Anchored in the culture-centered approach (CCA), which I have championed as a framework for amplifying marginalized voices and knowledges against colonial and hegemonic structures, the convergences between the Māori argumentation tradition and the diverse Indian argumentation traditions—Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Adivasi, and Dalit—reveal a shared commitment to relationality and resistance.
Māori whaikōrero, the eloquent oratory of the marae invoking ancestors and environmental ties, finds resonance with Indian traditions of dialogical exchange, all of which reject adversarial Western debate in favor of collective meaning-making rooted in cultural and communal contexts.
The Māori practice of whakawhanaungatanga (building relationships through dialogue) aligns with Hindu nyāya and Buddhist vāda, where argumentation, as seen in the Nyāya Sūtras or Pali Canon debates, seeks harmony and contextual truth rather than domination, mirroring CCA’s emphasis on subaltern epistemologies as decolonizing forces.
Similarly, the Muslim munāẓarah tradition of Indo-Islamic scholarship, with its ethical persuasion and communal adjudication, parallels Māori pepeha (tribal sayings), both serving social justice and moral balance, aligning with CCA’s focus on structural equity through dialogue.
Adivasi traditions, such as the Gondi sabha or Santhal oral disputations, integrate ecological wisdom and elder-led consensus, much like Māori hui (gatherings), fostering participatory deliberation that resists extractive modernity.
Dalit argumentation traditions, exemplified by the rhetorical strategies of leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar or the oral protest narratives of Dalit communities, further converge with Māori practices through their subversive use of storytelling, poetry, and public assemblies to challenge caste oppression and colonial legacies, embodying CCA’s principle of agency through communicative resistance.
Across these traditions—Māori, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Adivasi, and Dalit—argumentation emerges as a transformative practice of solidarity, grounded in relational ontologies and cultural specificity, which, through a CCA lens, counters Eurocentric models by prioritizing collective survival, structural justice, and decolonized communication ecologies.
Similarly, the Muslim munāẓarah tradition of Indo-Islamic scholarship, with its ethical persuasion and communal adjudication, parallels Māori pepeha (tribal sayings), both serving social justice and moral balance, aligning with CCA’s focus on structural equity through dialogue.
Adivasi traditions, such as the Gondi sabha or Santhal oral disputations, integrate ecological wisdom and elder-led consensus, much like Māori hui (gatherings), fostering participatory deliberation that resists extractive modernity.
Dalit argumentation traditions, exemplified by the rhetorical strategies of leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar or the oral protest narratives of Dalit communities, further converge with Māori practices through their subversive use of storytelling, poetry, and public assemblies to challenge caste oppression and colonial legacies, embodying CCA’s principle of agency through communicative resistance.
Across these traditions—Māori, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Adivasi, and Dalit—argumentation emerges as a transformative practice of solidarity, grounded in relational ontologies and cultural specificity, which, through a CCA lens, counters Eurocentric models by prioritizing collective survival, structural justice, and decolonized communication ecologies.