Dialogue January-March, 2013, Volume 14 No. 3

The rising trend of socio-religious intolerance in the country: how to defeat it?

J.N. Roy*

What happened in the last few weeks in respect of Ashish Nandy speech at Jaipur Lit Fest; release of Kamal Hassan’s film Vishwaroopam in Tamilnadu, over alleged hurt to Muslim sentiments, prevention of Salman Rushdie from visiting a literary festival at Kolkata for same reason and threats to a painting exhibition at Bengaluru over alleged vulgar depiction of Hindu deities has once again gained the centre stage of public discourse. It led to lot of breast beating and shedding of tears in visual and print media over the violation of fundamental right of freedom of expression on one hand and growing socio-religious intolerance in the country on the other. I was really surprised by the intensity of public sentiments and deafening silence of the governments and political class over the developments except for meaningless support to the right of freedom of expressions, etc.

My surprise was due to the general lack of sincerity on part of various protagonists in favour of right of expression. What happened in the last few weeks was neither new nor were the reactions. It was only continuation of the trend for quite sometime fostered and supported by default by the governments’s of all pursuations and ideologies. If there is any doubt recall the ban on import of Salman Rushdie’s book “Midnight Children” by central govt; Taslima Nasreen’s ouster from Kolkata under the CPM regime and attack in Hyderabad under the congress rule; hounding out of country of eminent painter late M.F. Hussain; prevention of Salman Rushdie from attending the Jaipur Lit. Fest in 2012 and protests and threats against the vulnerable film makers and artistes from Pakistan etc, which only underscore the flourishing “offence and hurt ‘industry’ in the country. Several reasons include political, black-mail for financial gains, and blatant and mindless vote bank politics. However, what is disquieting over the years is the unwitting support and promotion of this ‘industry’ by default by the govt. and political parties is undermining not only our socio-political values, but also the principles of governance and the constitution. We do not seem to realise that it would result only in chaos and disorder and loss of credibility of the govt. to ensure law and order according to rule of law. Non-descript and amorphous groups and organizations; besides radical and communal entities have been encouraged to gain prominence for the partisan motives and acquire a semblance of legitimacy.

Short-sighted politicians and clever-by-half supportive bureaucrats and the police have and are causing grave damage to the notions of governance and law. They do not realise that unprincipled actions under the false pretence of threat to law and order is in the long run counter-productive for their own interests and that of the country. They forget that they have been elected to uphold the law of the country and the rights of its citizens guaranteed under the Constitution and if they cannot guarantee that they have no right to exist. Upholding of principles of law and justice and governance irrespective of the consequence – political and otherwise, is to the long term benefit of the society and nation. Bending backwards to accommodate illegalities and intolerance on any pretext and consideration is destructive of both. Current developments only denote collapse of principles and moral values both at the political and governance levels and lack of administrative fibre and backbone.

The politico-administrative response to the developments is not only complex but lacks sincerity and resort to subterfuges under the pretext of managing a tense situation. Effort is to confuse and confound the simple issues and principles to evade accountability and find excuses in hurt sentiments and threats to law and order. The simple and cardinal principle of governance is that there is rule of law in the country which governs both the right of free – expression as well as the right to protest and dissent. Both rights have to be exercised peacefully and lawfully. If someone’s rights have been violated and sentiments are supposedly hurt he can protest peacefully/lawfully and through media and take recourse to law courts. In case film Vishwaroopam or visit of Rushdie, or painting exhibition at Bengaluru hurt some sentiments, they could write and protest and get a prohibitory order under the law from a court. Threats of violent protest and physical prevention are unlawful and blackmail. The administration is supposed to resist such actions and protect the rights of Rushdie, Kamal Hassan and painters against unlawful threats irrespective of the consequences. This is the sine qua non of a civilised and law abiding society. The administration is law bound to protect a citizen’s right against any kind of threat and blackmail; and that right can be curbed only by lawful actions, preferably a court order. Similar protection is also available to the right of lawful and peaceful protest and dissent. . By succumbing to blackmail and convenient law and order excuses, the govt. cannot be allowed to undermine the right of a citizen.. The whole principle is simple and straight forward and easy to uphold only if there is intent and purpose. An unambiguous firmness will lead to collapse of this burgeoning industry of ‘hurt sentiments’ often rooted in lucrative gains and political patronage using blackmail. In brief cure is simple and subterfuge is complex and dishonest.

I will end by sighting a live example to which I was a witness. It addresses all the dimensions of the problem which we are facing today and unable to either comprehend or willfully evade. In the 1970s I was in London for work during the general elections in U.K. Callaghan of the Labour Party was the Prime Minister and Margaret Thatcher (Conservative Party) the opposition leader. Enoch Powell was leading a White-Supremacist Party which openly railed against the Asian and other non-white migrants and citizens. Enoch Powell decided to hold an election rally in South Hall area dominated by Asian and non-white population. Those opposed to Enoch Powell threatened to disturb the rally and a serious situation of potential violence emerged. The Chief of the Metropolitan Police took a stand that Enoch Powell had the constitutional right to hold a peaceful election rally in any part of the country and the Metropolitan Police was law bound to uphold his right to do so. Those who were opposed to him can also hold a peaceful protest but cannot resort to force or violence to disrupt it and if they do so the police will act as per law and the police cannot force Enoch Powell and his party to forego their right. Maintaining law and order and upholding the lawful right of a citizen was govt.’s responsibility which it will discharge. As threats of possible violence mounted, both Callaghan and Margaret Thatcher appeared on television and supported the principled stand of the police chief though both were politically opposed to Enoch Powell and his party. In the event, the rally was held, there were violent protests, and if I remember correctly, one person lost his life and lawful action against the violent protesters followed. There after there was no untoward election related incident as the govt. and police refused to compromise on principles and law. It was that simple and easy. This example is a lesson for all of us, particularly the govt., police and the bureaucracy. Partisan interests and perceived threats to peace and law and order cannot be allowed to undermine the legitimate rights of citizens or absolve the authorities from discharging their lawful responsibilities and duties. At the same time the citizens must understand that differences of views are inherent in a liberal democracy and so is the need to accommodate it.