ENGLISH PROJECT

Ayushi Bisht
XII-B
09
 TITLE

Shashi Tharoor and Harsh Gupta Madhusudan Debate - Will India Become a
Hindu Rashtra by 2047?
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that ________________ of Class ___ Section ___, Holy Child
Auxilium School, has completed her project under the guidance of the English
teacher, Ms. Elsa Philip. She has taken proper care and show utmost sincerity in
the completion of her project.

Date Signature
OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT

The whole discussion encircles on the main question in the podcast that is, 'Will
India Will India Become a Hindu Rashtra by 2047?’. Both speakers along with the
interviewer make an attempt to give their views on how secularism keeps India’s
unity together and will the age-old constitution be re-written in favor of the most
practiced religion in the country hereafter.
INTRODUCTION OF SPEAKERS INTERVIEWER

INTERVIEWER-
Rajdeep Sardesai aka Dalladeep is an Indian news anchor, reporter, journalist
and author. He was a consulting editor and an anchor of India Today Television.

SPEAKERS-
▫ Dr. Shashi Tharoor - is a well-known politician, diplomat, writer and public
intellectual. A Sahitya Academy Awardee, Tharoor has authored many
works of fiction and non-fiction since 1981, which are centered on India and
its history, culture, film, politics and more related themes.

▫ Harsh Gupta Madhusudan- is an India-based public markets investor. He

has written extensively on economics, finance and politics for Mint,
Swarajya, The Wall Street Journal, The Indian Express and other
publications.
SUMMARY OF THE PODCAST
The podcast holds a discussion questioning the reality of how India will look in the
year 2047. Congress leader Shashi Tharoor and economist Harsh Madhusudan sit
on a debate with Rajdeep Sardesai as the moderator. The viewer can notice many
jabs, facts and reasons throughout the discussion.
The debate starts off with Mr.Sardesai introducing the topic to the audience as well
as both the guest speakers. He straightway tosses the question to Mr. Tharoor
asking if he believes that India will have a new constitution in the next 25 years.
Both speakers argue on the rare possibility of such question. They explain how the
‘word’ secularism doesn’t declare us Indians secular. Both sides make a serious
attempt to bring serious clarity on their perspectives on the questions asked and
several influential leaders and philosophers like Karl Popper and Sri Aurobindo are
quoted. Other controversial matters like Hindutva, the global Islamic crisis as well
as many Supreme Law verdicts are brazenly discussed. Madhusudan defended BJP
advocating that the BJP in power did not once try to reverse anything introduced
by Nehru, Ambedkar or the Supreme Court. He, henceforth, counsels that any new
civil laws that come should come under UCC and not under the Hindu civil laws.
On the other hand, Shashi Tharoor admits being a deep bhakta of Vivekananda and
explaining how Hinduism is not only about tolerance but about acceptance. He
criticizes the present union government for cases of discrimination on the basis on
religion and alleges how today’s Hindutva panders to the majority Hindu at the
expense of the minority Muslims.
The heated debate is concluded by both speakers vocalizing the best reasons about
being an Indian to which both bring out the perks of remaining one of the most
secular democracies in the world.
ROLE OF INTERVIEWER

Hearing the whole discussion, it is crystal-clear that Mr.Sardesai is an experienced

and witty anchor. He excellently moderates the discussion and doesn’t pull back
from passing quick-witted remarks on the manner in which Mr. Tharoor makes an
attempt to dodge the questions which oppose his party’s shared beliefs. He light-
heartedly introduces serious questions and effortlessly directs open-ended
questions.
It is also noticeable that the interviewer has appreciable oratory skills and a vast
pre-existing knowledge on the topic of discussion. He moderates the discussion
quite precisely stopping the speakers from getting off-topic and firing the other
with questions relating to their respective believed ideologies. He finally, ends the
debate on a positive, unified note asking the speakers to admit the best thing about
living in India and being an Indian.
CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE PODCAST

The podcast provides the viewer with a clear and detailed explanation on the
present ideas of Secularism and Hindutva.
Both sides share blunt comments regarding the current state of the nation dealing
with the diverse religions and how the central government is fulfilling its duties.
The ideologies shared by left and right groups are put forward. Madhusudan quotes
Sri Aurobindo who mentioned in his Uttarpara speech that Sanatana Dharma is our
nationalism. Hypocrisy regarding acceptance of the polygamy by Muslim men and
Congress’s disapproval on the removal of Article 370 provide the viewer with
insightful resources to grasp the topic with more clarity.
Shashi explains how Savarkar said that India has two nations, the Hindus and
Muslims and thus, his notion of Nationhood is an exclusive one. At another
instance, Madhusudan quoted Shashi Tharoor himself to state that Hinduism has
no one founder, no one prophet, no one holy book, no one God, and no one way of
praying. The latter also advises Shashi to quote Karl Popper if he is not okay with
Savarkar, referring to the philosopher's idea that in order to remain a tolerant
society, one must be intolerant of intolerance.
CONCLUSION/STUDENT REFLECTIONS

The podcast elucidates a lot and was a healthy conversation on several easily
disputable topics.
In my opinion, Madhusudan was blatantly blunt in the discussion. While Tharoor
kept a calm attitude sharing his views, The former kept on interrupting the latter’s
views with his own. He went on as far as to say that the Congress Party may not
even exist after 25 years.
Besides this, Madhusudan expressed the views of the general public being neutral
to any political party. It also seemed that Tharoor was holding back,being stuck in
the dilemma between voicing his honest opinions and remaining loyal to his
party’s beliefs.
“Wherever the Hindu majority declines the AFSPA comes into effect", was a bold
statement made by Madhusudan regarding the socio-economic equality debate.
In the end, I appreciated Madhusudan's sharp and pointed references transcending
various points in history, as well as Mr. Tharoor's graciousness in accepting ruling
governments achievements.
The following arguments and counter arguments on economy, education and
infrastructure development were equally engaging and worth ruminating over.
APPENDIX

 Nehruvian Vision Of Secularism

Nehru regarded secularism as the basic law of Indian nationhood. It grew as an
integrative process. He believed that the territorial integrity, political stability and
national identity in a country with multi-faceted diversity can be achieved only
through secularism. According to Nehru, secularism does not mean indifference to
religion.

 De Facto
in fact, whether by right or not

 Left-winged Parties
describes the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social
equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy, involving a
concern for those in society with a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that
need to be reduced or abolished. They are also associated with popular or state
control of major political and economic institutions.
Eg: All India Trinamool Congress (AIT), Communist party of India (Marxist), etc.
  Right-winged Parties
Conservatives, Nationalists, and Republicans are all supporters of the right-wing.
They believe in social conservatism and economic liberalism. Right-wing politics
is based on the assumption that certain social systems and hierarchies are
unavoidable and natural, as evidenced by natural law or tradition.
Eg: Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), Shiv Sena,etc.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Shashi Tharoor and Harsh Gupta Madhusudan Debate - Will

India Become a Hindu Rashtra by 2047?

 https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/left-and-right-
wing-politics

 https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/defend-hinduism