By AW Siddiqui
Rebutting allegations that intolerance was rising in the country, Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh said there was no nation in the world as tolerant as India (PTI; 23 Dec 2018).
Singh told reporters: "The tolerance that exists in India, I don't think that it can be found in any corner of the world."
How correct is Rajnath Singh? Does he reads the news papers? Has he been out of touch lately? Is he simply treading the party line? Or, is he simply denying the reality, thinking that this will change the perceptions a bit?
Before we venture on the topic itself, let’s see what exactly “tolerance’’ means. A generally accepted definition of tolerance could be the "ability to tolerate or willingness to accept the existence of opinions or behaviour that someone dislikes or disagrees with".
In 2017; a Pew Research Centre analysis of countries ranked India as the 4th worst country in the world for religious intolerance. This research contradicts Singh’s statement.
In India, a country of 1.3 billion people, the incidence of hostility related to religion trailed only Syria, Nigeria, and Iraq, all places that are currently battle grounds of foreign countries, and where sectarian violence is widespread.
Pew examines cases that involved hate crimes, mob violence, communal violence, religion-related terror, the use of force to prevent religious practice, the harassment of women, and violence over religious conversion.
Pew’s Research Centre analysis confirms Pranab Mukherjee’s statement that “Land which gave concept of tolerance is in news for rising intolerance”.
Examining some of the events in last four years we find that;
Elected MPs and office bearers are openly asking for boycott of movies starring Muslims and no actions being taken against them.
An office bearer of BJP compares Shahrukh Khan to Hafiz.
A Pakistani book launch function had an Indian Muslims face painted with ink.
A prominent singer (Ghulam Ali) who has been darling of India is denied a concert.
Beef eating suddenly becomes a big issue. There have been physical attacks on elected MPs in parliament for hosting beef party in a state where eating beef is allowed.
With the beef ban we did not tolerate the food habits of beef eaters. Of course the ban existed prior to the current government but they whipped up frenzy around the issue that lead to many men losing their lives. In some cases; violence inciters were relatives of BJP leaders.
Love jihad is being touted as a threat when every single case ends up showing another picture - mostly of a inter religion couple eloping (watch the report on love jihad by tehelka exposing how cases are fabricated).
Mass ghar wapsi (return to Hinduism) ceremonies, organized by a Hindu nationalist wing of the governing BJP, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), are viewed as an attempt to dismantle minority religions. Hundreds of incidents have been reported in a matter of months.
A seven year old girl was raped in Kashmir and BJP leaders rush, not to help the victim’s family, but to protect the rapists’.
A recent comment by Nasiruddin Shah, "There is complete impunity for those who take law into their own hands. In many areas we are witnessing that the death of a cow is more significance than that of a police officer", in an apparent reference to the killing of a policeman in the Bulandshahr mob violence, resulted intense backlash from BJP/RSS and Hindutva quarters.
Naseeruddin Shah also said that he was anxious over the well-being of his children. "I feel anxious for my children because tomorrow if a mob surrounds them and asks, 'Are you a Hindu or a Muslim?' they will have no answer. It worries me that I don't see the situation improving anytime soon" he said.
PK was an interesting film that take on the misconceptions and myths that are part of of the daily life in India. But opponents of the film wanted it banned because the director had ‘targeted only Hindus’.
And just because Aamir Khan starred in a film that looked at India's Baba-culture, blind faith, myths and the culture of exploitation in shrines, the poster-burning mob went after him, calling him a traitor, pointing at his religion while a similar film starring Akshay Kumar and Paresh Rawal had barely created a whisper
So, Aamir Khan had every right to express his fears, to share his concerns. He made a remark about a personal conversation with his wife, as an example of a personal and disturbing fear.
To say that we should be patriotic and not insult the country to the outside world and not speak of our fears is exactly the kind of environment that makes him and his wife fear for their child.
What is this new wave of 'nationalism' and pseudo-patriotism that does not allow a man to express his fears for his own country?
When Tagore spoke of his country awakening into that heaven of freedom, into that home where the mind was without fear, where the clear stream of reason had not lost it's way, he was praying for things to change, he was expressing a fear, a hope, a dream and a vision for his country.
Are we going to question Tagore's religion because he put his heart out there?
Amir Khan did not say anything so wrong that he should be attacked in such an aggressive manner. Amir Khan, Shah Rukh Khan, Naseeruddin Shah and others who agree with the idea that 'intolerance is rising' are correct from one perspective. They didn't call India Intolerant. They said there was rising intolerance in the atmosphere. Ironically, the aggression of so many people in response to their statements was in agreement with their statements.
Officials of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), at both the central and state government levels, made statements that India should be exclusively Hindu, and minority communities, including Muslims, Christians and Sikhs, complained of numerous incidents of harassment by Hindu nationalist groups.
In Gujarat state; anti-conversion laws do not allow people to adopt a religion without permission from the district magistrate, whereas Haryana decided that Bhagwad Gita should be in its school curriculum.
Renowned writers have returned their awards as a protest against the silence of the Sahitya Academy over the recent killings of writers like M.M.Kalburgi, and the growing intolerance in the nation. But instead of addressing the issue, the government came out with a statement that writers are politically motivated. Where is politics in protesting over the killing of a fellow writer? Why cannot a writer protest when a human being’s life becomes less worthy than that of a cow?
