Tolerance on the Foundations of Intolerance

If you do not like the existence of something and still tolerate it, then it is called ‘tolerance’.

Recently, writers, artists and scientists have returned their awards. Other similar eminent persons also have joined hands with these protesters. At this juncture, it will not be irrelevant to discuss the political views of these eminent persons.

The politics of politicians faces a test at least during elections. But it is left to the students of Literature and Social Sciences to discuss the politics of the writers, artists, scientists, social scientists or historians from time to time.


I have to give two clarifications.

First, I am conscious of my vernacular English which may not be of the standard of the mainstream intellectual discourse in India. But I do think that intellectual discourse need not be left only to sophisticated English speaking writers. Therefore I hope readers will tolerate my English.

The second clarification is more important. It is about the words used in this essay. The word Hindu used here is to mean as it means in the government records. It does not mean a homogeneous unit or does not refer to a single group of people with certain belief systems. This word includes all those communities, castes and traditions which are included under the category Hindu in the census data of the government.

Here, the word Hinduism does not mean a religion that is similar to Islam or Christianity. In this essay the word religion does not include Hinduism as it includes Islam and Christianity.

The words secular, secularism and secularist are used in the sense they are used by the award-returning writers. I should also clarify that I believe their model of secularism is not the real secularism, if at all secularism is the right word to be used and that their idea of secularism does not serve the purpose that it should serve.

Growing Intolerance: Placing the Responsiblity

Those writers who have returned their awards have claimed that this is an act of protest against the Sahitya Akademi, against the Central Government or against the rightist groups. The core of all these statements is that they are protesting against the growing trend of intolerance in the country.

Growing trend of intolerance’ does not refer to any single or specific incident. It is something that takes place over a period of time. Therefore we can agree that the questions such as why they did not protest when Sikhs were murdered or when emergency was imposed etc, do not arise.

We can also agree with their argument that, though late, at least now they have woken up and that it’s better late than never. But the fact that this growing trend of intolerance has become visible to them only during the last one or so years shows that they have just got their spectacles changed and we can easily imagine the colour of the new spectacles.

We should note one small, but very important difference as far as the conflicts or relations between communities are concerned. Though equality between the castes is not achieved completely, discrimination based on caste has definitely decreased during the last six or seven decades and the standard of living of Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Castes is better when compared to the earlier years.

This is because of the efforts of reformers of the distant past, recent past or present. We should also take note of the contributions made in this regard by constitutional measures, various governments and the writers who created awareness.

sacharThe social unrest caused by the policy on SC, ST and OBC is negligible when compared to the amount of change or empowerment it caused. But the policy on Muslims has not brought about any significant improvement in the standard of living of Muslims. If it has helped Muslims, Sachar Report should have shown different findings.

The Indian secular discourse has resulted in alienating Muslims and in turn, has harmed them. If we see the relations between the Hindus and Muslims the gap is widening day by day. This has made the award returning writers believe that intolerance is growing.

But who should be held responsible for this intolerance?

Actually the secular discourse during the last sixty years has not succeeded in reducing the tensions between Hindus and Muslims. Instead, it has increased intolerance.

The award returning writers call themselves as secularists and advocates of multiculturalism and pluralism. Their writings are the most dominant part of India’s secular discourse and if there is any fallacy or contradiction in the secular discourse they must hold themselves responsible.

What are the ways in which the harmony between various communities need to be retained and improved? Is it through police action or is it through the mutual trust, attitudes and mind-set of the people? If it is through mutual trust and the mind-set of the people, then the state should create a conducive atmosphere for that. Writers should provide thoughts, social theories and literature in that direction.

Secular Discourse has Proven Deadly

What did the post independent secular discourse do? The basic premise of this discourse is this: Hindus are majority; Muslims and others are minority.

According to the secularists, the multiple identities of Hinduism are considered as a single unit called majority. Majority-minority division based on religion is not considered as communal politics by these secularists!

At the same time, the secularists argue that only some fringe elements are intolerant and only these elements are spreading hatred and that the vast majority of Hindus are for pluralism.

If this is so, how can they argue for some special status to the minority, thereby indicating that all the Hindus are categorized under one unit namely the persecuting and dominating majority?

If they agree that most of the Hindus are tolerant and pluralists then why should they be treated as a majority which can do some harm to the minorities? Moreover, almost all the secularists have argued that Hindu is not a homogeneous entity. For example, see Amartya Sen’s The Argumentative Indian or any other book by a known secularist.

In which case, how can such heterogeneous groups be considered a single majority? How can there be a minority when there is no majority? The secularists use the concept of minority in their discourse even though they cannot identify the majority!

The constituent assembly had a very lengthy debate about this aspect of minority, but unfortunately it could not give up this notion. The majority-minority divide holds well only in countries where the majority of the population follows the religion which considers conversion of others an important part of religious duties. For instance you can have the majority-minority concept in Pakistan, UK, UAE etc., but not in India.


So, isn’t there anything common among the Hindus? The answer is yes.

Some common features follow: these traditions or communities considered under the umbrella of Hinduism do not have a ‘religion’ in the sense of Islam or Christianity.

