'The Argumentative Indian': Insight into Amartya Sen's genius (Review)
Subhash K. Jha
It is a miracle that this vital documentary throwing light on one of India's brightest minds, ever made into theatres. Miracle, because the film's architect and director Suman Ghosh (whose feature film "Nobel Chor" fictionalising the real-life theft of Rabindranath Tagore's Nobel prize) had to fight a long and hard battle with the Indian censor board to stop some hard-hitting comments on India's politics from being cut.
It is also a miracle to see Amartya Sen reach the age of 84 when 66 years ago, the doctors had given him only five years to live after he was detected with mouth cancer. We hear Sen's mother speak of that miracle -- of her son surviving a serious death to become one of India's most perspicuous minds. We also hear Sen describe the self-diagnosis that he undertook and which probably saved his life.
What comes across in the hour-long documentary is the Nobel laureate's tenacity and obstinacy. He does bend but you won't catch him tripping over his thoughts or contradiction his own views. He is not immovable in his opinions either.
The documentary is essentially a two-part interview conducted by the famed economist Kaushik Basu, conducted with a 15-year gap between the two conversations. Although the conversations per se are illuminating and deeply reflective of Sen's intellect, I craved for more insight into his heart rather than focusing almost entirely on the mind.
Sen's mother comes forward with her cursory thoughts and she is specially disarming as she recalls her son's phone call about winning the Nobel prize. We see Sen receiving the Nobel prize early in the narrative. Just why vital events from his life occupy a particular place in the documentary is not explained.
But where are Sen's two daughters? We would have loved to see them speak on their father. While the documentary sheds illuminating light on the Nobel laureate's academic pursuits, there isn't enough on his other roles in life. This perhaps is a conscious omission indicative of the lacuna that all intellectual minds are familiar with.
A life so devoted to the pursuit of knowledge tends to preclude domestic duties. What we see in the documentary is the academician, the teacher, the philosopher and the intellectual, but seldom the man in his domestic environment.
Towards the end, the discourse veers towards, what else, mortality. But Sen seems uncomfortable discussing that subject. He is far more expansive talking on his growing up years in Dhaka, and on Mahatma Gandhi.
"I am not a nationalist. But I am still quite proud of my country," Sen says at one point of his conversation.
It is a defining moment in the discourse that tells us why a mind as sorted as Amartya Sen needs to be stubborn on national issues.
You can only aspire to greatness if you shun mundane roles.
"The Argumentative Indian" is a documentation of a life careening towards immortality. Not to be missed by any Indian.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
US SC rejects 26/11 attack accused Tahawwur Rana’s plea seeking stay on his extradition to India
New York, Apr 7 (PTI): The US Supreme Court has rejected 26/11 Mumbai terror attack accused Tahawwur Rana's appeal seeking a stay on his extradition to India, moving him closer to being handed over to Indian authorities to face justice.
Rana, 64, a Canadian national of Pakistani origin, is currently lodged at a metropolitan detention centre in Los Angeles.
He is known to be associated with Pakistani-American terrorist David Coleman Headley, one of the main conspirators of the 26/11 attacks. Headley conducted a recce of Mumbai before the attacks by posing as an employee of Rana’s immigration consultancy.
Rana had submitted an ‘Emergency Application For Stay Pending Litigation of Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus' on February 27, 2025, with Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit Elena Kagan.
Kagan had denied the application earlier last month.
Rana had then renewed his ‘Emergency Application for Stay Pending Litigation of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus previously addressed to Justice Kagan’, and requested that the renewed application be directed to US Chief Justice John Roberts.
An order on the Supreme Court website noted that Rana's renewed application had been “distributed for Conference” on April 4 and the “application” has been “referred to the Court.”
A notice on the Supreme Court website Monday said that “Application denied by the Court.”
Rana was convicted in the US of one count of conspiracy to provide material support to the terrorist plot in Denmark and one count of providing material support to Pakistan-based terrorist organisation Lashker-e-Taiba which was responsible for the attacks in Mumbai.
New York-based Indian-American attorney Ravi Batra had told PTI that Rana had made his application to the Supreme Court to prevent extradition, which Justice Kagan denied on March 6. The application was then submitted before Roberts, “who has shared it with the Court to conference so as to harness the entire Court’s view.”
The Supreme Court justices are Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
In his emergency application, Rana had sought a stay of his extradition and surrender to India pending litigation (including exhaustion of all appeals) on the merits of his February 13.
In that petition, Rana argued that his extradition to India violates US law and the UN Convention Against Torture "because there are substantial grounds for believing that, if extradited to India, the petitioner will be in danger of being subjected to torture."
"The likelihood of torture in this case is even higher though as petitioner faces acute risk as a Muslim of Pakistani origin charged in the Mumbai attacks,” the application said.
The application also said that his “severe medical conditions” render extradition to Indian detention facilities a “de facto" death sentence in this case.
The US Supreme Court denied Rana's petition for a writ of certiorari relating to his original habeas petition on January 21. The application notes that on that same day, newly-confirmed Secretary of State Marco Rubio had met with External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar.
When Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in Washington on February 12 to meet with Trump, Rana’s counsel received a letter from the Department of State, stating that “on February 11, 2025, the Secretary of State decided to authorise” Rana’s "surrender to India,” pursuant to the “Extradition Treaty between the United States and India”.
Rana’s Counsel requested from the State Department the complete administrative record on which Secretary Rubio based his decision to authorize Rana’s surrender to India.
The Counsel also requested immediate information of any commitment the United States has obtained from India with respect to Rana’s treatment. “The government declined to provide any information in response to these requests,” the application said.
It added that given Rana’s underlying health conditions and the State Department’s findings regarding the treatment of prisoners, it is very likely “Rana will not survive long enough to be tried in India".
During a joint press conference with Prime Minister Modi in the White House in February, President Donald Trump announced that his administration has approved the extradition of "very evil" Rana, wanted by Indian law enforcement agencies for his role in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, "to face justice in India”.
A total of 166 people, including six Americans, were killed in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks in which 10 Pakistani terrorists laid a more than 60-hour siege, attacking and killing people at iconic and vital locations in Mumbai.
