<div><em><strong>Sutanu Guru</strong> examines five "narratives" that have no basis in reality</em></div><div> </div><div>Even the most tolerant folks are finding it increasingly difficult to tolerate the relentless debate going on in mainstream media and Luyten's Delhi about the rise and rise of intolerance in India. The Goddess of Big Words Arundhati Roy has delivered a verdict that equates India with a hell hole. There is no need really to repeat the dozens of statements that keep frothing out in this ideological war. But most Indians, I suspect, are a tad confused with this whole brouhaha. If you are an ideological warrior bristling to fire the next missive, what I write next will be of no interest to you. But if you are a normal Indian, it might well be worth giving a second thought to these thoughts:</div><div> </div><div><strong>1. The Sangh Represents Hindus:</strong> This myth was arguably born in the 1980s when the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal suddenly burst onto the scene with their tridents and saffron paraphernalia. These images were far more compelling than the drab khaki shorts and sticks wielded by RSS volunteers. Since then, "narrative" building has been so successful that it is now widely accepted that the Sangh is the sole protector of Hindusim and Hindu values and "culture" in India. This is pure hogwash. I would wager a Sahitya Akademi award to say that a majority of Hindus in India simply do not subscribe to the views of the Sangh. Most Hindus like me are proud of our civilizational heritage. But that is where our agreement with the Sangh ends. And most of us recoil in revulsion at the thuggish moral policing of Bajrang Dal goons and the hateful and prejudiced words used by them towards Muslims. The Sangh claims to represent Hinduism. It doesn't. Period.</div><div> </div><div><strong>2. Luyten's Delhi protects liberal values:</strong> Far from it. It is the illiberalism and intolerance of Luyten's Delhi to alternative views that has led to the parallel rise of the goons of Bajrang Dal. The fact is, Luyten's Delhi and the ecosystem that survives on its patronage has never been liberal in the true sense. The word "selective" is apt when describing these so called liberals. Let me give you two examples of their shameless hypocrisy. These liberals go on and on about prejudice towards Muslims and their ill treatment. The sad and brutal truth is that there are many who are prejudiced. But why do I laugh at them at the same time? Now, these folks have a visceral hatred for Narendra Modi. That's OK because everyone is entitled to their quota of hatred. But what do they do? They petition the regime of George W Bush Jr. to deny a visa to Modi because he is a "mass murderer" of Muslims. What about George Bush and his crusades in Afghanistan and Iraq that resulted in more than a million Muslim deaths? Then there is the Chinese regime. It actually prohibited Muslims in its Xinjiang province from observing the fast during Ramzan. Heard a squeak of protest from these "liberals"? I rest my case</div><div> </div><div><strong>3. Nehruvian India has a legacy of free speech, dissent and personal liberty.</strong> This is perhaps the most persistent myth that has been successfully woven into a narrative. Now, I don't detest Nehru like so many Sanghis do; nor do I idolize him like so many "eminent historians" do. He was a product of his times, a great leader with many flaws. Period. But people who go on and on about this Nehruvian legacy conveniently forget the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution and the continued presence of Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code. Both are legacies of the Nehru era and both impose draconian restrictions on free speech and dissent. No political party has ever launched a nationwide movement to do away with these draconian laws. No "liberal" has passionately written about their abolition. Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Indian Constitution guaranteed individual property rights. Successive governments kept adding amendments to dilute these rights and finally in 1978, when there was a Janata Party government, the 44th Amendment abolished the rights. If liberals are honest to themselves, they will accept that free speech, dissent and individual property rights are mythical creatures in India. If you have laws that seek to limit Liberty, they are bound to be (mis)used.</div><div> </div><div><strong>4. Intolerance and authoritarianism will scare away investors and capital. </strong>Now this myth is as endearing as the appeal to George W Bush to save Indian Muslims. Worse, this provides a halo of morality to capital that has never existed. Capital has never been moral or immoral; it has been simply amoral in pursuing money and markets. Contemporary history is full of intolerant, authoritarian and even "fascist" nations that have had no problems in attracting investors and capital. The fact is: since the end of the Second World War, barring the G-7 nations, it is authoritarian regimes that have attracted the most investments and capital. Of course, capital runs away from instability and persistent unrest. The moot question is: Is India heading for violent instability, unrest and even civil war? You decide.</div><div> </div><div><strong>5: The media reflects what people think: </strong>This one too has become a laughable myth. Contemporary media in India is driven by two objectives: corporate profits and ideological warfare. These objectives have nothing whatsoever to do with what the majority of Indians feel and think. A number of opinion polls in recent times have shown that the Indian media has succeeded in destroying its credibility. It has done this by faithfully following the "narrative set by Luyten's Delhi. This is indeed a monumental tragedy because a credible media is critically important to fight Bajrang Dal goons.</div>
