The debate is healthy and yet farcical. Reduced to its essence, the debate among the compatriots is like this. "The country is turning intolerant." The accused replies,"No, it's not." The fact is that data do not support the accusation and the suspects are in vehement denial but even the denial is seen as an affront. This I find healthy because even tinges of intolerance create such a brouhaha in the country. This is amazingly good when we see intolerance is genocidal elsewhere and even within the country where Hindus are non-majority, the intolerance virtually leads to their mass eviction from their own land. If you cross the borders, west or east, you will find a high level of tolerance to the worst barbarism. You go to the north, Tiananmen reminds you that rolling over of tanks on live human bodies is pleasantly tolerable.Yet the intensity of debate is not only farcical but also counterproductive. First because it's about a non-issue largely. And secondly and more importantly the debate throws the baby out of bathwater. The baby is the rule of law. People must point to the violations of laws, and nuisance or crime must be checked and punished. Crimes are committed ultimately by individuals and they must be prosecuted without fail and unsparingly. Tragically this is not the part of the discourse because it denies the partisans the thrill of belligerence. The rule of law and criminal justice system must be the focus of debate.
In almost all parts of the country there are mafia like organised people, who cannot be spoken against. Nobody talks about them. Besides, there are many things in India, which are intolerably bad or ugly. These issues are going out of focus because of the nastiness of our public discourse. And to me the biggest lacunae is the absence of education in liberal arts. The so-called educated sections mostly have exposure to indoctrination only and their all interventions are diversionary and disruptive by default.
- Niraj Kumar Jha
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें