The argumentative tradition of Indian culture is an asset and has to be wisely used for the purpose of democracy and secularism.

That was the crux of a talk ? Ancient Argument and Modern Democracy ? by Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen on Sunday.

Penguin Books India, in association with the Confederation of Indian Industry and Institute of Development Studies, Calcutta, organised the session on the eve of the formal release of Sen?s latest book, The Argumentative Indian, by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday in Delhi.

?My book focuses on ancient India? The subject is relevant not just because it is necessary to understand modern India, but ancient India is also a politically charged topic today,? said Sen, during his 45-minute speech, in which he presented his arguments from the book.

Governor Gopal Krishna Gandhi presided over the evening?s function at Nandan. Chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee was also present and delivered an emotional speech, quoting a host of Rabindranath Tagore poems.

?We can argue at considerable length and the argumentative tradition of the country has contributed to the cause of our democracy. We should be proud of that,? said Sen. He referred to the longest speech, over nine hours, delivered at the United Nations by Krishna Menon.

In his book, a collection of his essays and lectures, he has touched upon a host of issues, ranging from Hindutva to heterodoxy and the social opportunities to the subject of nuclear bomb.

According to him, a section of the proponents of Hinduism are propagating a narrow vision of the religion. ?They talk about the Vedas, but don?t talk about the long tradition of heterodoxy,? added Sen, citing examples of Muslim rulers commissioning translations of various Indian epics.

Besides, he also referred to the visions of King Ashoka, the initiatives of Dara Shiko and Emperor Akbar?s contribution to heterodoxy in Indian thoughts and history.

While concluding, Sen said the tradition of India has to be politically deployed to ensure social justice for the weaker sections.

And in his last sentence, he made it clear that arguments should go on. ?Silence is a powerful enemy of social justice.?