The coarsening of political discourse is a topic that many Indians across class and region comment on with regularity. Bolstering this view are prime-time television debates that exhibit shouting matches. More often than not the loudest voice gets heard, not necessarily the soundest logic.  This departure from the Bharatiya tradition of samvaad is something we must all reflect on, whether we participate in the debates or not. The online cheering squads also seem to acknowledge the rudest and most abrasive interactions, conversations devolve into personal attacks and women are referred to in disparaging terms across political lines. As someone who participates in these debates, I often have a ringside view of the goings on and have had a “Beam me up, Scotty” moment on more than one occasion.  But for indulging momentary impulses of escapism, the level of debate is cause for serious concern for the largest democracy in the world that owes its survival to informed voters.

But back to the political noise which assails us every day, how do we the voters make informed decisions on which party to support, when each does the very best to present the worst side of the other and then in doing so, presents the worst side of themselves! I have for long believed that in a country that has gifted the tradition of samvaad to the world – the art of debate that seeks to inform and not deflate an opponent is the way forward. This very form of debate led to the revival of Hinduism thanks to its artful practice and articulation by Adi Shankaracharya. His famed, civil debate with Mandana Misra is of legend and is today a pilgrimage spot in its own right. To think a place for conversation is held with reverence, in a time when television studios our modern day spaces for debate are reduced to verbal mud wrestling rings. It is all too easy to blame the media for this situation, but some of the blame must be borne by us as well, the viewers who give huge ratings to these bouts.

Earlier this week, Union minister and Hazaribagh MP, Jayant Sinha, found himself in a controversy when photographs emerged of him with some constituents who had been released by the court in a lynching incident. The court observing that no proof had been found to suggest they had been part of the attack although they were present at the time (paraphrase).  The matter is still pending in court, so guilt or innocence is outside the realm of this article, however, the optics went against the minister, who is known to be articulate and a gentleman, the latter a rare commodity in Indian politics. There was outrage and also shock, Congress president, Rahul Gandhi was quick to strike, pushing a signature campaign by a recent alum that asked for Mr Sinha’s Harvard degree to be revoked. In response Mr Sinha offered to debate his position with Mr Gandhi and said that the latters’ attack on him was personal – that spared neither his education, values or humanity. He suggested a debate on the specific lynching incident that had caused the outrage. At a time when media trials and social media outrage determines guilt or innocence faster than our legal system, a civil debate on social issues and political accountability is the need of the hour.  This civilised offer of debate between two “young” politicians was welcomed by most on social media. Lynching incidents have been heavily politicised and for the most part, no serious discussions take place on the matter, party spokespersons use the latest incident and its location to attack each other. Lists are drawn of these barbaric incidents when the other was in power. The futility of these shrill exchanges at a time when such acts of barbarity are taking place in different parts of the country for reasons ranging from beef to child abduction is alarming. The role of social media, especially WhatsApp in fuelling rumours that trigger these incidents is dangerous. And yet, it has become a tool for political attack and counter-attack. The victims are forgotten, the vulnerabilities that still exist shoved aside. A debate that addresses these issues between political stakeholders and people who can make a difference at the highest levels is welcome. But will Mr Gandhi accept this offer of samvaad? Or will it remain a mere opportunity to pull down an opponent, yet another example in a pattern of behaviour both sides of the political spectrum have mastered? As of now, he is yet to respond.

(The writer is a screenwriter  and a columnist)