Intolerance Debate: Intolerance has Gone Up due to Sectarianism

Ram Puniyani

 

Beginning with September 2015 we witnessed a flood of ‘returning’ honors by writers, scientists and artists. There are also various statements from academics, historians, artists and scientists showing their concern about the growing intolerance and erosion of our plural values. Those who returned the honors are amongst the outstanding contributors to literature, arts, film making and science. They in a way have been pouring their heart out at what is going on at social level. The growing intolerance has taken the lives of Dabholkar, Pansare and Kalburgi. There are incidents like where the lynching of one Muslim on the issue of beef eating which has shaken the conscience of the society.

 

Dr Ram Puniyani

In the face of this strong statement from diverse sections of society those related to the ruling party, BJP; its parent organization RSS and many of its affiliates; have been strongly criticizing these people by saying as to how come it is intolerance now just because of few incidents here and there. A section of social media is mocking those who returned the awards.

 

At the same time the President of India disturbed by the happenings in the society; time and again has been reminding the nation about our core civilizational values of pluralism. The vice President has told that it is the duty of the state to protect the ‘right to life’ of citizens. The international agency Moody Analytics pointed stated that unless Modi reins in his colleagues, India stands to lose her credibility. Disturbed by the current growing atmosphere of intolerance the eminent citizens are feeling uncomfortable. So we have the earlier statement of Julio Rebeiro that ‘as a Christian I am a stranger in my country’. Now Naseerudding Shah said that he is being made to realize his Muslim identity for the first time.

 

The poet, film maker Gulzar stated that the times have come where people ask your religion before they ask your name. The renowned tabla maestro Zakir Hussain felt that there is a drastic change in the social scenario. He recalled his father worshipping Ma Sarswati before his music sessions. Many prominent entrepreneurs like Narayan Murthi and Kiran Majumdar Shaw have shown their concern over growing intolerance. In the same boat of those calling for preserving values of pluralism are people like Raghuram Rajan, the RBI Governor.

 

The case of two superstars expressing their anguish did prove that intolerance has crossed the limits. When Shahrukh Khan said that there is intolerance in the society, he was advised to go to Pakistan and BJP leaders like Yogi Adityanath compared him with Hafiz Sayeed of Pakistan. Aamir Khan when he shared his conversation with his wife that she is feeling insecure about their son, the whole RSS cabal pounced on him, challenged his patriotism. During all these episodes our Prime Minister Narendra Modi maintained a silence, giving the signal that he is in agreement with RSS-BJP leaders making these statements. These organizations and leaders giving ‘Hate other’ statements have sometimes been called fringe elements, but as such they are part of the Sangh Parivar, and all the members of the RSS combine act in coordination with each other.

 

The ruling dispensation, the BJP leaders have come out scathingly on these creative people-scientists and labeled the whole process as ‘manufactured rebellion’ as put by Arun Jaitley. It has been alleged that those returning awards are the leftists or those who were recipients of privileges from the state when Congress was the ruling party and now with BJP coming to power from last one year, they are baffled and so the protests. It has been alleged that these people are trying to derail the ‘development story’ being written by the BJP under the leadership of Narendra Modi. Jaitley even goes to say that Narendra Modi is the victim of intolerance by these people returning their awards. Some like Rajnath Singh have asserted that it is a mere ‘law and order’ problem for which state governments are responsible while these people are targeting Modi government. The response to statements of Aamir Khan and Shahrukh Khan was much different to the response to similar statements by Raghuram Rajan and Kiran Majumdar for example. Statements were similar but super stars were attacked scathingly, while there was a quiet to similar statements by others who happened not to be Muslims.       

 

As such what has happened is neither a law and order problem nor the one related to loss of patronage as it is related to the much broader phenomenon which is due to intense communalization of society. This time the degree of communalization has crossed the civil limits. Most of those who returned the honors are generally very critical of Congress as a party. They have done these acts of returning awards or issuing statements to express their pain at the erosion of values of amity and diversity have done this spontaneously. The jibe that these people did not return their awards at the time of emergency, anti Sikh violence, migration of Kashmiri Pundits and at the time of Mumbai blasts of 1993 overlooks the point that awards have not been returned to protest against a particular incident, but to the overall process building up towards narrow nationalism. The degree of intolerance has seen a qualitative worsening.

 

As the awards which have been returned and the statements put out by different groups do give the reasons for the same and these reasons pertains to the cumulative process and not this or that event. All these incidents mentioned by Jaitley and company have been a tragic part of recent Indian history. Many a writers did protest against most of these incidents earlier also. Nayantara Sahgal for instance had returned the award at the time of emergency and had been part of the PUCL which had brought out report on Anti Sikh massacre also.

 

The present times cannot be compared with the tragic incidents of the past for various reasons. Take the case of emergency for example. It was a dark chapter of Indian history, still it was the authoritarianism imposed mostly from the top. What is most disturbing in the current times is the vast network of organizations related to the ruling party whose followers either they themselves create hatred in the society or they mobilize the social sectors through hate speech; the result of which is communalization and violence. Currently there is an attack on the values of tolerance and liberal space from top as well as from bottom. From the top the ruling dispensation has people like Yogi Adiyanath- Sakshi Maharaj, Giriraj Singh, Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti who keep spreading sectarian messages. The social groups implement it in the way what happened in Dadri.

 

At yet another level is the institutional control by communal ideology. Our major institutions and educational places are being mauled by divisive ideology. Our frontline areas of science and technology are being tampered day in and day out. The level of social thinking the ‘Hate other’ ideology has been promoted through the issues like Ghar Wapasi, love jihad and beef. This is creating the intense social insecurity amongst the religious minorities. This is leading to incidents like Dadri. Such incidents are reflective of the overall social atmosphere created by the ruling ideology, so it is not a question of this or that state government being responsible for that.

 

Essentially the insane communalization, which leads to communal violence, has its roots in the prejudice leading to hate for the religious minorities. And that’s what flows from the ideology of Hindu nationalism, or any other sectarian nationalism, in the name of any religion or race. In current times in India; the fountainhead of Hindu nationalism is RSS. Not to say that Muslim sectarianism has its own divisive and supplementary negative influence. This ideology assumes the ‘Hate other’ sentiment and leads to situation where cow slaughter, beef eating and ghar wapasi or love jihad become the ground on which ‘hate other’ sentiments build up. The communalists are talking in the dangerous language of ‘we will kill and get killed while defending our Holy mother the cow’, as one BJP leader said.

