The public sphere is being transformed by partisan power politics. At a time when politicians in Punjab are challenging each other for public debates, but are clearly indulging in hyperbole, self-aggrandizement and gladiator-style bloody talking games, we bring you this saner conversation about the very idea of public debate in a modern society. Senior journalist SP Singh engages panellists in an inquiry into the very nature of the public debate, its origins, the role of public debate in shaping and changing politics, and how our politicians have let down this remarkable site of a dialogue with the populace.

For a quom that has before it the prime example of public debate in the form of “SidhGoshath”, the very idea of public debate must be for the advancement of the collective through informed, rational deliberation and accommodation.

The most crucial “Gurmatas” also used to follow an intense and wide debate among various strands of the Panth and the views of everyone used to be taken into account.

In modern-day politics, the concept of public debate has been so polluted that the first casualty of any such self-proclaimed debate is the public itself. A prime example is the spectacle being put up by the Bhagwant Singh Mann government on November 1, 2023, at PAU, Ludhiana. It is no more a debate, but more of a kabaddi match, and that, too, in the absence of any rival team.

Unless one has been living under a rock, we all know that the event is meant to tarnish the opposition as bad, and tom-tom the AamAadmi Party as god’s gift to this country and our state.

It is a shame that our politicians – across the political divide – have failed to call out the bluff. Saner elements from within the AAP, and the opposition, should have pointed out that any public debate must respond to minimal public expectations of at least a pretense of fairness. The outcome of the debate is already well known.

But Bhagwant Singh Mann will not be doing any favour to himself, his party, or Punjab by declaring himself the winner.

The occasion, however, should prod us into inquiring into the very concept of public debate, particularly because the public sphere has not only been transformed in the last few decades, but its digital avatar has gone even beyond the parameters studied by the likes of Jürgen Habermas or JS Mill, or even Alexis de Tocqueville.

This digital public sphere is now shaping and is being shaped by debates surrounding larger crises, conflicts, and questions of migration and culture. In an increasingly trans-mediated world, a tamasha like the one being put by AAP is akin to insulting people’s intelligence. Gladiators baying for opponents’ blood in public are not called members of a debating society.

Punjab needs to turn to its remarkable tradition of confabulating with the Sangat, have various stakeholders open a dialogue with the people.

Punjab needs to turn to its remarkable tradition of confabulating with the Sangat, have various stakeholders open a dialogue with the people, discuss issues threadbare in the public domain, and reclaim the sites of public debate – from the classroom to the village sath to coffee houses and online forums to better journalism and more informed trade unions and activist circles to legislature and internal political party debates. So far, we are losing on all these fronts, and the November 1 spectacle in Ludhiana is a debate reduced to a farce.