29 Religious Intolerance

Narendra Kumar

Introduction:

This module engages with different practices of religious intolerance as prevalent within modern societies. After the independence of India intolerance towards other religious groups continued to grow despite the onset of a democratic republic which enshrined in its constitution the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. This module explores religious intolerance which is associated with majority and minority conflict and their intolerance ideologies. The balancing of democracy and religious freedom gets tilted in favour of intolerance when the notion that ‘our belief alone is true’ and the ‘rest is untrue or incomplete’ gains weightage within civil and political life in any society. This has certainly been the case for Indian society in the decades following independence.

Among the many myths about Indian society propagated by a majoritarian nationalism, the dominant one concerns its characterization as a civilization. Such a myth is usually associated with an ancient heritage with its golden past with claims that it has always been a tolerant society. This is an old yarn used to cover the prejudices, discriminations, oppressions and violence that have, unfortunately, marked our history.1 A democratic system allows for a diverse modes of expression among its citizenry to achieve their social and political goals. Yet religious mobilization is often used as a way to guise the disparities and inequalities in society. Such pursuits of power are essentially instrumentalist and are willing to use any form of ideological mobilization to achieve their goals. Tensions have prevailed for a long time among these contesting religious ideologies notwithstanding the continuing economic deprivation and social discrimination prevalent within Indian society. Playing up these factors and pitting one religious group against another describes the politics of communalism. In India, religious fundamentalism is the main source for the production, maintenance and sustenance of intolerant ideologies. “Religious intolerance” designates not only the conflicts between extremist religious groups but also the role of the political class in fanning the flames of intolerance by invoking narrow loyalties and primordial identities. Democracy notwithstanding such political mobilizations create communal tensions and provoke violence within society.

Religious intolerance, thus, is a particular kind of socialization/politicization/mobilization of religious identities. It is above all an ideology that seeks to promote conflict between religious communities. In the context of a multi-religious democratic society like India, the development of religious intolerance must be seen in terms of the varieties of social processes that come into

1Chindambaram, P. ‘Across the Aisle: The rise and rise of intolerance’. The Indian Express, Sept 6, 2015’ C:\Users\user\Documents\Across the Aisle The rise and rise of intolerance _ The Indian Express.htm play for producing and sustaining sentiments and ideologies that evokes a parochialism and antagonisms for other religious communities. In India, the relationship between religion and nationalism has often been the site for evoking a sense of religious intolerance that very easily descends into a situation of violence and bloodshed. Thus, for example, any attempt to see a religious community in juxtaposition with the idea of nation would mean undermining the place of other religions within that nation. Such an exercise clearly sows the seeds of antagonisms and hatreds against these other religions. Bipan Chandra (2008), for example sees riots as a bitter and virulent manifestation and consequence of a communal ideology. With these arguments, we shall try to examine the different dimensions of religious intolerance as these have come to exist in contemporary Indian society.

This module is divided into three sections. In section one, we look at a conceptual understanding of religious intolerance with a view to understanding how such a phenomenon comes to take root within a society. In section two, we look at the historical background of religious intolerance. Finally, in section three, we look at manifestations of religious intolerance as these are to be found amongst the different religious communities of India.

Section-I

Conceptual understanding

Borrowing from John Locke , the author Jeremy Waldron provides an understanding of tolerance by noting that “an argument which gives a reason for not interfering with a person’s beliefs or practices even when we have reason to hold that those beliefs or practices are mistaken” (1988: 63). Locke (2002) allows for intolerance that is “necessary to the preservation of civil society”. A well-known articulation of the ‘defense of free speech’ has been given by Frederick Schaeur (1982: 237), he argues that government can’t be trusted to discharge the task of intolerance ‘correctly’. Speech can harm in all kind of ways and there exists various rationales for putting up with these harms. He also says that there is still a reason to demand that the state tolerate many different kinds of speech (even harmful speech), and that is because there is no reason to think the state will make the right choice about which speech ought to be regulated.

In J. S. Mill’s view the practice of intolerance does not exist where power and force are used in a legitimized way. ‘Intolerance’ in its proper sense only exists where an individual, group or the State is applying a criterion more stringent than that favored by the critic who stigmatizes a policy as intolerant Jacobson (2000).

