[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: On Tolerance vs. Mob-Rule



========================================================
Administrative Note:
-------------------

Week's Agenda: Social Conditions

  Minimum Wage
  Rules regarding Safety of Personnel at work to be made clear
  Introduction of Social Security Net
  Introduction of identity card
  Removal of Age discrimination at work
  Creating conditions so that reservations will no longer be necessary
========================================================

Dear Ms.  Ko,

I was responding to Prof.  Guptara more than to yourself, and my
apologies if
the emphasis failed to come through.  It ought to be obvious that all
intolerance is to be condemned, since without (almost) absolute freedom
of
inquiry and expression, the progess of knowledge in any field is
impossible.  I
hope you may find my terms of tolerance/intolerance more accurate than
"fanaticism" which has I think a somewhat technical origin in theology.

Prof.  Guptara has not identified any "religious fanatics" in political
power in
India today, so as far as I am concerned that too closes itself as an
issue.

The examples he gives of the Babri Masjid, and terrorism against the
Sikhs after
Indira Gandhi's death etc.  are, if I am not mistaken, sub judice in
India, and
let us all hope that justice will take its course.  Perhaps we ought not
to
forget that our country is very much a functioning democracy with the
Rule of
Law prevalent (though of course imperfectly, here as elsewhere).

I do think mob-rule is the real danger, not religious beliefs of one
sort or
another.  Mob-rule allows individuals to escape accountability, and so
destroys
the working of the Rule of Law.  It is not peculiar to India or the
Islamic
countries in any way, and can and does happen everywhere.

Sincerely


Subroto Roy




> > ======================================================== > Administrative
Note:  > ------------------- > > Week's Agenda:  Population >
======================================================== > > I would
like Prof.
S.  Roy to kindly specify which part of my statement > he finds to be
'misleading and contentious'.  I would also like to know > which remark
of mine
is 'totally disengaged from Indian experience'.  I > do agree with
Prof.  Roy
when he says that IPI has reached a critical and > serious political
subject
matter.  Religious intolerance is both a > critical and serious
political
subject matter.  However, to raise the > subject is definitely not the
same as
fostering contention.  To > paraphrase Prof.  Roy, what does he mean
when he
calls the statements > misleading and contentious?  Does he mean that
the topic
should not be > raised at all?  As for the statements being unrelated to
Indian
> experiences, sir, I respectfully disagree.  I have seen people I have > grown
up respecting, claim that the single best act of their lives was > their
participation in the destruction of the Babri Masjid.  To be honest >
sir, this
fills me with dismay and worry.  I find it hard to believe that > such
fervent
irrationality will die out on its own.  > >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list: 
debate@indiapolicy.org >
Rules, Procedures, Archives:  http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/ >
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------