Tolerance lost

By Kuldip Nayar

MANY YEARS ago, Jawaharlal Nehru drew the attention of Chief Ministers to the use of violence by agitators to press their demands. He quoted from an article by Yehudi Menuhin, the violin maestro, who wrote: ``When I myself think of India, I think of a quality specifically Indian which in my imagination holds something of the innocence of the fabled and symbolic Garden of Eden. To me, India means the villages, the noble bearing of their people, the aesthetic harmony of their life. I think of Gandhi, of Buddha, of the temples, of gentleness combined with power, of patience matched by persistence, of innocence allied to wisdom, of the luxuriance of life from the oxen and the monkeys to the flame trees and the mangoes. I think of the innate dignity and tolerance of the Hindu and his tradition. The capacity of experiencing the full depth and breadth of life's pleasures and pains without losing a nobler resignation, of knowing intimately the exalted satisfaction of creation while remaining deeply humble, are characteristics peculiar to these villages.''

Over the years, the image of that India has got rubbed off. Today, more than ever before, people try to settle issues in the streets. Violence is bordering on anarchy. By and large, all segments of society - workers, students, teachers and Government employees - have come to believe that they can gain nothing until they resort to violence and, at the slightest provocation, they are up in arms. ``Crime and violence and the links between criminals, politicians and important people in society,'' said the President, Mr. K. R. Narayanan, in his Independence Day address to the nation, ``has become almost an unholy alliance.'' Human rights are the first casualty in such an atmosphere. The voice in favour of the weak is choked straightaway. Those who preach peace or peaceful methods are run down. Activists talking about people's rights are characterised as anti- national. Non- governmental organisations, working at the grassroots, are a target. An atmosphere of intolerance has come to develop. Somehow, belief gains ground that a principle can be defended by indulging in violence or by attacking the opponents to silence them. I was pained when the Union Minister, Mr. Arun Shourie, was attacked in Mumbai. I do not relish his type of politics. Nor have I liked the venom he has spewed against Muslims, Christians and Dalits in his books. But how will goondaism make him realise his mistakes? The Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad were equally guilty when they destroyed the sets of the proposed film, ``Water'', in Varanasi.

By smothering dissent you are only strengthening defiance. Freedom of expression is what differentiates democracy from mobocracy. Such incidents indicate the determination to suppress the right of others to speak, their inalienable right. India, to recall Menuhin's words, has nourished the value system where divergent viewpoints live side by side. Bludgeoning anyone to silence him is not the approach of tolerance, of feeling that perhaps others might have also a different point of view. For many people, there is only black and white, there are no shades. This attitude is wholly unreasonable and uncivilised. It is the old approach of the bigoted aspects of some religions. It amounts to denying human rights.

Take the recent killings at Pahalgam and Srinagar. Only the jehadi-type of fundamentalists are capable of doing so because the incidents reflect the kind of barbarism which even the fanatics hesitate to commit. No religion condones the murder of the innocent. Strange that Muslim leaders in the country should evince little interest in the happenings in Kashmir. The Sangh Parivar is exploiting the silence. A selected group among them should go to Srinagar to discuss the communal atmosphere which is beginning to prevail in the Valley and engulfing several other parts of the State. The intervention by Muslims will strengthen secular forces in the country. It is relevant to recall a memo by Dr. Zakir Husain, who later became President of India, along with 13 other distinguished Muslim leaders, including members of Parliament, judges and Vice-Chancellors, sent to Frank P. Graham, the then U.N. Representative.

The memo said that ``no lasting solution for the problem can be found unless the position of Muslims of Indian society is clearly understood. Pakistan claims Kashmir first, on the ground of the majority of the State's people being Muslims and, second, on the ground of the State being essential to its economy and defence in its oft-proclaimed anxiety to rescue the three (now four) million Muslims from what it describes as the tyranny of a handful of Hindus in the State. Pakistan evidently is prepared to sacrifice the interests of 70 million (now 120 million) Muslims in India - a strange exhibition of concern for the welfare of fellow- Muslims. Persistent propaganda about `jehadi' is, indeed, among other things, to inflame religious passions in this country. For it would, of course, be in Pakistan's interests to promote communal rioting in India to show to Kashmir Muslims how they can find security only in Pakistan. Such a policy, however, can bring untold misery and suffering to India and Pakistan generally, and to Indian Muslims particularly. Pakistan's policy in general and her attitude towards Kashmir in particular thus tends to create conditions in this country which, in the long run, can only bring to us, Muslims, widespread suffering and destruction.''

The 12-year-old militancy in the Valley, particularly the Pakistan-backed attack on Kargil, has changed the mood of the public. Never before has there been so much anti-Pakistani feeling in India. Indeed, Islamabad is winning in its game of cultivating hatred in the minds of Hindus. It is trying to prove the two-nation theory, the basis on which the Indian subcontinent was divided. Unfortunately, some areas are getting contaminated and forcing the Muslims to ventilate their anger. Gujarat is a typical example. Yes, this is the same State which wanted to permit Government employees to join the RSS. The systematic propaganda by the Sangh Parivar against Muslims is having its effect. The National Commission for Minorities, which toured the State recently, has expressed in a report its horror over the anti-Muslim bias, which has taken roots. The Commission has asked the Centre to take steps to stall the virus from spreading.

The extremists, who have the backing of the BJP Government, are harassing the minorities. For example, they are employing all methods to confine Muslims to their old areas. They are being stopped from shifting to new colonies coming up in the suburbs of Ahmedabad. Paldi is one such area. The Muslims who have even paid between Rs. 8 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs for flats in the multi- storey buildings have not been allowed to occupy them on the argument that ``the Hindus do not want them''. What it means is that the Sangh Parivar does not want mixed colonies.

Some Muslims have appealed to the National Human Rights Commission. In their petition, they have said: ``Activists of VHP and its fraternal organisations have been pursuing a vicious campaign to persecute minorities in Ahmedabad and, more particularly, Muslims. As a part of their persecution of Muslims, they have been trying to prevent Muslims families from residing in certain areas of Ahmedabad, which they think, should be exclusively meant for Hindus only. Paldi is one of such areas.'' The Commission has been tardy in having justice meted out to the dispossessed Muslims.

It is ironical that Gujarat, which should know what pain is because of the delay in water supply from the Narmada project, is oblivious to the indignities heaped on the Muslims. One can visualise the hardships which the people in Saurashtra and Rajkot are undergoing because of the scarcity of even drinking water. They should have got it long ago. But they, like the rest of the Gujaratis, should know what suffering actually means. There can be different reasons for it. But the hurt of pain cannot be denied.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Intentions and intransigence
Next     : Politics of lobbying