 

To compare the intolerance which has come up during last some time with the situations in other countries or the past kingdoms is totally wrong. India today should not be compared with the times and policies of earlier rulers or the states where democracy has not seen a bit of nurturing, whatever be its degree, as we experienced in India since independence. Also the hallmark to understand today’s situation has to be in the change in degree of intolerance. As such three months down the line since the award return process began, one can say this one of the very effective protests we have witnessed. At least temporarily the venom spewing Hindutva leaders seem to have shut their mouths. The international impact of the move was very strong; hard hitting articles appeared in the major newspapers in the World. That might have forced the authorities to call for a truce to save the face.

 

The major factor leading to present atmosphere lies in the qualitative transformation of ‘hate for others’. The stereotyping of minorities has assumed horrendous proportions. Intolerance has been there earlier also, now it is changing qualitatively for the worse. We need to combat the threat of sectarian nationalism looming large on our democratic society, the threat of sectarian propaganda and politics leading to stifling of democratic space. And these are not the ordinary times, the divisive process, intolerance have assumed menacing proportions and cannot be hidden by the illusory growth story!

Read More

Controlling Thought and Food Habits

Ram Puniyani

The intolerance does not grow in one field of social life in isolation. In different arena of our life it tends to run in a parallel manner. In Maharashtra, with the BJP majority Government in seat of power, we had a ban on the storing, selling and eating of beef few months ago. This ban increased the problems of a large section of society, the workers in abettor, those consuming beef and those selling beef. The workers of Devnar abettor, located in Mumbai, the biggest one in the area, rendered jobless due to this decision of the Government are writhing in the pain of unemployment. Then came the Government order that any criticism of Government servants will be treated as sedition. This is an attempt to put a total cap on the basic democratic rights, on freedom of expression and on the right to dissent. During this period the state witnessed the murder of two of its foremost rationalist thinkers and leaders, Dr. Narendra Dabholkar and Comrade Govind Pansare (who was also a political worker) for taking on the forces of blind faith and for promoting scientific temper. In the neighboring Karnataka the ex-Vice Chancellor of Kannada University, Hamphi, the tall scholar of Kannada and rational intellectual was done to death.

On the heels of this comes the decision of Mira Bhaynder Municipal Corporation to ban the non vegetarian food, except fished and eggs, during Paryushan, a Jain festival, for eight days. This ban has been put for four days in Mumbai area under Mumbai Corporation. BJP is in lead in taking decisions in this direction. As such over a period of time the number of days for which this ban has been there is proportionally going up with the rise of sectarian politics in the nation and in the state. As such earlier during Paryushan the ban was there for one day in 1960s, two day in 1990s, now it is four days in Mumbai and eight days in Mira Road-Bhayander area. Interestingly fishes and eggs which Jains don’t consume have been spared from the wrath of the zealots who think imposing your sentiments is part of one’s religion. Will there be such a demand for prohibiting garlic and root vegetable, which are also prohibited by Jain practices, next? 

Country as a whole has been the victim of this food fundamentalism of the dominant forces. There are housing societies in Mumbai where the non-vegetarians are not allowed to stay. In Ahmadabad, Gujarat I came across an interesting incident. I was staying with a friend, who was living in a rented accommodation. Suddenly one morning when we were sipping our morning tea, the landlord barged in and headed straight to the kitchen. And then after few minutes he made his exit. I was puzzled. My friend explained that it is “Kitchen Check’ to examine whether any non vegetarian food is being cooked or consumed! It was very baffling moment for me. One knows that there is a sort of ‘food curfew’ during the day time during Ramzan month in many Gulf countries, where Sheikhs are ruling with iron hand, in the name of Islam. Which community and whose sentiments will prevail in a diverse society is a complex question.

How does one handle the food habits in a diverse society like ours? As such earlier also many a kings have respected the sentiments of the minorities. Akbar when approached by the Jain delegation did impose restriction on Non vegetarian food for some time.  Babar in his will to his son Humayun instructs that cow slaughter should not be permitted as deference to Hindu sentiments. As such the basic aspect of teachings of religion is to respect the feelings of other people in the society. What is taught is that the followers of that religion implement these in their lives. The question of imposing one’s sentiments on the others is the sign of one’s social dominance in the society. Communal parties for the sake of vote bank and for their political social agenda are feeling they can have their way and impose such practices on the society. There are others who feel grateful enough if they can practice their own things in their own family and social space without imposing it upon others.

As such what should happen in a democratic society? It’s very complex question at one level. Point should be to respect each other’s feelings and accommodate for that. Ideal is that the ‘other’ calls for such a self imposition out of volition and respect. That’s what Mahatma Gandhi teaches us time and over again. Be it the matter of religious practices or food habits, his path was clear, lets follow our path without imposing it upon others. As such, imposing one’s sentiments on ‘others’, is the highest form of violence. One of Gandhi’s writing on the issue of beef eating- cow slaughter is very illuminating, he writes “I maintain that Muslims should have full freedom to slaughter cows, if they wish, subject of course to hygienic restrictions and in a manner not to wound the susceptibilities of their Hindu neighbors. Fullest recognition of freedom to the Muslims to slaughter cows is indispensable of communal harmony, and is the only way of saving cow.” (http://www.mkgandhi.org/g_communal/chap14.htm)?

Our country has diverse food habits, from Arunchal Pradesh to Kerala to Punjab and Gujarat, we inherit the rich diversity. With the rise of the sectarianism and politics in the name of Hindu religion, Hindutva, such intolerant things are being brought in with bigger aggression. The section of Jain leadership, which getting this done, is close to the BJP.  BJP in turn has an agenda in all aspects of our socio-cultural life. Ban on Beef eating is a deliberate ploy to sharpen the divisive politics, the politics which is polarsing the communities. One recalls the 1946 V. Shantaram Classic film Padosi, where the two neighbors, Hindu and Muslim, love and respect each other’s sentiments and feelings. There are legions of stories in times past where such camaraderie amongst these communities was a matter of celebrating each other’s practices not just tolerating them. It is this intermixing at all the levels which gave us the diverse plural heritage, the culture of joy and celebration of diversity in our country.

Such issues related to bans have become an integral part of identity politics, Islamism in Gulf countries and Hindutva in India. This is painfully gripping our democratic society by the neck and imposing suspicion and dislike for the ‘other’. The economic aspects of banning beef, and banning selective non vegetarian food during the Paryushan is of no concern to the political leaders who keep deepening their hold on the section of community not by harping on issues of dignity and rights of the people but by the intolerant attitude for the ‘other’.

