'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.
Liberal approach must be adopted while considering disability pension to army men: SC
New Delhi (PTI): Observing that a liberal approach must be adopted while construing beneficial provisions, the Supreme Court has granted disability pension to an army man who was relieved from the service as he was suffering from "Schizophrenia."
The top court noted that the decision of the authority to discharge a serviceman is based on a medical report which is devoid of reasons.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and N Kotiswar Singh said the requirement to give reasons by the Medical Board is crucial, critical, decisive and necessary for granting or denying disability pension.
The apex court said it is not a mere formality, but a necessary material based on which the pension sanctioning authority has to decide about the grant or refusal of disability pension.
"Accordingly, in our opinion, if the serviceman is discharged from service or denied the disability pension on the basis of a medical opinion which is devoid of reasons, it would strike at the root of the action taken by the authority, and such action cannot be sustained in law.
"We, therefore, hold that if any action is taken by the authority for the discharge of a serviceman and the serviceman is denied disability pension on the basis of a report of the Medical Board wherein no reasons have been disclosed for the opinion so given, such an action of the authority will be unsustainable in law," the bench said in its judgement dated May 7 which was uploaded today.
The top court was hearing a plea filed by an army man challenging an order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi, by which the appellant's claim for grant of disability pension was denied.
The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on November 17, 1988, as a sepoy, and after serving more than nine years, he was discharged from service on being diagnosed with Schizophrenia.
His discharge on medical invalidation was based on the opinion of the Invalidating Medical Board held on March 30, 1998, at the Command Hospital, Western Command, Chandimandir which found that the onset of the invalidating disease was in August 1993 during which period the appellant had served in a peace station and that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and the said disease of the appellant was constitutional in nature and not connected with the service.
In its judgement, the top court said a much more liberal view needs to be adopted while dealing with the cases of discharge of servicemen from service on account of suffering from Schizophrenia as they may face several impediments and difficulties in proving the causal connection of the said disease with the military service.
"We must appreciate the fact that the provisions for grant of disability pension are in the nature of a beneficial scheme intended to provide succour to servicemen in hard times who have been discharged from service after having served the nation with dedication. Accordingly, a liberal approach must be adopted while construing such beneficial provisions," the bench said.
The apex court said in cases where the serviceman himself has not applied for discharge but has been discharged by the authority, the onus of proving the disability and grounds for denying the disability pension would lie heavily on the authority.
"Since it is the statutory requirement that the opinion of the Medical Board is to be the basis of the discharge, in our view, if the opinion of Medical Board is devoid of reasons, the act of the authority based on mere opinion sans reasons can certainly be questioned.
"According to us, if the decision of the authority to discharge a serviceman is based on a medical report which is devoid of reasons, which are required to be given as also mandated by rules as discussed above, such an act of the authority specially when it denies any post discharge benefit will be rendered invalid in the eyes of law," the bench said.
The court said it has noted that in the entire original record produced, there is no material for concluding that the appellant was suffering from Schizophrenia, which is in the nature of a constitutional personal disorder.
"Accordingly, we hold that the order of discharge of the appellant and denial of disability pension to him based on a medical opinion without providing full reasons to support the opinion cannot be said to be valid.
"The question which would arise for consideration now is whether we should remit the matter to the Medical Board at this stage for reconsideration in the light of our observations made above. We, however, feel that adopting the aforesaid course of action at this stage after about 27 years of the appellant being invalided from service on May 18, 1998, would not be in the interest of justice," the bench said.
The top court refused to disturb the order of discharge of the army man on the ground of medical invalidity due to Schizophrenia, but directed the authorities that he be granted disability pension with immediate effect with all attending benefits, as per rules.
However, the appellant will not be entitled to any arrears of invalid pension, except for the last three years, it said.
