Cultural & religious intolerance grips India

Col Ghulam Sarwar (R)



India takes immense pride in its secular values and makes the world believe that it represents extra-ordinary religious, cultural and linguistic diversity. These claims may be theoretically true, but reality on ground tells us a different story. Loud claims of secularism notwithstanding India, in fact, presents an abysmal picture of narrow-mindedness and fanaticism. Brutal murder of Mohtama Gandhi at the hands of a frenzied Hindu fanatic unveils the real designs of a bigoted society. Mohtama Gandhi was removed from the scene, way back in 1948, and since then, religious riots have taken a heavy toll of human life and property; thus throwing overboard the myth of India's commitment to secularism and religious pluralism.




With passage of time, the menace of intolerance has assumed alarming proportion and as a consequence, India, today is facing a growing state of violent religious and cultural intolerance. In the past, sectarian discord and violence had reflected the mood of India's hyper-nationalist right wing but currently, political parties across the ideological spectrum are mainly responsible for fanning the flames of hatred against their rivals.




The recent brutal attack on Mumbai and in late November, as seen by an Indian scholar and analyst Mr. Sumit Ganguly, seems the undercut the divisive political message of the worst of the country's bigoted political parties. Things as these stand today, it is abundantly clear that religious violence and cultural parochialism are on the rise. Presumably, these forces are fuelled by the economic downturn, which is bringing out the worst political tactics. Viewed in this turbulent economic climate, scapegoating religious minorities may seem irresistible for those who seek to divert attention from serious issues of unemployment and growing economic disparities. Sumit Ganguly apprehends that matters may grow even worse on India's national elections approach in May this year. And in attempts to solidify their political bases, political parties, regardless of their ideological orientation, may well start kowtowing to religious and cultural zealots. Several recent developments underscore the dangers that they pose for the wellbeing of India's plural secular society.




Here, Ganguly quotes two examples of intolerance on the part of zealot. First instance relates to the activities of Hindu fanatics belonging to the Sri Ram Sena. They accosted a group of women and their male escorts at a pub and created a very ugly situation for them. In their views, women frequenting pubs had contravened the mores of Indian life. After causing plenty of harassment of these "pubs" men and women, these custodian of morality then chose to publicly humiliated unmarried couples on Valentine's Day in Mangalore on the ground that this putatively alien custom was undermining traditional Indian masses. On this occasion, these zealots, however, had to face great humiliation at the hands of the "enlightened" young couples. The protest of the youth, which was non-violent and unorthodox, caught the "two virtue masters" off guard and they were completely flattered. Ganguly now narrates another incident which happened some time back in Calcutta, the capital of West Bengal. As per details, the controversy erupted as a result of a story published by the well-known English language newspaper Statesman.




The newspaper had reproduced an article written by Johen Hair under the title: Why should I Respect Oppressive Religion". On publication of this article, the group of local system, sought to intimidate the elders of the "Statesman" through series of menacing rallies. They barricaded the newspaper's employees in their office, which adjoins a major mosque. Seeking to assuage the sentiments of these illiberal critics, the Communist-run state government invoked a statement of the Indian Penal Code, which prohibits "malicious insults to the religions of any class" and arrested its Editor. Under duress the editor published an apology.




Mr. Ganguly asks if these events of intolerance across India were inevitable. Obviously, there is no clear-cut answer to this query. However, the country's vast civil society and elements of political leadership form a bulwark of opposition to these developments. India will increasingly find itself at risk. Concluding his argument, the writer argues that the feckless cultural and religion intolerance has no place in an inherently plural society.