From over last one year, this stifling attitude is a retrograde step, putting chains on our democratic freedoms. This is a regressive march inching towards the pattern of countries where democratic freedoms have been put under the carpet in the name of religion

Read More

One Year of Modi Sarkar: Hate Speech Galore

Ram Puniyani


The coming to power of Narendra Modi in a way gave an open license to all the affiliates of RSS combine to indulge in open hate speech against the religious minorities. The current agenda behind the hate speech is to consolidate the communal polarization of the society along lines of religion. The well known case of MIM’s Akarbar Uddudin Owaisis’ hate speech has been despicable and very rightly Akbarudin Owaisi had to be in jail for some time. The case against him should be pursued and the legal course of action must befollowed.  At the same time what about the hate speech indulged in by the likes of Pravin Togadia, Subramaniam Swami, Giriraj Singh, Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti, Sadhvi Prachi, Sakshi Mahraraj, Yogi Adityanth, Sanjay Raut and company?

Apart from these associates of Hindu right wing patriarch, RSS, who are reported in the media, there are many more indulging in the divisive speech and worsening the communal situation. During this year they have started feeling emboldened as they know it is ‘their’ Government and they can get away with it. Day in and day out they are becoming more aggressive and vicious in their language. The hate speech against religious minorities has been stepped up.

One recalls even before Modi Sarkar assumed the seat of power the divisive activities of ‘BJP associates’ in the form of propaganda of love jihad and Ghar Vapasi were on, and they continued without any respite during this year. Soon after this Government came to power in Pune, Mohsin Sheikh, a person working in IT was hacked to death by activists of Hindu Jagran Sena, in the aftermath of morphed pictures of Bal Thackeray and Shivaji being posted on the social media. The attack on Churches was very glaring and the process which was dominant in Delhi and Haryana was also witnessed in places like Panvel near Mumbai, Agra in UP amongst other places.

Sakshi Maharaj not only said that Godse was a patriot; he also went on to say that Hindu women should produce four children, as Muslims are overtaking the population. Sadhvi Prachi went to prescribe eight children for Hindu women. She also gave a call that the Muslim film actors, Aamir Khan, Shahrukh Khan and Salman Khan should be boycotted. Pravin Togadia has been the leading person in making hate speeches; he has the highest number of cases regarding hate speech against him. Yogi Adityanath, BJP’s MP keeps making very derogatory remarks, He said that in ‘love jihad’ if one Hindu girl is converted then 100 Muslim girls should be converted to Hinduism. The propaganda around love jihad keeps simmering and various small and big leaders keep using it to divide the society. Same Yogi went on to say that Mosques should be converted into den of pigs and that Muslims should not be allowed to come to Hindu holy places.

Two central ministers of Modi Sarkar, Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti and Giriaj Singh made very insulting and humiliating remarks about non Hindus and the color of skin of UPA chief Sonia Gandhi. Niranjan Jyoti stated that all those who are non Hindus are illegitimate, Haramzade. Giriraj Singh had earlier said that those not voting for Modi should go to Pakistan. Interestingly he said this before the elections and despite such a record he was elevated to the level of minister in the Modi sarkar. He made racial comments about Sonia Gandhi recently. Sakshi Mahraj also held Godse as a patriot, while his another party colleague from Kerala, one Gopal Krishnan wrote in RSS mouth piece Keasri that Godse chose a wrong target in killing Gandhi, he should have killed Nehru instead. Subramaniam Swamy, one of the very senior leaders of BJP, said that God lives in temples alone, not in mosques and Churches, The hidden implication of this statement is fraught with danger. These are few of the samples from what all has been stated during this year. Its impact in increasing the sense of fear amongst religious minorities is more than obvious. BJP ally Shiv Sena’s MP Sanjay Raut went to the extent of demanding that the voting rights of Muslims should be revoked.

As such one realizes that ‘Hate speech’ is the outcome of the politics of divisiveness, it is the concentrated expression of the ‘social common sense’ prevailing in the society, it is the forth right and blunt way of putting things, which communal parties propagate anyway. It is not out of the blue that these formulations suddenly crop up, their infrastructure, the base of these has already been made by a section of political outfits.

Also ‘Hate Speech’ in case of India is an accompaniment of the politics in the name of religion and language, and also many times it precedes the violence or helps in polarization of communities for electoral benefits. While BJP was on the upswing during Ram Temple campaign; one recalls that Sadhvi Ritambhara, was propped up for pravachans (religious discourses) by RSS combine. She was bluntly talking anti minority things, duly endorsed by communal political organizations. This took place around the Babri demolition period.

One has been hearing similar things from many a sadhus of VHP, small and sundry members of communal gang, some Muslim communalists and the ilk of Togadia. There has been a more sophisticated presentation of the similar formulations by many others. Modi, in his initial rise to power talked divisive language, but kept changing the form in a very subtle way to suit the needs of his political strategy. When he said that post Gujarat refugee camps should be shut down as they have become factories of production of children, he was reinforcing the propaganda about Muslims having more number of children.

In the wake of Mumbai riots Bal Thackeray had indulged in Hate speech, inciting his Shiv Sainiks to undertake violence. He also got away with it due to clever way of putting his vitriol and due to the lack of adequate laws which can distinguish the Hate speech from freedom of expression, which can distinguish between one’s political opinion and painting the ‘other’ community in a negative light. Incidentally it is important to distinguish between criticizing a community and criticizing a political organization. While political organizations can and must be criticized, communities should not be humiliated or insulted. Also no political organization can be synonymous with the religious community, whatever its claims.

It is not only disturbing but totally against the values of our democratic society that such ‘hate other’ ideology and speeches have become the weapon in the hands of a type of politics, which thrives on exclusion, which identifies a particular religious community as synonymous with the nation state. Again this ‘hate speech’ is the language of a section of those who thrive on identity politics far away from the real issues of the society.

As such Hate speech in India entered the political arena with the rise of communal streams in politics, like Muslim League on one side and Hindu Mahasabha and RSS on the other. These streams believed in the nation based on one religious community. These streams came from the sections of earlier rulers, landlords, Nawabas and Rajas etc. The ideology of religion based nationalism is narrow and it excludes ‘other’ from its notion of nationhood. These beliefs then get converted into Hate other, and later turn in to ‘Hate speech’. This did form the basis of many a communal violence in pre independence era and also during the last two decades. Varun Gandhi, allegedly said ‘he will cut the hands’, is a BJP MP.