Religious intolerance basically emphasizes the prejudice that exists within a religious group. It is this prejudice that functions as an ideology through which intolerance against the other comes to be represented. Such manifestations of intolerance are indicative of a prejudice that are deeply rooted in ignorance of the other. The development and articulation of prejudice in everyday life is a complex phenomenon that is tied up with processes of socialization, assimilation as well as indoctrination (Arendt 1970). The existence of prejudice in everyday life presupposes the idea of a social group that is engaged in the practice of such prejudice. While it may be the case that the prejudice towards other religious communities results from an ignorance of the culture of these other communities, equally it could also be the outcome of long standing experiences of discord and disharmony. It is these experiences that enter the socialization process and become a part of the process by which the individual is brought up to become a member of society (Arendt 1970). To that extent, then it needs to be emphasized that religious intolerance is not just a momentary occasion of social discord but rather a deep rooted process involving whole institutions and normative practices that come together for the production and maintenance of religious discord within a society.

In the consciousness of everyday life, religious intolerance constitutes a belief which privileges truth to oneself (and one’s religious community of believers) and untruth to the others. It is this practice of exclusion and superiority in the everyday life of a community that creates the grounds for intolerance against others whom it perceives as different from itself. In itself having a belief that is different from others may not constitute intolerance but such beliefs become the basis of intolerance when they get linked up with other political, social and cultural agendas wherein religious intolerance becomes a way of asserting one’s identity and one’s superiority over the other. In other words, what makes religious intolerance possible in any given society stems from the fact that those who practice religious intolerance deny to the others not only their right to hold onto their religious beliefs but above all as Arendt (1970) points out they deny to them the very right to be humans.

In mapping the contours of religious intolerance in society it may be useful to observe the following features which exhibit various kinds of religious intolerance:

1. Spreading hatred about an entire group; e.g. stating or implying that all members of a group are evil, behave immorally, commit criminal acts, etc.
2. Ridiculing and belittling an entire faith group for their sincerely held beliefs and practices;
3. Attempting to force religious beliefs and practices on others against their will;
4. Restricting human rights of members of an identifiable religious group;
5. Devaluing other faiths as worthless or evil.
6. Inhibiting the freedom of a person to change their religion.
7. Refusing to acknowledge and support the right of individuals to have their own beliefs and related legitimate practices.
8. Also, the unwillingness to have one’s own beliefs and related practices critically evaluated.2

It is clear from the above characterization of religious intolerance that such practices are to be found amongst all religious groups and in every part of the world. Clearly what distinguishes one form of religious intolerance from another is the intensity of belief of its practitioners. In other words, there could exist forms of religious intolerance that may be condoned or pardoned but it

2http://www.religioustolerance.org/relintol1.htm (29.3.2016)

is those others that incite violence and criminality that are the cause of concern in all modern societies. Unlike pre-modern societies where religious groups’ are characterized by a strong bonds of solidarity, modern societies are in general understood as being more enlightened and more tolerant. Its citizens come to accept that a critique of religion and its practices as part of a larger liberal universalist world-view.

Nussbaum (2012: 20) says that we often suffer from “projective disgust,” taking certain groups to have an exaggerated degree of characteristics connected to our animal nature (such as being smelly or dirty). Thus “fear can produce unreliable and unpredictable conduct, and it can be exploited by politicians eager to whip up aggression against unpopular groups”.

Section-II

Historical background of religious intolerance

In the 2nd century BC, Patanjali argued that the relationship between Brahmins and Buddhists is like that between the snake and the mongoose; and its actual violent manifestation is supported by a plethora of historical evidence. Similarly, there is copious proof of the Shaiva-Vaishnava antagonism. In the 11th century Alberuni argued that the Hindus are “haughty, foolishly vain and self-conceited” and “believe that there is no religion like theirs” Jha&Dube (2015).

In the 19th century, some Indians began to speak of the tolerance of Hindus, but they clearly privileged Hinduism over other religions. Dayananda Saraswati (1824-1883), who founded the Arya Samaj in 1875, claimed to believe “in a religion based on universal values above the hostility of all creeds”. But as a champion of the Vedic religion, he sharply opposed all other religions: to him, Mohammad was an “impostor” and Jesus “a very ordinary ignorant man, neither learned nor a yogi”. His contemporary Ramakrishna (1836-1886) spoke of the equality of religions, but in his view “the Hindu religion alone is the Sanatana Dharma” Jaffrelot (1993).

His disciple Vivekananda (1863-1904) also laid emphasis on toleration and picked up the famous Rigvedic passage “ekaüsadvipràvahudhàvadanti” (The wise speak of what is One in many ways) in support of his vision that “India alone [was] to be the land of toleration”.

