Circus called tolerance and intolerance debate

Nowadays heated discussions are going on in India on the issue of tolerance and intolerance. Every news channel is having some panel discussion to decide whether India is getting more intolerant or not, on social media some people are busy proving that intolerance is on the rise and some are fiercely contesting this claim by abusing them for raising this issue. The issue has become so important that it is being discussed in parliament also! I personally value tolerance a lot and have written a couple of posts related to this topic. One is about why we need a tolerant society and another is about my own experience of intolerance in Indian society. Now let's come back to this topic of debate over the issue of intolerance (or tolerance). If you listen to most of these debates, then any sensible person can easily understand how misplaced these people's expectations are about tolerance and intolerance. Somehow tolerance is equated with complete acceptance, objectionless, and submissive type of behavior, and intolerance is equated with any objection or strong comment or dissent against your own views. So, if I object to anyone's statement, then I am intolerant, if I say anything against any religion or person, then I am intolerant, on the contrary, if I don't react to an abusive statement, then I am tolerant, if I don't express any dissent about anything, then I am tolerant. Basically, either you are with me or against me, there is no middle ground. Also, there is huge confusion about where the "freedom of expression/speech" fits into all this? I don't even know if these people know that there is something called freedom of expression. So, the first question everyone should try to ask is, do we accept that people have freedom of expression or not?

Now let's proceed in step-wise manure as this topic seems to be very complicated. If there is freedom of expression, (with some reasonable restriction like no incitement of violence), then, anyone can say anything as long as it is not an incitement to engage in a violent act. People need to agree on this first, if people have freedom of expression, then they can express their opinion. That opinion can be anything, like some people should leave this country or I don't feel comfortable about the current atmosphere in this country, or whatever. Any Yogi, Sadhvi, minister, writer, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, atheist, actor, or whoever it may be can say whatever they want and no one should challenge their right to say those things as they are not doing anything unconstitutional or illegal by using their basic right of freedom of expression. Making any statement or agreeing or disagreeing with someone doesn't make anyone tolerant or intolerant. It all depends on our actions and behavior towards people who say nasty and offensive things, it depends on how we react to those statements with which we disagree or feel offended. Just look at the reactions from both sides and you will understand what I am talking about and why I call this debate a big circus. I personally have no objection to any Yogi, minister, or actor expressing their opinions, they have the right to do that. I cannot question that right. I may or may not agree with their statement, and I may have very strong objections to those statements, but that person has equal rights to express them just like I have. But it seems people don't understand this simple thing, most of the reactions are like, how dare he or she say this? He or she should be punished or kicked out of the country for saying this or let's boycott them for expressing their opinion. Common, at least first try to understand what that person said, debate and discuss that topic in detail, and then come to any conclusion. But it looks like people are more interested in delivering verdicts of guilty or nonguilty rather than resolving the issues and having any meaningful discussions. The atmosphere is getting so polarized that it seems there is no possibility of any middle ground where people can agree to disagree and move on. Even in parliament, the discussion is pathetic, it is not that I expected it to be any different than whatever is going on in TV studios, but if you are putting some circus then at least make it somewhat entertaining and watchable. The recent protests and this 'award wapasi' movement were actually to protest against the increase of physical violence which is the ultimate form of intolerance. I don't think it has anything to do with the change of government or who is PM or who is president. The government should have taken these protests in the right spirit rather than taking them personally and trying to dismiss them altogether thereby giving them a lot of media coverage. Addressing the concerns of these people might have stopped this issue from becoming a national time pass. I also don't know why people complaining about intolerance want to paint the picture as if today in India you can not say anything against the current government, it seems both sides are only interested in going to any extreme just to prove their point. Tolerance or intolerance shows in our behavior. A tolerant person, society, or country doesn't have to say that they are tolerant or give any proof to prove that, their behavior is enough to prove it. Similarly, an intolerant society or person doesn't have to accept that they are intolerant their behavior is the ultimate proof of who they are. Our actions speak louder than our words, so, I think people should focus on their actions and let those actions speak whether they are tolerant or intolerant. I don't think this shouting at each other is going to bring any desired change, each person should correct their behavior and automatically it will bring change in the country. I hope both sides understand this, otherwise, this issue will become another never-ending topic of Indian politics like secularism and communalism.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]