So, what does that leave out? Height? Physical ability? Weight? Curly hair? Mine is a ridiculous list right? Clearly because it is. Why? Because what major social upheavals have occurred on the basis of the texture of one’s hair? Unless that hair was thick and curly on the head of a man of African origin in the Americas, then yes, hair also matters. But then that’s race and out of bounds. I’ll tell you what else is missing from this list above. Gender.

Why is gender not part of the embargo list? Also, no women were part of the original panel that was mailed to me. I am glad to see that has been corrected now that we are here. But the original list sent to me by the university had six men debating the issue. Most panels I have been on are men only, and I have done the studio panel and debate circuit for a while now. Why do you think that is? Are men smarter or more articulate? Or is it that the social order created over millennia has made it easier for us to stake our claim at any forum or in an arena because the structures and building blocks of society have been created for men by men, to suit us at the cost of women who many would say have to work twice as hard to be considered half as good – even if they are three times better.

Why do you think that is? Are men smarter or more articulate? Or is it that the social order created over millennia has made it easier for us to stake our claim at any forum or in any arena because the structures and building blocks of society have been created for men by men, to suit us at the cost of women who many would say have to work twice as hard to be considered half as good – even if they are three times better.

You see what I did there? I appealed to one group (the ladies) in this hall by making a statement they can relate to or agree with because they have faced discrimination, harassment or marginalisation. They will get what I am talking about, and they will want it fixed. And they will want it fixed more than me as a man whose attitude may be hota hai toh achcha hai nahin hota toh bhi theek hai. It’s not like it rocks my world of privilege. So was my appeal sincere or am I just indulging one gender, to get their votes? You wouldn’t know, but what you do know is that the problem is real. Gender discrimination is real and that is what matters most.

So we all acknowledge why we should be allowed to appeal for votes on the basis of gender. Because there is some sort of an agreement after decades of movements, mobilisation and political reforms pushed by feminists, to recognise that we have gender problems that need to be sorted out.

So if that is kosher, is only marginalisation, harassment or injustice happening or has happened in the past based on gender and nothing else? Women were sold as slaves in ancient times in several civilisations and so were men – of a certain colour, race or community. Similarly in India, was the case of bonded labour or depriving people of education, water, farmland and more, based on caste? Such discrimination (on the basis of caste and religion and other such identities) happened over centuries and continues in many parts of India even today.

Let me step back for a bit and try to strip this threadbare, why do people or parties seek votes and win elections? Why do voters exist? Why does this entire democratic set-up where we elect those who will govern us exist at all? What is its purpose?

Electoral politics and governance that emerges from it is the process of making policies and laws that create a society that is fair. It is the pursuit of enacting laws and policies that one by one or in big swoops, correct certain errors or injustices that have crept into the social order over our history. The idea of governance is to create an environment where each of us can pursue our full potential in a fair and free political climate and above all get justice if we are denied those opportunities. Absolute justice is the final frontier of governance. Justice is the aim of politics.

And to get closer to that ideal of complete justice candidates vying to govern through electoral politics have to correct past injustices even as they attempt to stop new ones from cropping up.

That brings us to justice, the aim of politics. The very concept of justice has a human context. It is not arithmetic where two plus two is four whether any human is there to witness the miracle of math or not. Justice exists only because we exist. Injustice too exists only because of us. The canvas of justice is human involvement. Human societies have always consisted of and will always consist of individuals who band together to form tribes. Ancient tribes were based on which god we worshipped, what colour we were or language we spoke. Urban tribes cling together based on which college we went to, what socio-economic bracket we are, where we like to party, where we live or how we dress, among others. But urban tribes are newer concepts in the larger civilisational timeline. Our primary identities are still primitive and will be for the foreseeable future. The most cohesive, influential and important tribes in human existence have been formed on the basis of language, race, caste and language that grew into religions or sects. We conduct our lives with those identities as our primary influencers. Marriages, mundan and janeu ceremonies, holidays like Diwali or Christmas, feasts like Id, how we worship, fast, celebrate festivals are all activities that stem from caste, religious or ethnic identity.  We conduct our happiest life experiences based on those identities. We also carry out the most horrific and disgusting acts and injustices with those identities as the primary drivers. I know I am in a gathering of smart and intelligent people so I won’t waste your time in going over world history and every social and political movement that has been driven by one of the identities which the house wants to disallow in seeking votes. “Angrez bharat chhodo”, Bapu’s Quit India movement – race. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character”. Civil Rights was about race and no, we have not got to the ideal state of a colour-blind world to abandon that platform now. Ambedkar and Jyotirao Phule were about caste. Jesus was crucified because of religion. Akhlaq in Dadri was murdered because of religion.

Some may say that this is in the past but if from 2000 years ago to a couple years ago injustices have been occurring based on caste and race it is kind of presumptuous and arrogant to assume we the humans of 2017 have achieved the pinnacle of societal evolution and individual enlightenment to claim that no more community-or caste-based injustices can exist that need to fixed. They will only be fixed if those most impacted can create a political movement by banding together into a critical mass that exerts pressure on politics.

Pick any significant socio-political movement in the history of the world and you will see too many of them are based on the groupings the House wants disallowed in political appeal. Refer to the same knowledge of history we all spent so much time reading and see for yourself that most injustices in the world are based on the identities we want disallowed in political appeal. With this proposition, we are trying to create a politics, stripping it of – politics. Identity is politics. Group identity is politics. And to say, conduct politics without referring to that identity is like saying make tandoori chicken without the chicken or for the veggies in the house, make apple pie without apple. Apple is the essence and the identity of apple pie. Without that it is not apple pie. Similarly group identities are the building blocks of politics. You can’t have it any other way – yet.To disallow seeking votes on the basis of ethnic or religious identity is to not just disallow democracy. It is dismissing the very concept of human evolution.

Let me also pre-empt some arguments that may come from the other side. I am certain things like the extermination of Jews, Hindu or Muslim deaths due to riots will be held up as examples of how horribly an appeal to our baser religious or caste identities can end up. And yes, that is correct. But they happened. Now what? They have resulted in profound injustices. Now what? Do we pretend we have had no history? Nothing needs to be fixed?

I might accept the proposition that “This House Believes that candidates should not be allowed to appeal to voters on the basis of religion, race, caste, language or community”. But on the condition that you have to wipe out every injustice ever committed in the name of religion, caste, community, race or language. For that you’re going to have to invent a time machine and go back to stop the first banding together of the first Homo Sapiens under one group identity and them harming someone outside it. Because it all started and grew from there to where we are today. It is what has made us who we are. Good or bad? A bit of both but that is who we are. You won’t be able to undo 200,000 years of our species having existed to create this complex society. And unless you can undo that, you can’t do this. It can’t work.