Two: Hindus believe that they should offer Pooja to the created as well as the Creator. (Amir Khan’s film PK miserably fails to understand the Indian context when the hero says that all other numbers except that of the Creator -God- are wrong numbers).

Three: ‘Deva/devathe’ (God/Goddess) can become human beings and vice versa.

Four: Existence of both female and male deities.

Five: Creation, recreation and criticism of written or oral Puranas.

The above features are related to one another. These features are applicable in case of Scheduled Castes, Brahmins and other castes, even in case of Adivaasis or Tribes.

Actually the concept of Hinduism refers to the above aspects. This is what is usually called a way of life. Though some communities claim that they have sacred texts, such texts are open for interpretation and criticism.

vivekanandaNo sacred text prevented Swami Vivekananda from criticizing oppression based on birth. In fact, reformers like Vivekananda interpreted the texts according to the needs of the hour and used them to advocate modern ideals like equality.

The above-mentioned common features did not give Hindus the ideology or strategy of conversion. You need not consider it as the generosity of Hindus. It may be a weakness or vulnerability when compared to Islam or Christianity. In fact the very nature of Hindus or the above features do not enable them to have a strategy of preserving their set of beliefs intact or imposing them on others.

Secularists may mention about the caste hierarchy here and may say Brahmins imposed their will and rule over others. Even if it was true, it must have benefitted Islam and Christianity instead of posing any threat to them.

We know from history that not only the downtrodden were converted but the families from the so called upper castes were also converted into Islam and Christianity during the Islamic and British period.

In which case, why do these secularists consider such weak or vulnerable and separate entities of Hinduism as a majority group capable of domination over the other faiths?

Have any of the Parsee families experienced the feeling of insecurity in India because of Hindus?

Actually, being quite prosperous, Parsees could have easily become the targets, if we go by some of the Marxists’ theory that economic condition is one of the main reasons for communal hatred.

A United Hindu Vote Bank?

The innumerable identities or the communities coming under Hinduism do not have the political power as a single Hindu unit. There are talks about caste vote banks, but there still is no Hindu vote bank.

Now there may be efforts to create Hindu vote bank, but such efforts can yield result only because of today’s secularism! There are more Hindus who vote against the so called Hindu Party BJP than those who vote for it.

Elections in India have proved time and again that Hindus are the most secular in their voting pattern. But most election analysts, like secular thinkers, believe that secular votes are divided if Muslim votes are divided.

The recent Bihar election of 2015 is interpreted as a victory of secularism. But the irony is, the secularists do not recognize that the same result demolishes the basic premise or the foundation of Indian secularism which is the majority- minority divide.

The so called secular thinkers must understand that if the country is still secular by and large, it is not because of secularism but in spite of secularism. It is a blunder to think that tolerance or intolerance is a mere law and order issue, that only a non-BJP government can ensure tolerance. The actual problem lies in the secular discourse and the secular policy which various governments including the BJP follow.

The politicians and secularists of post independent India could have tried to do away with the division between Hindus and Muslims created by British rulers. Instead, they wanted to have an imaginary enemy to Muslims, Christians and so on.

This imaginary enemy called Majority Hindus helped the politicians and the secularists to project themselves as the protectors of the so called Minority Groups.

Teaching Secularism to Minorities

Till today secularists have succeeded in sustaining their relevance as the protectors of the interests of the Minority. But these secularists have never tried to teach secularism to Muslims.

They give silly justifications for this sort of attitude. They argue that it is the responsibility of the majority to make peace. This justification falls apart mainly for two reasons. One: as we have seen there is no such single majority in our country. Two: intolerance of a very small group can cause conflict in a large society.

It is quite clear that the secular policy of post independent India wrongly considered Hinduism as another religion just like Islam and Christianity. As a result of this, today some of the Hindus are trying to convert Hinduism into Islam by becoming more and more intolerant.

The secular discourse in India tried to preach secularism and toleration to Hindus who were naturally secular. What happens when you try to change somebody who is doing right things? He or she will start doing wrong things. This is precisely what happens in India today.

The fact that the Hindus not only tolerate others but are also patrons of other religions, can be easily proved by counting the heads of Hindus among those who have returned awards.

Our secularists have the objective of correcting Hindus only and keeping only the Hindus tolerant. So, chopping off the hand of a teacher in Kerala is not intolerance. Kashmir violence does not become an example of intolerance. Are Kerala and Kashmir not inside India according to them? Actually that is not a relevant question because the fact is that the secularists believe that some groups have the right to be intolerant by virtue of their religion.

hospitalI do not know how many of the Pakistani writers and artists have returned their awards for the fate of Hindus or Christians and even Muslims in that country. What explanation do these secularists give for the fact that Muslims are safer in India than in Pakistan?

Does the RSS have any hand in the insecurity feeling experienced by sections of Muslims in Pakistan? The Indian writers and secularists could have requested at least those Pakistani artists who were restricted from performing in India to join hands with them in their protest against growing trend of intolerance in India (in India because there is no intolerance in Pakistan according to the Indian secular thinkers) as writers and artists do not have geographical boundaries.