In this atmosphere once a while the BJP spokespersons will say that the view expressed by the particular leader are ‘personal’ and stop at that. For BJP another escape clause is that its associated organizations like VHP, Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram and Bajrang Dal are formally different organizations though they are also part of RSS controlled Sangh Parivar. They all are working in tandem with BJP for actualization of agenda of Hindu Rashtra. So while BJP is not directly responsible for their actions, the direction of the actions is the same. Many a people call these organizations as fringe elements, while as a matter of fact there is a division of labor between these organizations. These have become more aggressive during this time. And surely after the Modi Sarkar coming to power their vitriol has become more intense

Read More

Salman Rushdie, The Satanic Verses, and Critique of Religion

Ayatolah Khomenini’s fatwa sentencing Slaman Rushdie to death for writing the ‘blasphemous’ novel The Satanic Verses was perhaps the curtain raiser for the religious extremism, intolerance, and violence that would mark the dying decades of twentieth century and the birth of the next. The ugly, hydra-headed religious fanaticism of every variety continues to threaten the cherished values of enlightenment.

Rushdie’s recently published memoir, Joseph Anton, takes you through the travails of the author during those fatwa years, when Islamist assassins were on the prowl to execute him in order to claim the bounty announced by the Shia cleric and, of course, to reserve a place in heaven where rivers of wine flows non-stop and nubile girls roam around.

The book derives its title from the pseudonym Rushdie used during the fatwa years in order not to be identified by the fanatics. The memoir however is not merely a narrative of the ordeals that Rushdie had gone through during those years. The book provides a Rushdie enthusiast or a bibliophile a wealth of interesting materials on what led to the writing of Rushdie’s literary creations, including The Satanic Verses.

What we want to highlight here however is the book’s unequivocal advocacy of secularism, modernity, and rationality as opposed to religious bigotry and intolerance.

Rushdie finds the origin of Islam fascinating because, unlike many other religions, ‘it was an event inside history’, and hence “it was obviously influenced by the events and pressures and ideas of the time of its creation; that to historicise the story, to try to understand how a great ideas was shaped by those forces, was the only possible approach to the subject”.

Al-Lah, Mohammed and Divine Revelations

To Rushdie,

“Revelation was to be understood as an interior, subjective event, not an objective reality, and a revealed text was to be scrutinized like any other text, using all the tools of the critics, literary, historical, psychological, linguistic and sociological.  In short, the text was to be regarded as a human artifact and thus, like all such artifacts, prey to human fallibility and imperfection”. (Page 24)

Undoubtedly, this would be the stand of any right thinking person, though not of an Islamist, who recites Quran as the word of god and hence considers it blasphemous to read it rationally.

On Allah gaining prominence in the Islamic imagery, Rushdie writes:

“Mecca was prosperous….At the gates to the city stood temples to three goddesses, al-Lat, al-manat and al-Uzza. Winged goddesses, like exalted birds. Or angels. Each time the trading caravans from which the city gained its wealth left the city gates, or came back through them, they paused at one of the temples and made an offering. Or, to use modern language: paid a tax. The wealthiest families in Mecca controlled the temples and muchof their wealth came from these ‘offerings’. The winged goddesses were at the heart of the economy of the new city, of the urban civilisation that was coming into being.

“In the building known as the Cube, or Ka’aba, in the centre of town there were idols of hundreds of gods. One of these statues, by no means the most popular, represented a deity called al-Lah, meaning the god, just as al-Lat was the goddess. Al-Lah was unusual in that he didn’t specialize, he wasn’t a rain god or a wealth god or a war god or a love god, he was just, vaguely, an everything god.  It may be that this failure to specialize explained his relative unpopularity.  People making offering to gods usually did so for specific reasons, the health of a child, the future of a business enterprise, a drought, a quarrel, a romance.  There preferred gods who were experts in their field to this non-specific all-rounder of a deity. However, al-Lah was about to become more popular than any pagan deity had ever been. 

“The man who would pluck al-Lah from near-obscurity and become his Prophet, transforming him into the equal, or at least equivalent, of the Old Testament God I Am and the New Testament’s Three-in-One, was Muhammad Ibn Abdullah of the Banu Hashim family….

“Here was a fascinating paradox: that an essentially conservative theology, looking backwards with affection towards a vanishing culture, became a revolutionary idea, because the people whom it attracted most strongly were those who had been marginialised by urbanization – the disaffected poor, the street mob. This, perhaps, was why Islam, the new idea, felt so threatening to the Meccan elite…” (Page 41-43)

Satanic Verses and Status of women in Islam

Anyone pondering over the status of women in Islamic societies today may wonder how it came to be so. Here, again, Rushdie take us to the early years of Islam:

“… … most of the major collections of Hadith, or traditions, about the life of he Prophet told the story of an incident that afterwards became known as the incident of the satanic verses. The Prophet came down from the mountain one day and recited the sura (number 53) call an-Najm, the Star. It contained these words: ‘have you heard of al-Lat and al-Uzza, and al-Manat, the third, the other one? They are the exalted birds, and their intercession is greatly to be desired.’ At a later point – was it days later? Or weeks, or months? – he returned to the mountain and came down, abashed, to state that he had been deceived on his previous visit; the Devil had appeared to him in the guise of the archangel, and the verses he had been given were therefore not divine, but satanic, and should be expunged from the Quran at once. The angel had, on this occasion, brought new verses from God, which were to replace the satanic verses in the great book: ‘have you heard of al-lat and al-Uzza, and al-Manat, the third, the other one? They are but names that your forefathers invented, and there is no truth in them.  Shall God have daughters while you have sons? That would be an unjust division.’ And in this way the Recitation was purified of the Devil’s work. … …

“The ‘true’ verses, angelic or divine, were clear: it was the femaleness of the winged goddesses – the ‘exalted birds’ – that rendered them inferior and fraudulent and proved they could not be the children of God, as the angels were.  Sometime the birth of a great idea revealed things about it future; the way in which newness enters the world prophesied how it would behave when it grew old.  At the birth of this particular idea, femaleness was seen as a disqualification from exaltation.” (Page 43-45)

During the days following Ayatolah Khomeni’s fatwa, a number of writers came to the defence of Rushdie. The South African writer Paul Trewhela was one among them. Rushdie says, Trewhela defended him describing “the Islamist campaign as a ‘bursting forth of mass popular irrationalism’, arguing that “it was ‘the novel’s secularizing tendency that was at issue…its intention to ‘discuss Muhammad as if he were human’... and he argued for a robust secularist response to the religious attack” (Page 125).

