Intolerance: Pedantic Debate & Folk Wisdom

            Intolerance: Pedantic

           Debate & Folk Wisdom

                                        Nidhu Bhusan Das

A debate, rather a one - way interpretation of Hinduism as a pejorative for communal majoritism is on in India today. In this respect it is pertinent to refer to how our Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi looked at Hinduism. The Mahatma said: “I am a Hindu because it is Hinduism which makes the world worth living. I am a Hindu hence I love not only human beings, but all living beings.” Was Gandhi communal? Did he not ardent followers like Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, the renowned “Sheemanta Gandhi?” Was our late President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam communal or fundamentalist? What about Swami Vivekananda or Shri Arabinda,the scholar par excellence who responded to the call of spiritualism after the end of the Alipur Bomb Case?

We the common people are perplexed in the whirlwind of such debate and interpretation. It is, perhaps, difficult for common Indians to comprehend where they really stand in the polity depending on what is being dished out by way of the discussion and reactions of our enlightened few vis - a – vis the folk wisdom or the ignorance of the illiterate folks. For them all these deliberations are confusing. Folk wisdom or the ignorance of the folks is reflected in the electoral results or performances of recent years. If it is so, the wisdom being presented these days appears to be pedantic and elitist shorn of the understanding of the folk mind. I don’t know if it smacks of ostentatious and arrogant show of learning. Even the prepoll surveys conducted by professional organizations in collaboration with media entities are unable to feel the pulse of the electorate these days.

Why this happens is the moot point, and the entities might have started introspection.

When everything is judged within the framework of existing models and data base, and is just a mechanical and academic or pseudo-academic exercise, ground reality and truth may not be explored and grasped. Human behaviour being dynamic and evolving, it is difficult, depending on data analysis and sample surveys only, to predict with optimum accuracy how in a particular situation the mass will behave and decide. So, it is really a Herculean task to play the guardian of public mind any more in the evolving mass society. What had been found true for decades after independence is found not to be true in the present demographic profile of India. Those who belonged to the era of the Freedom Struggle or were born immediately after or within a few decades from Independence might have taken into account or were carried by the emotion and glow of the great struggle. They formed the majority in the electorate and dominated as opinion leaders. They imbibed the values propagated by Mahatma Gandhi and pragmatism of Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru. The majority in the electorate today is formed of people who are millennials.They live in the moment and judge by what they see now and what they think may create opportunities for them and generations-next. In India now, the debate between secularism and majoritism does not hold water for them – they seem to be concerned with the campaign for development. True, when the state has the development agenda and the party in power can project itself as the earnest pursuer of the philosophy of development and is capable of drawing up viable development plans and of implementing those wins the verdict of this neo-majority. The debate on Secularism versus Communalism does not inspire this majority as they do not tend to think it important because development in a diverse society that India is cannot be selective which is bound to be truncated that precludes limited development to hinder  national  gain in every sphere of life. A handful of rich people in a predominantly poor neighbourhood do not mean the prosperity of the area as a whole.

It is baffling why a democracy be defined with the addendum of secularism. Do our parliamentary Democracy and Republican Constitution not enough to provide for equality irrespective of caste, creed and religion? If not so, should we not be held responsible for being unable to inculcate the essential democratic values in our citizenry over the decades?

P.S. A Bengali poet has recently been sued for allegedly hurting the religious sentiment of a community in his poem posted on the Facebook. A lot of discussion is going on regarding the filing of a complaint with Siliguri police by an individual. The discussants term this action as an instance of intolerance at least at the societal, if not at the national level. The tone sounds virulent. Are they equally virulent against terrorism which is the fallout of religious fundamentalism? Have they shown their willingness to deliberate on the two states of Islam – “State of Islam” and “Islamic State”. A state leadership set a bounty on the head of Salman Rushdie when his “Satanic Verses” was released and the celebrated author had to go and remain underground for many years. The complaint with the police by an individual may not be as serious as it appears from the hue and cry compared to the fatwa against Mr. Rushdie.