Communication
is the lifeblood of society—it sustains and nurtures, enables communities to
flourish. However, when exchange of thoughts and ideas go bad, it can harm society
just as infected blood harms the body. It erodes trust, fosters animosity, and
creates distance between people, ultimately leading to unhealthy relationships
devoid of mutual love, respect, harmony, and productivity.
Humans
have built a society where we see those who agree with us as good and intelligent,
and those who disagree as negative. We have lost the primal ability to see
others as fellow humans, which is a dangerous trend. We must understand that
disagreement does not mean disrespect, or we risk increasing loneliness and fragmentation
in society.
Our
inability to disagree respectfully is not just a personal failing—it is a
social crisis, from family dinners to local - national potitics to
international diplomacy, the consequences of dismissive or hostile
disagreements are all around threatening trust, friendship and unity.
Our
cognitive biases make us think of complicated solutions and keep us from
practicing or even recognising respectful disagreement as one of the simplest
yet most effective tools to address the growing problem of fragmentation, both
locally and globally.
On
a surface level, respectful disagreement might look like a post truth philosophy
provoking some political and social activists to question its practicality and
relevance in addressing the real world problems.
But
it has been used by great leaders such as Abraham Lincoln, Gandhiji, Nelson
Mandela, Martin Luther King Junior in the recent past.
Mahatma
Gandhi's civil disobedience movement was not just a fight against British rule
in India. His approach showed that respectful disagreement could be powerful to
bring about solutions to the problems we face in our times. Disagreeing
respectfully does not mean compromising our values or staying silent about
injustice. It means standing firm in our beliefs while still recognizing and
respecting the humanity of those we oppose. Gandhi saw honest disagreement as a
sign of progress.
The
Indian freedom struggle holds other stories of respectful disagreements as well,
one of which is the relationship between Gandhiji and Subhash Chandra Bose.
Although they disagreed on each other’s political views, they maintained deep
respect for one another. Through their letters, we learn that Gandhi believed
Bose was irreplaceable for India. In one letter, Gandhi, who considered Bose as
his son, wrote that though they practised their struggle for freedom in different
ways, they should always remember that they shared the same goal and were part
of the same family. Gandhiji referred to Bose as the "Prince of
Patriots," while Bose gave Gandhi the title of "Bapu" or the
"Father of the Nation."
Mahatma
Gandhi's methods of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience deeply influenced
Martin Luther King Jr. and shaped his approach to the Civil Rights Movement,
which left a lasting impact on the world. At the heart of Martin Luther King
Jr.'s movement was the vision of a "Beloved Community," built on
reconciliation and mutual respect, where even opponents could be turned into
friends. He believed this vision could be realized if people learned to
disagree without resorting to violence or “being disagreeable.”
People
with opposing ideologies have set remarkable examples of respectful
disagreement in modern Indian politics. For example, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a
young and dynamic leader in the Opposition was entrusted by Prime Minister
Jawaharlal Nehru to represent India at the UN General Assembly. Later, Rajiv
Gandhi included Vajpayee in a delegation to the US for treatment of his kidney
ailment. Vajpayee openly expressed his gratitude to Rajiv Gandhi for this kind
gesture, despite continuing to be his political opponent.
Vajpayee
understood that dissent and disagreement are essential for healthy dialogues.
He engaged respectfully with those who held different views, both within and
outside his party until the end of his life—a principle worth being emulated by
the leaders.
Finally,
contextualizing the perspective, I would contend that the culture of respectful
disagreement aligns well with Sikkim's identity as the land peace and
tranquility.
Governmental
as well as non governmental agencies, political organizations, educational
institutions, and religious institutions should create more platforms to
promote the skill of respectful disagreement. It should also be included as an
important part of the curriculum in educational institutions, as a basic life
skill. This is essential because, to tackle the social, political, and
environmental challenges of our time, we must rediscover the art of disagreeing
with empathy, curiosity, and respect.