Blasphemy

The Khomeni-inspired Islamists used every available means to spread their culture of hate and violence. Here is Rushdie:

“Modern information technology was being used in the service of retrograde ideas: the modern was being turned against itself by the medieval, in the service of a world view that disliked modernity itself – rational, reasonable, innovative, secular, skeptical, challenging, creative modernity, the antithesis of mystical, static, intolerant, stultifying faith.  The rising tide of Islamic radicalism was described by its own ideologues as a ‘revolt against history’. History, the forward progress of peoples through time, was itself the enemy, more than any mere infidels or blasphemers.” (Page 131)

Commenting on Iranian Nights, a play written by Tariq Ali with a character after Salman Rushdie himself, Rushdie writes in his memoir:

“Among the subjects the play did not explore were: religion as political repression and as international terrorism; the need for blasphemy (the writers of the French Enlightenment had deliberately used blasphemy as a weapon, refusing to accept the power of the Church to set limiting points on thought); religion as the enemy of the intellect.”  (Page 177). 

Rushdie says these were the themes he might have treated had he written the play!

On the other hand, The Blasphemer’s Banquet, a play written by the poet Tony Harrison, treats blasphemy “being at the very root of Western culture.  The trials of Socrates, Jesus Christ and Galileo had all been blasphemy trials and yet the history of philosophy, Christianity, and science owed them a mighty debt.”

“At the heart of the dispute over The Satanic Verses”, writes Rushdie,

“…was a question of profound importance: who shall have the control over the story? Who has, who should have, the power not only to tell the stories with which, and within which, we all lived, but also to say in what manner those stories may be told? For everyone lived by and inside stories, the so-called grand narratives. The nation was a story, and the family was another, and religion was a third.  As a creative artist he knew that the only answer to the question was: Everyone and anyone has, or should have that power.  We should all be free to take the grand narratives to task, to argue with them, satirise them, and insist that they change or reflect the changing times.  We should speak of them reverently, irreverently, passionately, caustically, or however we chose. That was our right as members of an open society.”

Cultural Relativism and Islamophobia

Cultural relativism is the favorite stance of religious apologists (and post-modernists as well). This has been used to justify every atrocities committed against the oppressed and especially against religion-based atrocities against women – be it burning of women in the pyre of their deceased husbands (sati), mutilation of girls, the practice of purdah, child marriage, and what not.

In this context, Rushdie quotes from an imaginary letter he wrote to the British Member of Parliament, Bernie Grant:

“Cultural relativism is the death of ethical thought, supporting the right of tyrannical priest to tyrannise, of despotic parent to mutilate their daughters, of bigoted individuals to hate homosexuals and Jews, because it is a part of their ‘culture’ to do so.  Bigotry, prejudice and violence or the threat of violence are not human ‘values’.  They are proof of the absence of such values.  They are not the manifestations of a person’s ‘culture’.  They are indications of a person’s lack of culture. (Page 187)

On the coinage of the word Islamophobia, Rushdie writes:

“A new word had been created to help the blind remain blind: Islamophobia. To criticize the militant stridency of this religion in its contemporary incarnation was to be a bigot. A phobic person was extreme and irrational in his views, and so the fault lay with such persons and not with the belief system that boasted over one billion followers worldwide. One billion believers could not be wrong, therefore the critics must be the ones foaming at the mouth. When did it become irrational to dislike religion, any religion, even to dislike it vehemently? When did reason get redescribed as unreason? When were the fairy stories of the superstitious placed above criticism, beyond satire? A religion was not a race. It was an idea, and ideas stood (or fell) because they were strong enough (or too weak) to withstand criticism, not because they were shielded from it. Strong ideas welcomed dissent….

“It was Islam that had changed, not people like himself, it was Islam that had become phobic of a very wide range of ideas, behaviours and things. In those years and in the years that followed, Islamic voices in this or that part of the world – Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan – anathematized theatre, film and music, and musicians and performers were mutilated and killed. Representational art was evil, and so the ancient Buddhist statues at Bamiyan were destroyed by the Taliban.

“‘Islamophobia’ was an addition to the vocabulary of Humpty Dumpty Newspeak. It took the language of analysis, reason and dispute, and stood it on its head.

“He knew, as surely as he knew anything, that the fanatical cancer spreading through Muslim communities would, in the end, explode into the wider world beyond Islam. Ifthe intellectual battle was lost – if this new Islam established its right to be ‘respected’ and to have its opponents excoriated, placed beyond the pale and, why not, even killed – then political defeat would follow” (Page 344-46)

Joseph Anton: A Memoir – Salman Rushdie
Published by Jonathan Cape, 2012

Read More

Rise of Intolerance in India

G Vijayam

The National Conference of the FIRA is taking place at the critical juncture of modern Indian history. It is crucial for the country as to which road we take-the tolerance or the Intolerance.

Dr G Vijayam addressing the FIRA conference 

Our country is known for the comity of the nations and for its tolerance and accommodation. Indian path to democracy highlighted accommodation and adjustment of diverse view points through dialogue and discussion. The legacy of the freedom movement was unity in diversity. The founding fathers of the Indian Constitution envisioned India as a Federal state with a unity bias. The strength of India lies in its unity and its ability to adjust to new situations without compromising the basic tenets of the Constitution.

The dividing line between tolerance and intolerance is very thin, but with profound consequences to the nation and the people. Which road we take is the crux of the matter.

History bears testimony to the disastrous consequences of intolerance. The Crusades in the Middle Ages of Europe and the 100 Years War, 30 Years War and many other internal and external conflicts within the Nations, led to greater intolerance, resulting in the bloodshed. Much blood was shed in the name of religion and its bigotry. The conflicts between the Catholic and Protestant countries and the other nuances of the in same Christian religion, led to shedding of much blood of the innocent people.

Constitutionalism and to the Emergence of Democracies

This finally led to the idea of Constitutionalism and to the emergence of democracies. The foundation for these is the need for Separation of State and Religion. In other words, Politics and Religion must be separate. The State belongs to all, irrespective of their personal beliefs or non belief and religious preferences, if any. The acceptance of the concept of separation of the State and Religion was an important landmark in the onward march of the society. The supremacy of the State over religion was not that easy and it took centuries to accept the idea.

The emergence of secularism reflects the primacy of the State over all other institutions within the state.

The growth of Democracy in many parts of the world, in particular in India, is equally significant. Democracy may not be best form of Government, but the other alternatives of democracy are the worst. Democracy may be weak and ineffective and incapable of talking decisions fast. But the greatness of democracy is that it reflects the will of the people through periodic elections and people can enthrone, or dethrone the representatives of the people through their power of ballot. The periodic elections are the safety valve in democracy.