Concerned with rising intolerance in India, a petition Statement by Scientists read “The scientific community is deeply concerned with the climate of intolerance, and the ways in which science and reason are being eroded in the country..."
It is the same climate of intolerance, and rejection of reason that has led to the lynching in Dadri of Mohammad Akhlaq Saifi and the assassinations of Prof. Kalburgi, Dr. Narendra Dabholkar and Shri Govind Pansare. All three fought against superstition and obscurantism to build a scientific temper in our society. Prof. Kalburgi was a renowned scholar and an authority on the Vachana literature associated with the 12th-century reformer Basava, who opposed institutionalised religion, caste and gender discrimination. Similarly, Dr. Dabholkar and Shri Pansare promoted scientific temper through their fight against superstition and blind faith.”
There is a feeling that extremist Hindutva religious ideologies and violent forces on the right have overshadowed the idea of a liberal, tolerant society envisioned by India’s founding fathers.
As Shashi Tharoor, an Indian politician and a former diplomat put it:
“We (in India) cannot simultaneously sell ourselves to the world as a land of pluralism, tolerance and Gandhianism, while promoting intolerance, communal hatred and minority insecurity within the country. It is time the Modi government learned they cannot promote ‘Make in India’ abroad while condoning the propagation of ‘Hate in India’ at home.”
So the correct question is not whether ‘India is an intolerant country’, but ‘has India become an intolerant nation’?
Before we explore the answers, let’s keep in mind that India, as we see it today, is about 70 years old. Prior to that, with the exception of three short periods, the current geographic boundaries of India contained many countries and States, with its own kings, languages, religions and cultures.
But for the simplicity, lets say that India within its current boundary and the name existed for last few thousand years. Has that India always been intolerant?
And, without any hesitation, the answer will be NO.
For the known history of India, starting from Aryans to British, there has always been acceptance of other races, cultures and religions. All of these cultures, even when they were initially forced, slowly blended and enriched the local traditions to form a unique culture that we see today. Tolerance and adoption has been the character that facilitated that blending.
India adopted everyone; from asylum seekers and traders to invaders. Aryans, Romans, Jews, Christians, Parsees, Arabs, Central Asians, and more recently Tibetans; all came and settled in India. This would not have been possible if Indian’s were intolerant.
During the Mughal period, Muslim Emperor Akbar encouraged religious freedom and supported intercommunity dialogue involving people of various faiths and atheists. Early interactions with Islam, Christianity and Judaism furthered the pluralistic character of India.
There have been cases of intolerance at rulers’ level but by-and-large, at the social level, India has been fairly tolerant. India appeared, from a distance, like a society where tolerance had grown organically.
Infinite diverse cultures, various languages, different religions, different gods and many belief systems, all together in one same country.. still united, is a statement that India has been a tolerant country.
‘’The strength of the opposing voices and their existence in such abundance is evidence itself of India’s tolerance and pluralism. Indian civil society and intellectuals have an impact on public discourse which would be the envy to their Western counterparts.’’
"We come from a nation where a Catholic lady steps aside from becoming a Prime Minister for a Sikh ... and where a Sikh is sworn in as a Prime Minister by a Muslim President ... to govern a nation of over 80% Hindus".
But with all that wonderful characteristics which makes it a tolerant country, India has its own set of flaws. Some acts of intolerance happen around every corner of the world, and so it is with our nation.
In India, there are more than 100 religions and more than 100 languages.
We are also not as tolerant as what we used to be. India is not intolerant, but we are moving towards a path that may lead us to intolerance. The use of social media & the rapid dissemination of half-baked information and propaganda seem to be contributing to the emergence of the problem.
A small group of people (perhaps 5 to 10% of the population), encouraged by current ruling group BJP/RSS, are becoming increasingly intolerant. But this does not mean that India is an intolerant nation, because behaviour of a few doesn't make an entire nation like them.
It’s when BJP politicians and Office holders started talking against certain religions that India started showing the signs of an intolerant country.
Expression of agreement and/or disagreement is being used by BJP politicians to extract political benefits out of divisive and dirty politics. To their advantage are masses of India, with simple minds, who can be easily manipulated.
There has always been a communal intolerant genie in India. But its size was small, and contained in a bottle. But what has happened in last four years is that the genie has grown much bigger, and it has been let out by BJP/RSS/VHP.
Will they, or the next ruling party, be able to put the genie back in the bottle?
Another question that evokes my curiosity is; will BJP/RSS/VHP be able to make a permanent dent in Indian multiculturalism and tolerance? I assume they cannot. Thousands of years of Indian history, though turbulent at times but tolerant at the end of the day, gives us the confidence to support this assumption.
Hopefully, the Modi era will pass without tweezing out the inter-communal respect that is woven into the fabric of Indian society.
And let’s not forget, it's not the country that should be tagged as tolerant or intolerant, it's the people living in it. And yes… India today has some people who can't bear to see people belonging to other religion living together harmoniously, but there are a lot more people who work hard to see people live together harmoniously.
