A Canonical List of Hindu Intolerance (And Little Else!)
Competitive intolerance is best challenged by protecting individual rights
The August issue of Pragati features my review of Salil Tripathi’s book: ‘Offense: The Hindu Case‘.
Mr Tripathi’s answer would no doubt be unequivocal: No. But by placing his arguments in religious morality rather than constitutional morality, he leaves room for unwinnable religious arguments. To be fair, he does discuss the constitutional weaknesses—Article (19)(1)(a) of the Constitution and Section 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code which allow the state to proscribe ‘’offensive’’ material—but that discussion is perfunctory. This is not a mere pedantic argument—after all, it is only the constitutional weaknesses which have allowed Hindu fundamentalists to file hundreds of cases against Husain, virtually hounding him out of the country. It is the Indian state which has permitted this travesty by arming itself with an arsenal of draconian laws which impinge on free speech. And lest it be forgotten, those laws were incorporated in the Indian constitution not by religious fundamentalists but by founding fathers and their parliamentary successors, encouraged by an overarching and overzealous government. [link]
Read the rest at Pragati website or download the entire issue for much more.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