Experience of Dictatorship

The dictatorships ruled the roost in the 20^th Century, the world over. The Communist, Fascist and tribal dictatorships finally collapsed, because they did not give scope for dissent or difference of opinion. Intolerance is the inherent quality of dictatorships. They brook no opposition. But difference of opinion is bound to be there. People have divergent views. They cannot be silenced forever. The Concentration camps in Germany could not silence opposition for long. The collapse of the Soviet Union which was a super power was not due to any war, but because of lack of freedom and expression of their opinions. The tribal dictatorships like that of Edi Amine in Uganda also collapsed. Thus by the end of the 20^th Century, it was more or less clear to the people that dissent is the ascent of society. The will of the people is supreme. The new wave of recent awakening in the Middle East, especially triggered in Syria and Egypt, has created a snowball effect for democratic uprising in the majorly dictatorial area.

The Indian Experience 

What we have achieved in India in 1947 is the political Independence. Democracy gives freedom, but does not guarantee food. Unless and until there is concerted and continuous effort to achieve social and economic equality, mere political democracy will not satisfy people.

The political parties in India have turned into mere vote catching machines without any scruples. They want to cash on the weaknesses of others. Others weakness or lapse is their str2ngth. They do not have constructive or creative approach to rebuild society.

Of late the parties have become intolerant to others and they are looking at each and every issue through partisan and opportunistic lenses. In India, almost all political parties are in power in one state or the other. When they are in power, they want to safeguard their position by hook or crook, even with the most opportunistic alliances and with all types of compromises. When they are in opposition, they shed crocodile tears and try to recapture the power as early as possible. The constructive thinking is at a discount.

Thus in the political sphere, intolerance is growing, as the people in power have a single point of agenda, that is to cling on to power by hook or crook and while the opposition parties are steeped in mudslinging at their opponents. Politics, thus degenerated into, poly-tricks. Every party poses as though it is holier than others. But they do not hesitate to resort to corruption and nepotism when the opportunity comes. What happens in politics has a ripple effect on all other areas of social, economic and educational spheres. There may be some degrees of difference, but not much difference in quality.

As politicians lost their moral fiber and their sole aim is to capture power, they started alliances with the moneyed and the opportunistic groups and individuals. The outcome is too well known to be elaborated here. Anti-social elements capture the legislative and ministerial positions by their money and muscle power.

The political parties started compromising their stand on secularism, freedom of expression and democratic values. It is resulting in the rise of money power and fall in moral standards in public life.

It is the time to build alternatives to strengthen the democratic and secular ramparts we guard. Our sole aim is to achieve social change through democratic and secular means. Our moral fiber is our strength. Without firm commitment, determined action and ready for sacrifice, alternatives to the present dismal situation cannot be built.

The growing corruption in all fields of life -political, economic and social-is eating the vitals of the nation. As moral values are at discount, everyone talks about the corruption of the others. In one state or the other, all major parties are in power, at least as the coalition partners. When the opportunity to do corruption comes, they leave all their sermons to winds, and resort to corruption. The corruption of the ministers at the Union and the State Governments reveal that with some minor exceptions, majority of the politicians are trying to make hey when the sun shines. The degree of difference is in proportion to the opportunities they have to resort to graft. The people at various levels start emulating politicians. Corruption, nepotism, and partisan spirit go together. Corruption in the country is growing horizontally as well as vertically.

People are asking, who is our role model?

Caste and Democracy

Added to the woes, now intolerance is growing in the social field. Caste has become a convenient tool in the hands of the politicians. They are fanning the caste and sub-caste consciousness. In Portuguese language "Casta" means division and the word caste was derived. Since the advent of Independence, how many new castes emerged in India is everyone's guess. Now, many people moved beyond caste professions and they are migrating and are engaged in many other professions. But as the birth of the person is the criteria for caste classification, it opened up Pandora's Box and now the sub-caste consciousness also has grown, which is leading to hostility and intolerance between sub-castes, there is the new cause of intolerance and conflict in society. Caste and religion are intertwined. Religion will not go unless caste is abolished and inter-untouchability and intra-untouchablity is the part of the caste system. Caste consciousness grows at the expense of secularism. Politicians and social leaders are now exploiting the caste differences. Instead of encouraging castelessness and intercaste marriages and intermingling of all, politicians are trying to have a cleavage in the name of caste.  It will have an adverse affect on secularism.

Democracy has given the right to vote through universal adult suffrage. It is a quantum jump, no doubt. It brought new awakening among people. People's consciousness has increased. The media plays a major role in informing the people about their rights. It is a welcome change. But rights and duties are two sides of the same coin. It is a matter of regret that duty consciousness, and the effort to enhance their abilities for social good through collective action has not taken strong roots in the Indian soil. The political leaders and the Trade unions and all ethers are stressing their rights, but not on corresponding duties. Without performing their duties, the short cuts to success are short lived and leads to a bone of contention.

The growing intolerance in political, social and economic, educational and others spheres need to be tackled for the unity and integrity of the nation and society. Positive action with determined commitment will lead to change in the atmosphere. Corruption, nepotism, intolerance, parochial considerations need to be addressed at various levels. Alternatives must be evolved so that there will be a positive action for a positive future.

Role of Individuals and Organizations 

Here comes the role of the individual and all the organizations. Growing intolerance will lead to cut throat competition and instability in the nation and society. In this age of democracy, the citizen's action is bound to have a positive impact on the society in the long run, if not earlier.

For complex and compound problems there is no single or simple solution or instant results. But in a democratic environment the scope for social change is much more and in this age of communications and media, people' receptivity and wave-length can be established relatively faster than the yester years. Hence every conscious and concerned individual or organization must raise their voice against the growing intolerance in the society and its adverse impact on the democratic and secular ramparts we guard. Pleasure lies in pursuit and it is bound to gain momentum as the cause is genuine and the need is profound to the future growth of the nation and the society on peaceful lines. 

(Dr G Vijaym is the Executive Director of Atheist Centre, Vijayawada. This is the paper he presented at the 8th National Conference of  Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations (FIRA) in Nagpur, Maharashtra, held on 11th & 12th February 2012. Dr Vijayam is also elected as the Patron of FIRA)

Read More

The Rise of Intolerance in India

V Kumaresan

V Kumaresan

The rise of intolerance seems to be alarming at present. The peculiar feature of it is that all voices of intolerance are not one and the same. Tolerance to inhuman practices is a age old phenomenon in this society. Human beings who have to be rational must be intolerant to irrational practices and events. They should be intolerant against inequities and injustice meted out to them. When the history of 20 centuries  and even earlier is scanned, it would be vividly evident that the major section of the mankind of this land were made subservient to dogmas and doctrines in the name of  god and religion, thereby they were tempered over a period of time to be tolerant of slavery. It is not mere the existence of social slavery, the slaves were made to enjoy their slavery. The social slavery was glorified as divine and as a design, created by god. Their life style was tuned as such and any violation of it was considered as crime and deserved punishment till such so called deviants are alive and even after their death.