Tolerance and Common Civil Code

Demand for common civil code becomes cultural politics or an attack on pluralism, especially when the demand is put forward by the Sangh Parivar. But now Romila Thapar says that common civil code is a necessity in a secular country. (See ‘Lokajnaana’- Kannada Journal, Jan-April 2015, published by Tumkur University. I am curious to know the response of other secularists to this opinion of Romila Thapar).

Amartya Sen says that if Muslim women suffer because of Muslim personal law, it should not bother Hindus. But the Sachar Committee blames the society-read Hindus– for not giving access to Muslims. If almost 50 per cent of the population -that is to say women- of one community are not encouraged to work outside in the name of religion, how can the economic condition of such a community improve?

In such a situation, if you tax Hindus by way of special provisions, reservations etc. to Muslims, it will automatically create some sort of discomfort among Hindus. Sen and other secularists, who wrote lengthy articles about violence, do not understand that there is every possibility of conflict if, of the two coexisting communities, one goes forward and the other backward.

Actually this concept of tolerating others with great difficulty is applicable to Europe or Islamic countries and not India, at least till the present form of secularism took its birth.

Thinkers like Swami Vivekananda and Ananda Coomaraswamy have given their opinion about the problem in the concept of tolerance. Their views are very valid in our case. Says Ananda Coomaraswamy:

“..the word (tolerance) is not a pretty one; to tolerate is to put up with, endure or suffer the existence of what are or appear to be other ways of thinking than our own; and it is neither very pleasant merely ‘to put up with’ our neighbours and fellow guests, nor very pleasant to feel that one’s own deepest institutions and belief are being patiently endured”.

We know that the word intolerance is generated from the word tolerance. But we should note the most important factor that in relations between religions or communities, the concept of tolerance has its root in intolerance.

People started to think of tolerance as a virtue only after they saw the amount of intolerance in some religions. How does accepting others with pain (tolerating) become a great virtue if you believe that other faiths also have equal right to exist?

Europeans brought this word tolerance to India by keeping in mind their own concept of religion. Their religions cannot happily accommodate other faiths in its neighbourhood, but accept it only with pain or because of inevitability.

Even after nearly seven decades of independence Indian secularists are not independent.

They still depend on the words and concepts thrown at them by the British, namely, “tolerance,” “religion,” “majority,” “minority” etc. We should note that tolerance has its roots in intolerance and our secularism has its roots in religion!

Contradictions in Secular Discourse

The problem with secularism is that it has wasted its energy by responding, reacting and criticising the RSS or Sangh Parivar, that too of Golwalkar and Savarkar. It is amusing to see secularists still depending on Savarkar or Golwalkar’s writings to attack the RSS or Hindutva. Will it be fair if we criticise today’s Marxists on the basis of Marx’s remarks on colonialism? It is not actually the question of fairness; it is the question of usefulness.

Secularists easily blame Sangh Parivar for creating suspicion between communities or propagating hatred during the past few decades. But we should remember that almost all the governments, media, various academic bodies, Sahitya Akademi etc. were headed by secularists till very recently. There was no opportunity to “saffronize” the school textbooks till recently.

However, the Sangh could penetrate more and more into the minds of the people across the castes and communities as the years passed by and as more and more people received formal education. How was this possible when everything was in the hands of the secularists?

The answer to this question points towards the fallacies and contradictions in the secular discourse. Many secularists typically lament that secular forces are divided and various units of Sangh Parivar-read communal forces- are united.

This time these secularists must be thankful to the voters of 2014 for uniting secularists by creating a common enemy: prime among them, Narendra Modi. But this unity has not helped them come out of their fallacies and contradictions. Actually this unity has made their contradictions more visible.

To see one of the contradictions in secular discourse, just consider the following four dicta which almost every secularist subscribes to.

One: We should preserve pluralism and multicultural nature of our country.

Two: We should support inter caste marriages, and annihilation of caste is desirable.

Three: We should not oppose conversion.

Four: The Sangh Parivar is a threat to pluralism and multicultural society.

I just wonder how can those who agree with the second and third statements make the allegation we see in the fourth statement?

Doesn’t the first statement contradict the second and the third statement? In an inter caste marriage, either both or at least one partner has to give up his or her culture, at least a part of the culture.

In the same way, loss of one’s own culture happens in the case of conversion. Moreover, according to the secularists, culture does not imply only values or virtues and such other things; it includes food habits, rituals, language etc.

In which case, how should the Constitution, or the real secularists have treated Muslims? Thousands of villages where Hindus and Muslims lived in perfect harmony could have shown the answers.

villageThere were no cases of intolerance. The concept of tolerance was not required there because the existence of others was not something to be disliked. In such villages Muslims were of just another caste or jaathi. The same thing is true in case of Christians, Jains or others. All the castes were maintaining their respective beliefs and practicing their cultures without any problem.

Of course the government or constitution had to rightly intervene in some of the practices of some castes, such as untouchability etc. The OBC reservation as and when implemented could have anyway been applied to Muslims and others just like Hindus. It is not too late now to have a relook at our form of secularism.

