[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
========================================================



I would like to thank Prof. S.Roy for his gracious reply to my queries. 
Sir, intolerance would do as well as fanaticism for my purposes. The 
point regarding mob-rule is a valid one. It is not the beliefs of any 
person I object to, just the attempts to use these beliefs to incite 
irrational and violent reactions in the people at large. 

>From owner-india_policy@cinenet.net Mon Oct  5 10:48:16 1998
>Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
>       by tahoe.cinenet.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) id KAA19880
>       for india_policy-list; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 10:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
>Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 10:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
>Message-Id: <199810051743.KAA19880@tahoe.cinenet.net>
>X-Authentication-Warning: tahoe.cinenet.net: majordomo set sender to 
owner-india_policy@cinenet.net using -f
>From: "Dr. Subroto Roy" <sroy@vgsom.iitkgp.ernet.in>
>To: debate@indiapolicy.org
>Subject: Re: On Tolerance vs. Mob-Rule
>Sender: owner-india_policy@cinenet.net
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: debate@indiapolicy.org
>
>========================================================
>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/
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

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