Similar views continued to be held by some leaders in the early 20th century. Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856-1920), for example, couched his views in the vocabulary of tolerance and quite often cited the above Rigvedic passage but, in reality, espoused militant Hinduism. Even MS Golwalkar (1906-1973) spoke of the Hindus as the most tolerant people of the world despite the fact that he identified Muslims, Christians and Communists as internal threats to the country. It would appear that these leaders, from Dayananda to Golwalkar, used tolerance as a camouflage for Hindu belligerence: they privileged Hinduism over other religions and did not provide enough space to them. The high-point of religious intolerance in the 20th century must be seen in the partition of India that divided the sub-continent along religious lines. There can be no doubt that the partition served as one of those historic moments when religious intolerance was sought to be legitimized over all other considerations. As a society we have continued to live with those fatal wounds that were inflicted on our collective consciousness both as a society and as a nation. It is not surprising then that ever since that eventful period marked with so much of bloodshed and violence we have struggled to live as a society and a nation in harmony with itself and others.

The post-Independence history of India clearly reveals the vast amounts of intolerance that has been displayed between religious communities of all denominations. This intolerance displays varying degrees of violence and aggression depending upon the levels of involvement from members of civil society. If there have been moments of great intolerance as displayed in the large scale riots that have plagued society every few years, one must also take into account the constant state of tension that exists between religious communities over social, political and economic issues. While these may appear as acceptable practices of contest and competition between religious groups, it is important to note that these could very easily descend into situations of intolerance leading to bloodshed and violence. What is important to note here in the context of religious intolerance is the practice of a majoritarian politics that seeks to dominate, discriminate and delegitimize all other religious communities. It is this majoritarianism that is constantly fueled by prejudice, fear, and insecurity that promotes a communal disharmony that can very easily descend into a condition of religious intolerance. The problem however is that majoritarianism is not the only site on which religious intolerance is practiced.

In the next section, we shall look at how religious intolerance is practiced amongst other communities.

Section-III

Religious intolerance amongst Minority communities

Islamic fundamentalism and intolerance:

According to Harper Collins dictionary Islamic fundamentalism means that the belief or advocating of a conservative adherence to literal or traditional interpretations of the Qu’ran and the Sunnah.3 In the context of both politics and religion, Johanese Jansen (1997) identifies that avowed Islamic theological doctrines and ideas, are the causes of fundamentalism. Islamic fundamentalist opposed to secularization in Islam and reassert traditional belief and practices. In other words Islamic fundamentalism basically opposes any type of change in their strict code of behavior and reaction to the destructive effects of secular modernity and Western hegemony on Muslim societies.

We can mention here some example which is important to understand the Islamic fundamentalism and intolerance. Firstly we can take example like attack on Taslima Nasreen,

3 http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/islamic-fundamentalism (31.3.2016)

whose critical comments on aspects of Islam have made her a prime target for fundamentalist elements in the Islamic world in South Asia. In India a political party like Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) attacks on Taslima Nasrin in her book launching in Karnataka. Muslim people were saying there that they can’t accept the ridiculing of Islam religion. The editorial titled “Irrational Protests” in The Hindu on the controversy exemplified this position – the need to neutralise the space of politics from religion. It said, Islamist fundamentalist organisations rooted in religious obscurantism have long been prone to sudden bursts of irrational violence at the slightest provocation. The stone throwing and arson in Karnataka by fanatic were a nasty challenge to the freedom of expression guaranteed in the Indian Constitution.4 In this the same example of ban on Salman Rushdie’s book ‘The Satanic Verses’. Many Muslims accused Rushdie of blasphemy or unbelief and in 1989 the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie. The strict enforcement of one interpretation of the Shariah or Islamic law, could be regarded as the major symbol of Islamic fundamentalism.

Sikhism, identity and intolerance:

In the context of religious fundamentalism in Sikhism, Punjab has been witness to the emergence of a large number of Deras due to the continued social exclusion and pervading inequality in the social and economic order. They refuse to go away despite the rise of Sikhism which in normative terms is opposed to caste based discrimination and glorifies manual labour. There has been another factor that explains the marginal position of the Dalits in the region and that is the concentration of land in the hands of a minority. Thus the ever increasing number of Deras all over the Doaba, Majha and Malwa regions of Punjab is widely attributed to the denial of a respectable place to the Dalits and Backward Caste people in religious places and the Sikh Panth. Manak (2007).

