Duty to Practice Tolerance: Key to Survival of a Democracy – Soli J Sorabjee

Source – Indian Express:  (Note:  Soli Sorabjee is the former Attorney General of India, a person looked up to with respect and reverence for his words of wisdom and balance in times of conflict. In this article published in Indian Expess he speaks also of fundamental duties (not only of rights) least thought of by many. The one take away from this piece  is the urgent duty of all to practice “tolerance” not violence, when one is caught between piercing criticisms. james kottoor)

It is curious that in seminars and public debates there is constant invocation of fundamental rights but hardly any mention of fundamental duties. It is not sufficiently realised that freedom without acceptance of responsibility can destroy the freedom itself, whereas when rights and responsibilities are balanced, freedom is enhanced. Our Constitution, as originally framed, did not prescribe duties to be performed by citizens.

It was only in 1976 that a specific Part IV-A was incorporated in the Constitution by a constitutional amendment and Article 51-A was enacted which originally listed 10 duties to be performed by citizens. Two fundamental duties in the present context which are relevant and important are the ones to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood among all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women [Article 51-A(e)]. Other fundamental duties which deserve emphasis are the duty to develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform, and the duty to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity, so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement [Article 51-A(h) & (j)].

One fundamental duty which should be expressly mentioned is the duty to practice tolerance. One cannot effectively exercise fundamental rights or perform fundamental duties unless tolerance is prevalent in society. Tolerance is not merely a goody-goody virtue. It is essential and is particularly needed in large and complex societies comprising people with varied beliefs. A tolerant society protects the right to dissent, an essential feature of a genuine democracy.

At present, the rise of intolerance is perturbing. We have reached a stage where even moderate expression of a different point of view is viewed with resentment and hostility. There are vociferous demands for bans and the banning itch has become infectious. Sikhs are offended by certain words in the title of a movie, Christians want a book, Da Vinci Code, banned because they find some portions hurtful. No one dare write an authentic and critical biography of a revered religious or political leader.

American author Laine who wrote a biography of Shivaji in which there were some unpalatable remarks about the Maratha warrior king was sought to be prosecuted and there was an absurd demand for his extradition. Worse, the prestigious Bhandarkar Institute at Pune where Laine had worked and done some research was vandalised. Invaluable manuscripts and documents were destroyed. That was intolerance at its peak.

The crux of the matter is that the inevitable consequence of intolerance is that dissent dries up and self-censorship takes place. Healthy and vigorous debate is no longer possible. And when that happens, democracy is under siege.

The problem is that tolerance cannot be legislated. Therefore, it is necessary to foster an environment of tolerance, a culture of tolerance. A stupendous task which, however, cannot be shirked because the stakes also are stupendous: the survival of democracy.

Nut MPs: It is expected that utterances of a Member of Parliament, the elected representative of the people, should be taken seriously. It is difficult to do so when there are some nut cases among our MPs of which Sakshi Maharaj, MP from Unnao, is a prime example. At a recent religious convocation in Meerut, he reportedly stated that “the concept of four wives and 40 children will not work in India… The time has come when a Hindu woman must produce at least four children in order to protect the Hindu religion”.

One wonders whether Sakshi Maharaj was being jocular or his comments were aimed to attract publicity. In either case, they are bizarre and unfortunate because of the religious angle, and prima facie indicate need for psychiatric treatment. Surely, our Prime Minister is not expected to react to such crazy statements because otherwise he will have little time for matters of national importance.

              solisorabjee@gmail.com

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.