This sort of centuries old inequitable tolerance was sanctified by the people who raise voice of intolerance at present, alarmingly. It is not the same people who designed the inequitable tolerance but they are the people who stake claim for the heritage of sustaining such an evil design in the society.

Presently, the intolerance exists in the society and its rise is not right in a collective sense. The nature of intolerance is not in totality; it is choosy; it is self-oriented. The relativity is lacking. Whenever it is convenient, the fundamentalists of the dominant section of the masses support or oppose on the right to freedom of speech and expression. When religious dogmas of other sects are exposed, the claim for the right to freedom of speech and expression rose to the sky, under the guise of intolerance. When such rights are exercised against their own religious dogmas, then their support for the right to freedom of speech and expression becomes dismal. This is the dilapidated tactics of the culturally dominant, oppressive section of the society.

B R Ambedkar

When ‘fatwa’ was issued by the then political head of foreign state against Salman Rushdie for his Satanic Verses, the other religious countries provided asylum for him. The fatwa issued against him has transnational impact. India need not have any reservation on the version of the Satanic Verses since it is a Secular State. In order to appease the  section of the people in India who follow the dogmas of religion against which Satanic Verses speak; it develops an illusion as if there would arise some security threat had the Britain dwelling Salman Rushdie attended the recently held Literary Festival in Jaipur, Rajasthan. When the security threat was discussed widely, no state machinery either in Maharashtra or Rajasthan was bold enough to share the perceived probable security threat. Even foreign litterateurs who read certain quotes from Satanic Verses at the Festival were pressurized to leave the venue and the country immediately. But the entire blame of probable security threat was shifted, to the premises owner where the Festival was held, under the guise of the apprehension of an individual. In that case what for the State exists, which is expected to maintain law and order. But the strange affair is criticism about such unsecured condition in a Secular State by the other sect of fundamentalists. They raise their voices in support of freedom of speech and expression. What were their views few decades back when Dr. Ambedkar’s book ‘Riddles of Rama and Krishna’ was published in Maharashtra. The same sect which advocates for freedom of speech and expression today was against the publication of Ambedkar’s book. The fundamentalist forces were diplomatic enough to celebrate the Birth Centenary Dr. B.R.Ambedkar, but opposed the publications of his writings. Same is the case when the foreign movie ‘The Da Vinci Code’ was released in India. It was banned for the reason that it hurts the sentiments of the particular religious sect. 

Taslima Nasreen

Latest episode is the release of biography of Taslima Nasrin, its seventh volume, Nirbasan at Kolkata Book Fair. It is just the release of biography of an atheist writer and not even a seminar, workshop or public meeting to deliberate on the contents on the book. The release of the book itself was not allowed at Kolkata, an important city in Secular India. But the adjoining State, Bangladesh, despite its deep faith in the religion against which Taslima Nasrin remains as a prolific writer, has provided a climate for the release of the book. 

In all these episodes, the tendencies of intolerance have been exhibited. But such tendencies are mutually conflicting. They cannot discharge their protest and opposition under one banner. The reason being, the opposing forces hail from different religious sects. Shadowing up their inherent conflicts, they project themselves as a force fighting for the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, whenever the dispute is raised about the religious dogmas other than their own. The forces behind the rise of intolerance in the name of fighting for the right to freedom of speech and expression are different with strong conflicting fundamentals ideologically as well as organizationally. 

Under such circumstances, the State which is expressive ‘secular’ constitutionally has to remain neutral, non-aligned and naturally with the support of atheists, rationalists and humanists. But the prevailing position is not like that. The State suffocates and suffers due to these fissiparous tendencies and rise of intolerance. All these inadequacies may be attributed to the secular approach adapted by the State which is indifferent. In letter it is right. The spirit behind it is different. The word ‘Secular’ means non-religious. The State should distance itself from the religious affairs. If one religious practice creates disharmony, the State should approach the issue in a humanistic way. Such approach has to be adopted whatever be the religion that creates nuisance to the society and its harmony. Instead of that, at present, State encourages every religion, of course not equally, provide patronage which cannot be the duty of a Secular State.  

What role we rationalists need to perform at this juncture?

As rationalists, we have to expose the real face of the fundamentalists who speak for the right to freedom of speech and expression for their convenience then and there. The contradiction between such forces should be sharpened and exposed at the times when rise of intolerance is projected as collective efforts with alleged coherences among them.

Certain provisions of constitutional law of India have to be amended. Article 19(i) (a) speaks about the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Article 25 speaks about the right to freedom of practice and propagation of religion. It protects the freedom to practise rituals and ceremonies which are the integral part of the religion.

G Vijayam presenting his paper at the FIRA session on Rise of Intolerance - Sitting (from the right): V Kumaresan, Ramachandra CST Voltaire, and Dhaneswar Sahoo

In exercising these fundamental rights, in the name of ‘reasonable restriction’, freedom of speech and expression is curtailed to protect the sentiments as freedom of practice and propagation of religion. Freedom of religion could be possible only in an island where there exists no other religion. Many rituals and ceremonies are contradicting mutually among the prevailing religions. When the religious sentiments encourages inhuman practices, then the reasonable restriction  need not be applied and should not be applied on  the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Suitable amendments must be brought to provide exception clause on reasonable restriction for freedom of speech and expression providing immunity to the opposition made by fundamentalist. Amending the constitutional provisions is not a simple task. Lot of debates and discussions, involving the real secular political forces and various humanist movements are required. Let the initiatives be done by the rationalists under the banner of FIRA (Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations). We may be miniscule comparing to the vast population who adheres religion, either consciously or as convention without application of mind. The   task is challenging. We should remind ourselves, that in the history, many revolutionary happenings had been initiated only by few individuals. One footstep may look insignificant but necessarily it is the first step for the long march. The droplet may be tiny. It is the basic structure which devolves as the big flow stream. Let us resolve ourselves! Let us start today!

(Excerpts of the speech delivered by V.Kumaresan at 8^th National Conference of Federation of Indian Rationalists Associations at Nagpur, Maharashtra  held on 11^th and 12^th February 2012. V Kumaresan is the General Secretary of The Rationalists’ Forum, Tamil Nadu.)