The violence in 2009 in Punjab has taken place as a repercussion of the shootings in a Ravidass temple in Vienna in which the Dera Sachkhand head, Sant Niranjan Dass, was injured and his second- in-command, Sant Ramanand, was killed. This hurt the feelings of the followers of the Dera all over the world. The Doaba region in particular was in flames for almost two days before the situation came under control following the appeal by the sants of the Dera. The attack on the two sants and their followers is also due to the fundamentalist Sikh organisations’ objection to treating the Dera Gurus at par with the ten Sikh Gurus and for keeping the Guru Granth Sahib along with the idols of Sant Ravidass Jodhka (2009).

The recent Dera conflict in Punjab is incidentally not a new phenomenon. Before this, many conflicts between the radical or fundamentalist Sikhs and Dera followers have taken place in Punjab. Mention can be made of the Sikh-Nirankari conflict (1978), Sikh-Bhaniarawalla follower’s conflict (2001), Sikh-Sacha Sauda followers conflict (2007) (Ibid).

4  “Irrational Protests”, The Hindu editorial, 3 March 2010.

Christianity and intolerance:

In this part, fundamentalism in Christianity will be covered with two examples from India. However the usage of the term has acquired different meanings over a span of time. The Nationalist Liberation Front of Tripura is a Christian terrorist organization based in Tripura, India. This organisation wants to separate from India so that it can establish a kingdom of God and the Jesus Christ in Tripura. It works on the ideology of Tripura Nationalism and the Christian Fundamentalism. This organization has been working with the support of Baptist church of Tripura and the members in it are motivated by their Christian beliefs. Tribal people are forced to convert to Christianity and are also attacked if they do not follow the Christian agenda. Large scale conversions have happened.5

If we talk about the Christian dalits in India, they feel double discrimination by the state and the church. In his article, Prakash Louis (2007) argued that Dalits who have converted to Christianity find that not only are the benefits of reservation not extended to them in contravention of constitutional provisions but even the church and the non-dalit Christian community actively discriminates against them.

Buddhism and intolerance:

Paul Fuller (2004) noted that, the roots of intolerance might be found in the reaction of one Buddhist group to another. For example, although notoriously intricate, there appears to be something of this sectarian attitude in the emergence of the MahāyānaBuddhism. The Mahāyāna identified itself in opposition to what it termed ‘Hīnayāna’ Buddhist groups. Due to this intention, we can see that uncompromising attitude of one school to the other school define the intolerance. On the other instance, the rise of Buddhism in the west (including Asian ‘West’) pronounced the intolerance. The way of looking with ‘stick of compassion’ by Asian or West on Burmese Buddhist, it reflects the distance of the rest of the Buddhist world. This contradiction creates the hostility in Buddhist history. Therefore the intolerance of others comes from the intolerance of itself (Ibid).

But the other side the practice of intolerance in Sri Lanka the thing is different where the Buddhist Monks construct their hegemony with the ‘our belief is true and rest is untrue and incomplete’. The conflict between Sinhalese and Tamil in Sri Lanka is a cause root of ethnic chauvinism Frum (2013).

In April 2015, Buddhist bhikshus stormed a mosque in central Sri Lanka, and, claiming that it had been built on territory sacred to Buddhists, demanded its immediate closure. Some Buddhist monks started selecting other targets for “civil policing.” Earlier this year, a group calling itself the “Buddhist Strength Force” staged rallies in Colombo against the halal system of meat certification. In the last month, Buddhist monks have attacked Muslim teachers at a law college,

5  Bhaumik, Subhir (April 18, 2000). “‘Church backing Tripura rebels'”. BBC News. Retrieved 26 August 2006. accusing them of favouring their own kind, and called for the abolition of the abaya, the niqab and the hijab. “We will fight until this attire is banned from this country, so that there is no chance to unofficially enforce the Islamic Sharia Law in Sri Lanka,” one monk says Frum (2013).

Conclusion

Consequences of religious intolerance:

One can conclude by arguing that religious intolerance with its strategies and practices and ideologies fuels conflict between two or more communities. One can further note that there exists a greater possibility for religious intolerance to become violent when it is backed by a political class and is sustained by local networks of extremist organizations. These networks according to Brass (1998, 2003), are ‘institutionalized riot systems’. As such actors keep communal tensions alive throughout the years through a steady infusion of communal ideology (Jafferlot 2003), a precipitating incident can easily be interpreted as an instance of broader communal conflict. If the activities of these networks are not kept in check, either by the police or by civic bodies large scale violence may develop (cited in Riot Politics, 2011, Ward Berenschot). As intolerance rises, liberal thought, pluralism and scientific temper will suffer. The communities will become more inward-looking, selfish, protective and violent. We know that only a State, i.e., fearless, strong, secular and fiercely loyal to the Constitution, can stand up to, and roll back, the growing threat of religious intolerance and violence.