The above analysis shows that all the problems we face today are because of our secular policy which viewed Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jains or Parsees from the point of view of Europe or more precisely, from the point of view of ‘religion’ instead of traditional Indian point of view. This traditional Indian view was of Muslims and others in India as much as that of the Hindus.

Imagine somebody saying that he or she does not want to live in the country if Mr. ‘X’ becomes the Prime Minister (which can happen only after being elected by the people democratically). Isn’t this intolerance?

But these award returning secularists do not think so. If you do not like the existence of something and still tolerate it, then it is called ‘tolerance’. Running away or not intending to stay near the people you dislike cannot be tolerance.

Today we just start thinking whether these secularists have suddenly lost faith in democracy. Do they at least believe that the people of this country are competent enough to elect their representatives? They had no problem with the decision making capacity of the people when there was a very high percentage of illiteracy.

But now, when the people are more and more informed because of education and various media, these secularists have started to suspect the voters’ decision making capacity! Majority rule, single party rule etc. have suddenly become dangerous.

This kind of intolerance in the name of secularism frustrates the common man and makes the members of some particular groups more and more intolerant.

Dr. Ajakkala Girisha Bhat teaches Kannada at an undergraduate college.He has authored more than ten books in Kannada including ‘Buddhijeevi Versus Bouddhika Swathanthrya’
  • Indian

    When dealing with LIE and propaganda of DESERT IDEOLOGIES of Xtianity n communism we should be exposing the savagery these two have propagated so much so that mayas, incas, aztecs, maoris have ceased to exist, Tainos are extinct.genocidal maniacs n savages from spanish conquerors to Modern day maniac Bush Hitler Stalin, have been Xtians. Surprising but True is mass murderers like Chiang Kai Shek and Commie Savages like Kim Il Sung dynasty, Sun Yat Sen etc are all Xtians (POL POT, Mao are also reputed to be hidden Xtians and Commies like Yechury-Karat etc are also hidden Xtians seprpents refer Zoomindia). More casualties than what WWII imposed on Asia happened in 17th century China, when a Insane “Brother of Christ” with a harem of 16000 tried to capture China. 30 million casualties IN LOVE resulted. MOST OF IT HAPLESS CIVILIAN BUDDHISTS through GENOCIDE. Even Hitler is pale in comparison to Brother of HELL God. Its however to Credit of Chinese Kings that they wiped Xtianity to last man. But Commies brought it back to China

  • Arun

    This is a very good essay. A very clear thinking mind comes through. To me, though it seems that both the secularists (as defined in this article) and those who seek to create an ‘-ism’ out of the Hindus (as defined in this article) are both indulging in a continuation of European projects that are not appropriate for India.

    I look forward to more analysis and commentary by Dr. Bhat.


    A stringing together of words without any coherence or even semblance of thought.

    A stray quote from Ananda Coomaraswamy , whose statement was made in a totally different context of teaching comparative religions , probably to show off the author’s erudition.

    With very little wisdom in the article , the usual vitriol from the usual commenters , I really wonder at the sanity of this website.

    • Krispy K

      Translation: This article really disturbed my world view, so I can’t resist responding. But since, as usual, I have absolutely NOTHING of use to say, I will once again make some empty rhetorical statements, and in the process attack the author and the commentators rather than address the content of the article. I will then try to portray myself as reasoned and knowledgeable by imposing my opinion about a quote made in the article, criticising the author’s use of that quote, while at the same time hypocritically accusing the author of quoting it to “look clever” when in fact that is exactly what I am doing myself, hoping that nobody notices. Finally, just like the odious piece of shit I am, I will make some grand judgement about the “sanity” of this website, as is characteristic of my horrifically bloated sense of self-importance, so I can maintain myself on this pedestal that is so important for my waning self-esteem.

      Do humanity a favour and stop breathing our oxygen, you egregious, necrotic piece of distended RECTUM. Slither off and die under a rock somewhere.

      • Kraken

        LOL…you seem to share a special bond with this guy, for I never his comments unaccompanied by your replies. Not to say I dislike this affiliation, it’s quite the opposite actually. However, you missed to tag him in the following article,

        • Krispy K

          Missed that one. Whatever, it’s not like I’m actually chasing him around.

          As for “special bond” – what he really deserves is to have his skull “disassembled” and the pieces shoved deep into his rectum.

          • Kraken

            “Whatever, it’s not like I’m actually chasing him around.”

            Of course, sorry if it came across as snide. You are in fact doing a great service by exposing this scum. He’s actually trying to influence gullible readers by posting deceitful arguments and he deserves the treatment you so eloquently described.

          • Krispy K

            Not at all, I understood what you meant.

            What’s really pissing me off is that he is now pretending to be a practicing Hindu. This is some new tactic which some people might actually be fooled by. People should note that underneath the lies he is spouting the same Commie poison, and claiming to be Hindu does not afford greater credibility.

    • K T Thomas

      May I suggest that you stop visiting this web site or at least stop commenting because, as you can clearly see, you views are most unwelcome to the readers. You should realize that power in India has passed into the hands of non-lefties. People of India are also tired of communism. Commoners in India dislike leftists. Since your presence upsets so many, why not quit gracefully?


