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

the tolerance debate

Administrative Note:

Week's Agenda: Economy

Dear Professor Guptara:

Thank you for your post. It seems to me that you are making a 
distinction between those who seek to further their religion by force 
and those who do so by other means. This is precisely the distinction 
you make when you say that whereas there is no evidence on forceful 
proselytization or attacks from certain groups, there is plenty of such 
evidence for similar action from the Sangh Parivar types.

But what precisely constitutes force? Let's say I'm ten times richer 
than you and can buy media outlets that will actively seek to undermine 
your independent thinking, and you in turn try to force me to stop that 
or force your faith on me by threatening or torturing me. Are you making 
a distinction between the two, and if yes, is it well founded? In the 
way our society is organized, there is more than one way of subverting 
another individual's thinking. If a religious organization determines 
that India is a pagan land and pours money into the effort to change 
Indian's belief, does that constitute an act of force? Might we not, if 
we were equally "powerful", retaliate in equal measure?

What distinction are you making between economically-backed religious 
fundamentalism and muscle-backed fundamentalism? Who makes the rules?



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