Reference bibliography:

• Asghar Ali Engineer, ‘Communalism and Communal violence in India’, Ajanta publications, Delhi, 1989. p.5
• Asghar Ali Engineer, Communalism in India – A Historical and Empirical Study, Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi, 1995, p.52
• Arendt, H. (1970). On violence. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
• Berenschot Ward.(2011), Riot Politics, Columbia University Press, New York, p.23
• Bourdieu, Pierre (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. London: Cambridge.
• Brass, P. R . (2003). The Production of Hindu–Muslim Violence in Contemporary India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press
• Chandra, B. (2008). Communalism in modern India. Har Anand Publications.
• Fuller, Paul (2004), The Notion of Ditthi in Theravada Buddhism: The Point of View,
• Routledge: UK.
• Jeremy Waldron, “Locke: Toleration, and the Rationality of Persecution,” in Justifying
• Toleration, ed. Susan Mendus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988): 63.
• John Locke, The Second Treatise on Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration (Mineola: Dover Publication, Inc., 2002):144.
• Letter, Brian (2013), why tolerate religion, Princeton University Press: Princeton, p.11.
• Martha Nussbaum, The New Religious Intolerance: Overcoming the Politics of Fear in an Anxious Age, Harvard University Press, 2012,
• Schaeur, Frederick. (1982), Free Speech: A Philosophical enquiry, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Selected writing on Communalism, People’s Publishing House, New Delhi, May 1994. p. 66
• Sen, Amartya (2006), Identity and violence: The illusion of destiny, penguin group: USA.
• Bhaumik,  Subhir  (April  18,  2000).  “‘Church  backing  Tripura  rebels'”.  BBC  News.Retrieved 26 August 2006.
• Gregorios, Paulos (1995), Seeking of tolerance and intolerance, India International Centre Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1, SECULARISM IN CRISIS(SPRING 1995), pp. 22-28
• Louis, Prakash (2007), Dalit Christians: Betrayed by state and church, EPW, Vol. 42, Issue No. 16, 21 Apr, 2007.
• Manak, Satnam Singh (2007): ‘Sikh Panth Ajoye Sankatt Da Sahmna Kiye Karye’, Rojana Ajit, May 22.
• Sen, Amartya. “Religious intolerance an industry.” Deccan Herald, Feb, 19, 2016.
• Jaffrelot, Christophe (1993) Hindu Nationalism: Strategic Syncretism in Ideology Building, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 28, No. 12/13 (Mar. 2027,1993), pp. 517-524
• Jacobson, Daniel (2000), ‘Mill on liberty, speech and the free society’ Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Summer, 2000), pp. 276-309 .
• Johanese Jansen (1997), ‘The dual nature of Islamic fundamentalism’, New York: Cornell University Press.
• Jodhka, S.S, Deras, ‘Caste Conflicts and Recent Violence in Punjab’ Mainstream, Vol XLVII, No 26, June 13, 2009
• Pandey,  Gyanendra.  (2001).   The  ‘silent    When   majority’   Backs  a  Violent    Minority.
• Economic and Political weekly, 37 (13), 1183-1185.
• D N Jha and MukulDube, A brief history of religious intolerance in India. Dec-24, 2015, opinion, scroll.in C:\Users\user\Documents\A brief history of religious intolerance in India.htm
• Chindambaram, P. ‘Across the Aisle: The rise and rise of intolerance’. The Indian Express, Sept 6, 2015’ C:\Users\user\Documents\Across the Aisle – The rise and rise of intolerance _ The Indian Express.html
• Frum, David (2013), What Intolerant Buddhist Monks Are Doing to Sri Lanka, The Daily Beast, 2013.
• Sen, Amartya. “Religious intolerance an industry.” Deccan Herald, Feb, 19, 2016.
• Sen, Amartya, Indians Have Been “Much Too Tolerant” Of Intolerance, Press trust of India, February 12, 2016 21:49 IST“Irrational Protests”, The Hindu editorial, 3 March 2010.