        Thank you for that honest dialogue. I will.

  • Suresh Sardeshpande

    A very good balanced article.The author humbly says since he writes in vernacular(Kannada)his English not to up to the standard.I can vouch his expression is better than the so called “secularist” writers who write gibberish in perfect English.Keep it up Gireesh.By the way I was fortunate enough to have him in my house in HUBBALLI along with Sri S.L.Bhyrappaji,Shatavadhani R.Ganesh & Sri Gurudatt Pradhan all highly respected men of letters.

  • importingtrash

    most media , congress, communists anti Hindu, anti national

  • Kraken

    Precisely why I don’t agree with the idea of secularism being applied to our country. It’s a negative concept whose applicability can only be restricted to Judeo-Christian societal constructs (you might wanna read about John Locke’s letter concerning toleration). Both Sanatan Dharma and Islam are ways of life (albeit absolutely incompatible with each other). According to Samuel Huntington, one of world’s foremost political thinkers, the idea of secularism in the Indian context is a misplaced one. In his celebrated book, The Clash of Civilizations, he argues, “Only in Hindu civilisation were religion and politics so distinctly separated”. He further goes on to say, “To amplify further, how could a model that handled one and only one religion and that too the predominant religion in its relationship with the State become a model for setting the relationship of government in a multi-religious, plural and complex country like India?” The notion of secularism has no application in India, where theocracy never existed. Furthermore, there are practical limitations with this definition:

    How does a secular constitution define a religion – a set of philosophies or a set of guidelines on how to live a life or a set of rituals? Let me restate the problem in this context: In each of these cases, what happens if a philosophical consideration or a guideline or a ritual belonging to a certain “religion” as defined in the accepted constitution calls for exclusiveness in administrative or political spheres? Would the suppression of such a call be considered an attack on the right of the practitioners of the religion? Where does the boundary of the religion end and consideration of a constitution begin? If a constitution defines a religion and expects all philosophies, rituals and guidelines in all religions to fit the same mold, would it not be the infringement of rights of followers of various religions?

    How do we get rid of a so-called religion when it is the ethos of a country/society? Right from “Satyameva Jayate” to Ashok Chakra to the symbol for PVC has religion as its source, and all of these are our National symbols endorsed by the state/government. Would/Should we get rid of all such religious symbols under the true version of secularism?

    Should the government intervene if religious affairs of a community entail mass conversion? If yes, how should such matters be adjudicated?

    As a matter of fact, Dr Ambedkar himself made it clear in Parliament that he did not believe our Constitution was secular because it allowed different treatment to various communities and the legislatures could frame separate laws for different communities.

    Do you know that the term “Secularism” – forced into the Preamble of the Constitution by Indira Gandhi during the dark days of Emergency – has not been defined in the Constitution?
    In 1977, however, the Janata Party government introduced a Constitution Amendment Bill wherein one clause sought to define the word ‘Secular’ as ‘equal respect for all religions.’ The proposal was passed in the Lok Sabha where the newly elected Janata Party was dominant, but was rejected by the Congress majority in the Rajya Sabha. Ironically, in a lecture delivered on June 9, 2007, at the Nexus Institute, The Hague, Sonia Gandhi herself proclaimed that “India is a secular country. The term secularism means equal respect for all religions (a definition rejected by her own party !!). ”

    Some results of our undefined ‘secular’ concept are as follows:

    The government extends financial assistance to religious institutions. Why, under the 1925 Sikh Gurdwara Act, the state government spends millions of rupees for conducting elections to the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee that controls Akali politics.

    The state grants funds to educational institutions run for the benefit of one religion only. Why, the Government of India and state governments share the financial burden of ‘modernisation’ of madrassas and the Aligarh Muslim University is run entirely on government grants.

    Minority educational institutions can prescribe religious courses and appoint or dismiss a teacher/faculty member according to their whims, but rules and regulations are in force for majority religion educational bodies. The various interpretations of the Supreme Court on Articles 29 and 30 have ensured that unholy scenario.

    Government subsidises the salaries of imams, naib imams and muezzins of mosques, but not of granthis in gurdwaras and pujaris in temples. Why, the Supreme Court itself has prescribed the scale of these subsidies, which amounted to over Rs 6,000 million annually, according to a publication of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Nyasa.

    Though the Jama Masjid of Delhi is not classified as a protected monument, Rs 0.7 million were doled out to it in the eighties by the governments of Indira Gandhi and V P Singh, while nearly Rs 10 million were spent on that institution by the department of archaeology between 1990 and 1996. This ‘secular’ largesse is in contrast to the denial of even a rupee to ancient Hindu temples like Badrinath and Kedarnath.

    Government-appointed administrators run several Hindu temple trusts while the mosques of Hazratbal and Charar-e-Sharif are free of such control.

    V P Singh’s government declared the birthday of the Prophet as a gazetted holiday although no Islamic country gives that privilege to its citizens.

    • Savarkar’s Disciple

      Same one you send me huh? hehe its good to keep a copy of certain comments does help.

      • Kraken

        You never know when they can come handy! 😛

  • Shubhangi Raykar

    A Very good article Many articles like this should appear in the mainstream print Media.

