Amartya Sen's new book, The Argumentative Indian, offers his defense of public discourse as a mechanism to reduce political and social inequities as well as an interpretation of Indian history that focuses on the scientific and progressive achievements of the subcontinent. In many ways, the book argues against any notion of a Hindu equilibrium that has constrained the Indian economy (although I did not notice Deepak Lal mentioned). Overall, I enjoyed the book and discovered numerous books and articles to read about India that I did not know (one often has this experience when reading Sen's writings). His chapter on Rabindranath Tagore was enjoyable as is the chapter that examines the historical relationship between China and India.
Yet, I came away from the book somewhat disappointed. If Sen's claim are correct, then why did India stagnate economically and come under colonial rule? If science was as vibrant as Sen argues, then why no Industrial Revolution? If dignified discourse has been a fact of Indian life, then why has Kashmir represented such a problem?
In my opinion, Sen overestimates the role of intellectuals in everyday life. I got the impression that Sen believes that the existence of scientific findings and political tracts that praise democracy in Indian history is evidence to support his claims. But what evidence is there that these statements had any impact on everyday life? Not much that I am aware of. Additional institutions are necessary for ideas to translate into behavioral changes. Once we identify the missing institutions in Indian history, then we can revise Sen's claims and better understand Indian history.