Read More

The Rise of Intolerance

Narendra Nayak

As we progress in material terms and with the rise of technology one would expect the society to become more tolerant, liberated and open to all points of view however much they differ from what we hold. But, we see that the opposite is happening.  The success of a democracy is measured by the extent of freedom of expression of the citizens and the protection given to exercise this right. The right to dissent and that to blasphemy are fundamental human rights.

But. what is happening today in our country as well as some other parts of the world runs quite contradictory to this. The rising intolerance to the contradictory point of view is now becoming a great danger to democracy and the freedom of expression of the individual. This could be anything from preventing a marriage between two consenting adults to preventing some one from speaking his point of view to trying to restrict the freedom of the press. This has gone to extent of  attempts at curbing the rights of individuals to speak out their minds on the so called 'social web sites', that too by the judiciary which is supposed to uphold the fundamental rights of the citizen. We in Karnataka have been increasingly subjected to such attacks by all sorts of outfits belonging to various religious and political denominations. The same has been now observed at the national level. While these outfits tend to support individuals who have points of view inconvenient to those which have a conflicting interest, when it come to their own their attitude becomes totally different. For example the saffron outfits which prima facie support Salman Rushdie's freedom of expression have attacked journalists for writing things about some historical individuals who they feel are their exclusive property though they lived long before these came into existence! Again, we can see the defenders of freedom of expression belonging to some religions who act like supporters of democratic rights in countries where they are in minority while in those in which they are in majority have been converted to Islamic republics where their primitive tribal laws hold sway! Some of them even claim that Islamic rights are superior to human rights as proposed by the United nations organisation!

The rise of this intolerance has reached such depths that we have had ministers commenting on how what women wear invites rape! In fact, this is an indirect support for those who can say they were provoked into rape by the way women dress! This could be also an indirect way of strengthening the gender stereotypes of the religious beliefs in which women are looked upon as chattels. In fact this has been happening in some places where there are claims of 'love jihad' as if women are some commodities who can be easily hoodwinked or traded. This attitude is particularly reflected when a marriage takes place. Instead of looking at that as a decision of two individuals to live together, it is viewed as a reflection on the status of castes and religious beliefs of the families of these individuals. Many times, even murders have taken place to preserve the 'family honour'! The revulsion is more in the case of interreligious marriages and those which occur between those of a 'touchable' and untouchable caste! Having assisted hundreds of such youngsters in love to get married, I have noticed the maximum opposition when one of them is a dalit! It does not matter whether it the male or the female! the very thought of a caste Hindu marrying a dalit is anathema to the families of the 'upper caste' partner of the marriage.

The funniest part of this intolerant society is their selective support to the victims of intolerance of their perceived enemies. the saffron groups for example have condemned the attack on Salman Rushdie by the Muslims. the most recent one in this has been the protest against Rushdie attending the Jaipur literature festival and speaking there. This has been condemned by some of the saffron gangs as a infringement of right to freedom of expression. All this while one of the victims of their attack, the artist Hussain was protected by islamists! It is but natural that ones enemy's victim is a friend to be supported! This intolerance has now been extended to literature too.

The most recent protest in this respect has been about a book called Gandhi Banda which has been a prescribed non detailed one for the degree classes of the Mangalore University. While this has been in the syllabus for quite some time, it is only very recently fund to be offensive to one particular community- the gold smiths! Though the person referred to is a carpenter called as Achari in Tulu the local language, the community of goldsmiths who are also called Achari had threatened to go on protest. however, nothing much actually materialised out of this threat! However, the moving forces behind this so called protest are actually the Shivalli brahmins about whom is this work of fiction! Though based on a true story of a brahmin widow marrying a Muslim, The book depicted the cruelty to widows and a young woman rebelling against it in the back ground of the freedom struggle in the district. Though the attempts to get it removed from the prescribed list of text books has not succeeded so far, we do not know when it will be proscribed.

The reaction to a write up in a popular Kannada daily, the Prajavani by a student organisation is another example of this hooliganism. The write up pointed out that Swami Vivekananda whose 150th birth anniversary is being celebrated all over the country as a mortal with all his shortcomings. He was described as a dull student, his history in service that of being removed from hsi post for not being very good in teaching etc were mentioned and the author took pains to explain that despite all these he managed to build up a strong movement, revived the reformist streak in the Hindu society and emphasised on the eradication of many social evils including the caste system. he was also portrayed as a non vegetarian with a fondness for cooking good food and also suffering from many ailments. This had perhaps punctured the egos of certain elements who had imagined him to be of a strong muscular build and a vegetarian too. More than anything it must have been an attempt to hog the lime light. While the choice of some words to describe him could be called uncomplementary though not defamatory the reaction was an act of total intolerance to anything that does not conform to the what the protesters thought was right.Even a protest could be justified as it is everyone's democratic right to protest but it cannot be done by violence and destruction of property!

The level of this expression of intolerance has been fine tuned to such an extent that they are conflicts even among the upper castes themselves about their degrees of purity! For example GSBs (Gowd saraswath brahmins) have been physically removed from the rows of Shivalli brahmins who fancy themselves as those with a higher degree of ;purity'. It has come to the extent of even boycott of a swami from one of their own maths for having committed the 'sin' of crossing the seas which climaxed into high drama with one of seers going on a fast to protest this injustice to him and the most senior one of them going on a counter fast!

Culminating this series of localised acts of intolerance come the attempts at the national level to curb all dissent and freedom of expression. Under the guise that certain statements or pictures may offend the 'religious sentiments' of particular communities the central govt. is thinking of enacting legislation to 'filter out'  what is called as 'objectionable content' from the internet. While it is powerless to act against against individuals and organisations which incite communal sentiments and even exhort the listeners to commit even murders, the action is being contemplated against those peacefully express their views of the net! The culture if it can be called as so of intolerance is on the rise in our society. It is coming to such levels that the freedom of expression is being curtailed and human rights are being trampled upon. matters have come to such a head that some citizens have become authorities by themselves and hold their self made 'constitutions' to be superior to that applicable to all other citizens. If the superiority of the constitution of this country is not asserted by those whose responsibility it is to do so than this country has a very bleak future. the silent majority as to be expected from them are keeping up their tradition of being silent while the vocal microscopic minority professing their own laws have the ears and eyes of the media and that of the nation. Unless we the silent majority break our silence and make ourselves heard we can be sure that a time will come when we are going to be silenced for ever and it will be too late to repent.

Bearing the risk of repetition I once again quote the great parliamentarian Edmund Burke-

All it takes for the dark forces of evil to take over this world is enough number of good people who want to donothing.let us stop being those good people who want to nothing.

Read More