    • Krispy K

      If the mainstream media was actually concerned with the honest articulation of facts and reasoned debate, maybe they would. But as we know, mostly they’re not.

      • Savarkar’s Disciple

        I wonder if instead of calling it mainstream media we should call it something else coz they seemed to be everything but mainstream especially a complete disdain for the mandate is in itself complete disregard for democracy.

        • guest

          manufacturing consent!! In India–division based on-religion, denigrating hinduism and breaking India forces are the basis for much generated news…

          Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, proposes that the mass communication media of the U.S. “are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion”, by means of the propaganda model of communication.[1] The title of the book, Manufacturing Consent, derives from the phrase “the manufacture of consent,” employed in the book Public Opinion (1922), by Walter Lippmann (1889–1974).[2]

          Propaganda model of communication[edit]

          Five filters of editorial bias

          The propaganda model for the manufacture of public consent describes five editorially distorting filters, which are applied to the reporting of news in mass communications media:

          Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation: The dominant mass-media outlets are large companies operated for profit; and, therefore, must cater to the financial interests of the owners — usually corporations and controlling investors. The size of a media company is consequence of the investment capital required for the mass-communications technology required to reach a mass audience of viewers, listeners, and readers.

          The Advertising License to Do Business: Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a “de facto licensing authority”.[4] Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the working class press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers.

          Sourcing Mass Media News: Herman and Chomsky argue that “the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media’s costs of acquiring […] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become ‘routine’ news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers.”[5]

          Flak and the Enforcers: “Flak” refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet’s public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. think tanks). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.[5]

          Anti-Communism: This was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (1945–91), anticommunism was replaced by the “War on Terror”, as the major social control mechanism.[6]

          • Savarkar’s Disciple

            Every Western/Non Indian Model has its drawback coz those models/ideologies/followers end up working as a proxy for its headquarters in a foreign land.I am not saying that they won’t work in India but they have to be Indianised,in case of Media which is based on Wealth Maximisation ends up becoming a tool for Proxy war thus becoming a threat to the sovereignty of our nation.
            Hence nothing should be applied in India without doing a proper Purva Paksha.This also applies to Noam Chomskis works coz this person just like Arundhati Roy Negates Jewish & Hindu Genocides.

          • guest

            Actually, that I have started to realise now. At first –a few of her essays impressed me. Especially the ones she wrote about nuclear standoff—and Iraq war. Now, I cannot stand her. Noam Chomsky in one of the lectures I attended simply said that China and India cannot rise–former due to human rights….and latter due to wealth gap and therefore how ti affects democracy and access to public life. I disagree with both. And that was 4 years ago. I did not know about the Jewish genocide. But I know this that we uphold authors for no reason. The more I read the more mediocre I find them. It is a combination of being pampered by certain states and organisations and then having enough money which can buy them time to write. Many of us, even wanting to write and contribute cannot due to day jobs. We keep sinking in trying to establish even a little credibility–because of lack of volume. It then becomes a vicious circle…lack of .money–lack of support –lack of output–lack of support –lack of money…having said that….I have been re-reading –only sporadically–Swami Vivekananda again—just to motivate myself to break away from any limitations….we’ll see where it goes…

          • Savarkar’s Disciple

            साम्यवाद के अपराध ( Crimes of Communism ) – डॉ शंकर शरण – India Inspires Talks

          • guest

            Thanks, have listened to half of the video on meat and environment. Its quite information intensive but very useful –thanks

  • Arun

    Good that you have taken up this subject of Minorytism. It is a subject that requires a re-visit and a course correction in order that the true basis of secularism is discovered and the roots of plurality are genuinely watered. Most of the points you have made are correct. True secularism is a Hindu eccetricity. The basis of this genuine secularism among Hindus is that “the truth is one, wise address it by many names”. This is the basis on which we do not for the mode of worship being different or God being referred to by a different name start fighting and killing. However, this is not the sentiment either of the Muslims or Christians or in which the word “secular” is used in India by. In India, this secularism is basically animosity and hostility towards Hindus and Hinduness. Minoritysm is the camouflage for this hostility towards Hindus and Hinduness. Minorityism and Majoritysim is a construct, which this group of Christians, Muslims, Marxists and Macaulayites has come up with under Hindu sentiments need not be respected. It suits the the Muslims and Christians very well as well as basically they regard Hinduism as false and this construct sort of makes it par for the course that they are not required to show respect to the Hindus and their religion. Respect for religious rights is only for themselves. Not having to show any similar sentiment towards Hindus and their ethos/ values/ aspirations is part of the Constitutional order of things. If they say it in so many words, it runs the risk of sounding unreasonable. But When this discourse is carried on in terms of Minority and Majority, then by definitions itself, they put the Hindus on the defensive in every which way. If Hindus ask Muslims and Christians to respect their (Hindu)traditions / HIndu religion/ Hindu philosophy as a normal society, that sounds reasonable. But you can make it sound unreasonable using the narrative of Majority and Minority by calling it majoritarian fascism and oppression of minorities. If they protest acts of hostility of Christianity and Muslims against Hindus, then they are attacking minority rights. For eg. Organized Christian proselytisation is a specifically intolerant act and an act of disrespect against Hindus and their religion. But with this construct of secularism, Majoritarianism, and Minoritysm, it will not be seen as such. The aggressors become the victims, and the victims are painted as the aggressors.
    Or Take the recent episode of the ban on cow slaughter on the occasion of Jain festival of Paryushan.
    If the Jain community were to take an adversarial position against Hindus, say nasty things about Hindus and Hinduness, declare themselves that they are not Hindus, they are a “minority” community, they will receive full throated support of secularists. As it happened, on actual situation on the ground on the issue of cow slaughter, the positon of Jains and Hindus was not exactly adversarial. The whole episode took an entirely different hue. The seculars now are not so keen to support the Jaini community, which they would have done otherwise, if Jainis had positioned themselves as against “Hindu” oppression.

