There are differences in opinions among people on the topics that are open to interpretations. It works like this: There is a label and definitions or interpretations associated with that label. Label the broader view of that topic, and interpretation is what an individual understands by that topic. One label can correspond to multiple definitions. In fact, in a liberal world, every person can have their own definition.
When we say that we believe in something, we mean that we believe in our definition of that label. When we talk about it or defend it in debates, we talk in terms of the label, with our personal definition in the background. We speak in broader terms, to be exact. Since our arguments on the label are majorly biased and constructed from our interpretation, we might succeed in defending the broader label.
And now, people with different interpretations will take that defence forward and add their interpretations. They try to imply that if one interpretation of a label is shown to be correct, then all its interpretations are accurate. It is a logical fallacy. That’s the case with the BJP on most of the cases. They have formally justified the label on the basis of an interpretation, and they implement that with a totally different interpretation. That is a huge problem.
This comes regularly when people defend religion. Jordan Peterson has been accused of this many times in his debates. He has a definition of GOD (He actually provides this in his second debate with Sam Harris1). He would be able to convince many atheists that such a God is natural. But, most of his followers do not believe in his definition of God. They will not take that seriously but take his defence of God and put it to their own agenda. People will commit atrocities in the name of God, and when asked to justify their God, they will point towards Peterson.
Recently, Dr. Anand Ranganathan visited IIT Madras2. I wanted to ask him this very question, but I couldn’t because I had yet to formulate this point of view in this specific form. He has an interpretation of Hinduism. He calls it a way of life and emphasizes its non-exclusiveness. His definition of Hinduism may very well be scientific, rational, logical, and progressive. He constructs and formulates his arguments on the topic from that definition and goes on defending Hinduism on stages. He becomes very popular and convinces the youth on his well-formulated arguments that Hinduism is a true religion.
That evening Shankracharya will wake up and say: “A Hindu woman should have ten children because that is the true way of living.”3 Basically, he is specifying the job of a Hindu woman, which is to bear and raise children until they can’t do it anymore. The Next day, Dhirendra Shastri (Bageshwar Baba) will state- “Hinduism is in danger. Load your weapons, Hindus.”4 Both have the same intention of increasing the relative population of Hindus, but different mechanisms. Now, you can’t refute a Shankracharya on Hinduism; it’s like saying that CJI states a wrong interpretation of the constitution.
So, the question remains open: Should we defend labels or interpretations?
There is a certain distinction between our beliefs and the most commonly accepted belief on a particular topic. There is a mean belief or interpretation, on which everyone can agree; and there are local fluctuations to that, which is from individual provenience. Sometimes, these fluctuations are of the order of the mean, which means that it’s completely different from the presented idea. Sometimes, there is zero fluctuation, which means people have accepted the trend without questioning it. There might also be slight changes based on the individual’s experience.
One way to debate, prosecute and defend a topic is to find and defend the mean belief. Either you do that or state your definitions clearly, implying that you do not believe in the other interpretations of the same topic. As a public figure, you must consider the consequences of what you say on the stage. You might not realize it and give rise to riots in the locality. Therefore, when addressing mass media, you must consider different ways your speech might be interpreted and eliminate the possibility of violent disputes through misinterpretation.