cardinal principle of debate diligently followed in Indic tradition since eons. Purva paksha, literary means a prior view and it refers to the critical examination of the point of view of others on the subject under discussion. Purva-paksha essentially involves the study of existing views or arguments of others to develop a deep understanding of their point of view. It means thinking like opponent by stepping in his shoes for the reason that without having deep understanding of opponent’s views it is impossible to refute him.

The Purva paksha part is the first limb of discourse system in India, the remaining two were Khandana (refutation of view) and Uttar paksha (subsequent view or conclusion). A similar line of tradition is touted in Marxist school which is divided into three parts namely Thesis, Anti-thesis, and Synthesis. Marxist school believes that after intense debate two parties will come to a conclusion which may be different than the point of views expatiated by the parties. It is therefore, significant to note that the so-called Marxists need to inculcate Indic rules of debate which are in consonance with the Marxist tradition however, they miserably failed even to live up to their own tradition.

Rajiv Malhotra has lucidly explained Purva- paksha tradition as follows;

“Purva-paksha is an ancient dharmic technique where a debater must first authentically understand in the opponent’s perspective, test the merits of that point of view and only then engage in debate using his own position. Purva-paksha encourages individuals to become truly knowledgeable about all perspectives, to approach the other side with respect and to forego the desire to simply win the contest. Purva-paksha also demands that all sides be willing to embrace the shifts in thinking, disruptive and controversial as they may be, that emerge from such a dialectical process”.

In Indic tradition, dialectic has been divided in three parts;

First, vaada, is process of pathological rumination wherein both parties’ quest for deeper, understanding of issue and display gumption to arrive at truth. Point of view is proposed for consideration only after deep understanding of point of view of other party. In this process both the parties have open mind to arrive at truth hence, genuine view is upheld by the parties even it is expressed by counterparty. Jagadguru Shankaracharya followed this tradition while debating with Mandanamishra.

Second, the sole aim of jalpa (cavil) is to win and establish your position. There is no desire for truth rather parties have predilections and they pour all efforts by gathering evidence to buttress their predilections. What is at stake is prestige and honour. The participants seek to win the debate by any means necessary, including unreasonable responses, shifting topics, and irrelevant rejoinders.

Third, vitanda (wrangling), the participant has no stance of their own. They simply refute everything that the opponent says in a no-holds-barred fight. There is a serious attempt to undermine the opponent’s credibility using irrational arguments and misrepresentation. This is the debating equivalent of a street fight.

Vaada is very important from civilizational perspective, as constant evolution is the sole objective to enter into Vaada. In this process not only participants in the debate get elevated in the knowledge but viewers of the debate too climb up ladders of knowledge due to scholastic exchange of views.

After stage of Purva paksha, comes Khandna wherein the with complete logic and good conscience arguments put forth in Purva paksha are refuted and ultimately parties settle to Uttar-paksha means final conclusion which surfaces after a lot of churning of ideas between the parties.

If we pursue Purva-paksha fundamentals in letter and spirit in contemporary debates then every person participating in debate including Dharmagurus of each religion must be equally scholarly in rest other religious studies. Similarly, politicians debating any point let us say “Hindutva” must have deep knowledge of Hindu scriptures and willingness to understand the roots of an arguments of opposite party, whether our debate panelist qualify these requisites? If no, they are not entitled to participate in debate itself.

The discussion or debate has become instrument in the hands of lobbyist and it is used by them merely to establish the motivated conclusions suitable to them hence it could be safely concluded that contemporary debates are oscillating between jalpa and vitanda the rudimentary ethos of finding the truth through Vaada has been set at naught. It is regrettable that in country like India which has rich tradition of discourse, not a single institution is free from biases. Indian society therefore have to rise upto its tradition with a view to develop truly unbiased institutions for its overall betterment and also to set the role model before the world in its quest for truth.

Conclusion

We need to understand that merely extracting convenient points from scriptures and thereby interpreting it to suit pre-decided stand is a biggest fraud on society. Therefore, it is our duty to maintain purity of knowledge by indulging in truth seeking debates. Remember discourses and exchange of ideas is the only way to tread a path of Truth and if the path itself is allowed to be corrupted whole edifice of truth is bound to collapse.

I would like to conclude by paraphrasing a sentence from holy Bible as follows;

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again?

References

https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/how-to-elevate-public-discourse-in-india-an-indic-perspective

http://purva-paksha.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-meaning-of-purva-paksha.html