  • Savarkar’s Disciple

    I dont completely agree with the author’s views on Intercaste marriages & Reservation but overall a sound article all I can say is that the author’s concern of him being from a Vernacular Medium becomes irrelevant when he is able to come up with a grammatically sound article and especially when we compare our beloved Lalu Prasad’s son Tej Pratap finding difficulties to pronounce words while talking oath in his own mother tongue.

  • K T Thomas

    Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance. It is cowardice. In dealing with Islam, India is as cowardly, if not more, as any Western, particularly West European, country. Islam and Muslims view non-Muslim tolerance as cowardice and their own well-known intolerance as ‘steadfastness.’ which is much praised in their holy book. If any one has any doubt, even a cursory reading of the book will convince them. It is a great pity that world political leaders are refusing to read this religion’s most important books.

    • Krispy K

      This is true. From personal experience, Westerners like to pontificate about “tolerance” but it’s really an exercise in self-indulgence. One cannot protect diversity and acceptance by being tolerant of forces that want to destroy it. It’s just plain absurd.

      But one thing that seems to be universal is that the majority of politicians will sacrifice all values, honour and morality if it will get them votes. If the result is that Islam eventually strangles all of humanity, so be it.

  • Sibby

    Irony is that India and Nepal are two Hindu majority countries. Both of them have no state religion and are secular. This is not completely true for Christianity and Islam. We have national holidays for Diwali, Eid and Chirstmas. This is not the case with Islamic or Christian majority countries.

    Also as per Wikipedia list of Massacres in India, there were 12 riots/violence/terrorist attacks in the 10 year rule of Congress. That is more than 1 riot per year. This was not considered intolerance. In 1.5 years Modi govt, there has no riots taken place so far. How can you say “there is rise in intolerance in the country”? You need statistics to prove that. Just because media is reporting one dadri incident which is still not sure whether murder took place due to intolerance or personal grudge, it does not make whole country intolerant.

    I do not know why is media and opposition trying to defame India in the attempt to defame Modi govt. Many NRI scholars living in USA and UK, have written open letter to respective government not to invest in India. They claimed “Make in India” as failure long before it was launched. They openly say that do not invest in india because there is HINDU fascist govt. All media openly say that Modi is lying about GDP. They openly ask foreign government to directly intervene in internal democracy of India. They openly say that Church attack, dalit discrimination and Muslim lynching has become a common place in india without any proof or statistics. (most of these stories were found to be personal grudges not communal). Instead of expecting Opposition to run parliament smoothly, they expect Modi govt to have opposition on board. They expect india to make peace with Pakistan while praising Pakistan’s excellent peace record even though our soldiers die everyday due to unprovoked firing.

    Please read This kind of news will never make it to mass media like NDTV, IBN7 etc. In the comment you will see three people reminding him of Gujarat riot. I wonder if it is a sin to like Modi govt?

    • Krispy K

      “I do not know why is media and opposition trying to defame India in the attempt to defame Modi govt.”

      The answer is obvious. The media and opposition couldn’t give a fig about India. They are pursuing their own agenda for their own personal gain. India and her people are just cattle to be milked for these scumbags and if they have to betray the interests of the nation to try to maintain their positions of power they will do so without a second thought. This is why they are rightly called traitors.


      So much for your ‘knowledge’.

      Look up the public holidays of Indonesia.

      • Krispy K

        This is your pathetic attempt to prove the post wrong? As usual, every poisonous sentence you write is laced with deception or half truths.

        Indonesia officially lists the Balinese New Year (Nyepi) and the Birth of Buddha as public holidays. These are the two that are relevant to Indic culture, although Balinese Hinduism is very different from the Indian variety and Nyepi is mainly observed on BALI, which is majority Balinese HINDU, not MUSLIM, and naturally is under pressure from mainland Islam.

        As per the original post, which one of these is Diwali, the main celebration people around the world understand as Hindu? No? So once again, which Christian majority or Islamic majority country in the world observes Diwali as a public holiday? Anywhere in the West or the Middle East, the main centres for those religions, will do. No? I haven’t done an exhaustive search myself but I’m pretty sure you won’t find one. So as far as I can see the claim:

        “We have national holidays for Diwali, Eid and Chirstmas. This is not the case with Islamic or Christian majority countries.”

        is correct and once again you are talking out of your fat Commie arse.

