Bharat 'tolerant'? -- Balram Singh

[Guest guest]

What is wrong with India being described as 'tolerant'?

By Bal Ram Singh

Published: 8/15/2004 India New England

 

Bal Ram Singh

 

 

Recently an article entitled "Want to Prosper? Then Be Tolerant" was

written by Paul Johnson, a prominent British historian and author in

Forbes magazine (June 6 issue;

www.forbes.com/columnists/free_forbes/2004/0621/041.html)

 

The article pointed out the economic value of being tolerant. This is

a welcome observation that must be promoted and pursued with more

vigor than tomahawks to open at least an alternative front to deal

with the current turmoil in the world.

 

India's tradition, particularly the Hindu tradition of tolerance, has

been exalted by Paul Johnson to make his point that whenever a society

develops tolerance, there is prosperity in the society. He makes two

contrasts to send his message home.

 

One is the communist/Marxist mindset pervasive in the '50s, '60s and

part of the '70s in China (under Mao Zedong), and until the '80s in

India (under the Congress party). It is notable that as a result of

the recent Indian elections, not only is Congress back in power but it

has communists on its piggyback for the first time in Indian history.

 

If Johnson's theory is correct, it may lead to shocking retrogressive

results in the Indian subcontinent.

 

Second, Johnson draws upon focus on the escalation of intolerance in

the Islamic Society and increase in poverty in many Islamic countries

such as Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. There has been much talk of root

causes of Islamic terrorism, particularly the Israel-Palestine and

Kashmir issues. I believe these latter issues are really the shoot

causes, rather than the root causes.

 

The sad travesty is that the United States has a tendency to fight one

with the help of the other. So, the United States, in its fight

against the Soviet Union, used the Islamic militants, whereas now we

are using communists, including China and Russia, against the Islamic

terrorists.

 

Intolerance is not quite, but comes closest to, the root cause of

terrorism throughout the world. That is the only enemy of humanity

which should be targeted, irrespective of its source.

 

That said, I take strong issue with the concept of tolerance being

promoted as the magic capsule of the world's current problems.

 

I recently had a brief encounter on this issue with a faculty

colleague in my department at the University of Massachusetts

Dartmouth. Just like Johnson, the whole intelligentsia has bought this

politically expedient word, "tolerance," as the panacea for world's

ills.

 

While tolerance could mean sympathy for other's beliefs, its primary

and common meaning, "to endure pain or hardship," does not bode well

for tolerance to be embraced readily.

 

Tolerance gives a message that every time I see you I get pain that I

manage to endure. How long would such a state last without exploding?

 

In reference to India, the word that I think describes the practice is

at least acceptance, if not celebration. I know numerous examples

throughout history, and still today that, when left alone by

politicians, ideologues and religious demagogues, people in India

happily live in harmony while celebrating their differences.

 

In today's modern world, the most pervading concept has become

"survival of the fittest," whereby the selfish nature of animals and

humans is the driving force of this world, perhaps even the universe.

 

Of course, such assertions are touted to be based on a sound science

of natural selection ably propounded by Charles Darwin in his famous

book, "The Origin of Species."

 

Interestingly, Darwin never used the concept of "survival of the

fittest" in his book. It is a modern construction of sociologists and

the business world to suit the selfish behavior of today's powers in

the world.

 

As a matter of fact, Darwin propounded a concept contrary to the idea

of selfish interest or hateful exploitation of others.

 

A set of experimental observations of S. Sinclair, published in

London's Gardner Magazine in 1826, find their way into Darwin's

"Origin of Species," where he states, "It has been experimentally

proved that if a plot of ground be sown with one species of grass, and

a similar plot be sown with several distinct genera of grasses, a

greater number of plants and a greater weight of dry herbage can thus

be raised."

 

Darwin clearly propounded the idea of the principle of divergence for

natural selection and evolution. Thus, tolerance of diversity is

contrary to not only Indian tradition, but even the tenets of some of

the most fundamental scientific ideas.

 

Therefore, in ideologies which prescribe or promulgate a single way of

life, be it in the name of communism, Islamism, or the many other

-isms Paul Johnson could also have mentioned, one would not only lose

economic but social, family, moral and spiritual prosperities.

 

The Indian concept of "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" (the whole planet is a

family) needs assertion more now than ever by propounding acceptance

and celebrations of the diversity on our planet, rather than its

painful tolerance being touted by pseudo intellectuals as the panacea

for the world's woes today.

 

Bal Ram Singh, the director of the Center for Indic Studies at the

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, may be reached at

bsingh@u...

 

http://www.indianewengland.com/news/702058.html?mkey=1060861

--- End forwarded message ---