      • K T Thomas

        Indonesia was a Hindu nation until just 500 years ago when their people were all forcibly converted to Islam at the point of the sword (as anywhere else in the world). But the invaders could not wipe out all traces of the Indonesian people’s former religion and culture, which is why they have a couple of Hindu public holidays. Also, because Bali, an Indonesian island of great beauty and a tourist hotspot, remained Hindu despite the main island of Java falling victim to the Arab religion.

        • guest

          Indonesia’s currency even today has Ganesha on it, its airlines is called Garuda. and greeting on Bali is ‘swasti astu’.

          • nairps

            I visited Jakarta, capital of Indonesia, many years ago. I watched Ramayana ballet performed by local Javanese Muslims. I purchased ‘wayang kulik’ (puppets made of wood and cloth) of Rama, Seetha, Ravana and Hanuman. The name of the Muslim maid in my hotel was ‘Devi.’

          • guest

            Wow, I thought that was restricted to Bali…..

          • Shubhangi Raykar

            Yes. And as a Hindu I felt nice when I saw this. I was also moved by the fresco of the creation myth of the Hindus-samudra manthan-at the Suvarna Bhumi airport of Bangkok. India and Nehruvian secularism have changed the mind sets of Hindus who have developed a sense of shame about themselves as Hindus.

      • nairps

        You can also look up the public holidays of Pakistan and Saudi Barbaria.

    • Slasher

      I don’t Hate Islam. However, I cannot bring myself to like Christianity either. Here’s why:

      The West and East, in particular, India, must take the lead in creating a CAMPAIGN for the hearts of 3 billion people who are yet to be COERCED and CONVERTED into the two fastest growing DEATH cults in the world: Christianity and Islam. The reason I say this is the following:

      Both Islam and Christianity fit the definition of CULTS perfectly:

      1. Both were started by a charismatic Founder

      2. Both Founders claimed that they heard “voices” from a Formless God who is Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent but such a God is MALE (teehee) and can called by only One Name – teehee.

      3. One Founder killed and raped people incessantly and asked his followers to do the same if they did not BELIEVE in this fairy tale. The Other Founder was hijacked by 3rd Century AD “Nicene Creed” power maniacs who ruthlessly killed and tortured people for not believing in this fairy tale.

      If you don’t believe me, then why did we callthe Waco (Texas) guys as CULT leaders and kill them? Why do we still call the Hare Krishna guys as CULTISTS? These Cultists were no different from Christians and Muslims in their CULT definition but the former cults don’t like other latter CULTS and hence murder them in words and
      deeds. Come to think of what Islam is doing to Yazidis today and Evangelicals are doing to Indians and Chinese.

      I say it is now TIME to create a GLOBAL ORGANIZATION that is bigger than these two Death Cults that UNITES all the NON-BELIEVERS of these 2 CULTS and build a Unique THIRD WAY that is different from Islam and

      Here’s how I define THIRD WAY:
      1. All THIRD WAY adherents will be ex-followers of Islam and Christianity but also include Hindus, Buddhists and Pagans or even Agnostics, who will TOTALLY REJECT the Supremacist cultist belief of Islam and
      Christianity’s “My concept of God is the Only God” theology of Islam and Christianity.

      The “Third Way” coalition will automatically include 3 billion people from day one of its founding since it will include all former believers of these Supremacist Theologies as well as people the world over who are not yet converted to these two Death Cults, Islam and Christianity.

      2. All THIRD WAY adherents must however accept that it is PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE for all Human Beings to call a Formless, Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent God by any name including Buddha or Allah or
      Jesus or Ganesha or WHATEVER in their language.

      3. However, followers of these two violent faiths MUST accept all Belief and Spiritual Systems as equal in order to become members of THIRD WAY.

      4. All THIRD WAY adherents will also reject all forms of Violence and MUST do proselytizing of their Way in order to help Muslims and Christians to escape their death Cults.

      5. If any ex-Christian or ex-Muslim will not accept the above principles, they will onceagain go back to being Muslims and Christians and continue to murder others.

      Without such a Third Way, I see no hope for the remaining 3 billion of us of the Planet’s Humans who reject these 2 violent cults. Currently we are lacking a Third Way against the Supremacist Bigotry of Islam and Christianity. Can we all join together to create this? It could be a GAME CHANGER.

      For those who say Hinduism is the THIRD WAY, I would then ask them to read the Article # 4 and if Hindus adopt it, this could be a GAME CHANGER.

      You can display your opinions of this idea by up-voting or down-voting this comment. Thanks!

    • Shubhangi Raykar

      No. It is no sin to like Modi govt. We Hindus and other religionists with commonsense should support the much maligned man Modi because he is a genuine person who will take India to heights

  • Dharma Youdha

    Absolutely wonderful article !!! I have read countless articles on the tolerance vs intolerance debate, but none of them hits the target so perfectly like this one. Author, you have totally nailed it Really, this article is pure perfection !! Dr. Ajakkala Girisha Bhat, you should write more of these. !! Thanks for such a wonderful article !!