Try as hard as I can to discern an iota of rationality, a whit of

fair play and a speck of morality in the welter of intolerance

related protests rocking the nation, I fail miserably.
Instead the more I dissect the issue, the more I delve into its
intricacies and antecedents the more morally repugnant and
logically untenable the whole jamboree appears.
The current campaign led by writers, academics and scientists
is not a sincere altruistic attempt to uphold the tenets of
human dignity or safeguard their practice. It is a crass
rampage of ideological triumphalism that revels in ridiculous
hyperbole (comparing the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh to
Islamic State -- courtesy historian Irfan Habib), indulges in
inordinate hype, reeks of despicable double standards and
smacks of unadulterated bigotry
In the polemics of Indian literati, moral outrage is a selective
and arbitrary expression defined not by the degree of
depravity but by the identity of the victim, the perpetrator and
the reigning government; it carries a distinct anti-Hindu, antiBharatiya Janata Party bias.
The muted response by a certain section of the Indian
intelligentsia to the ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Kashmir
and the anti-Sikh pogrom of 1984 is a standing testimony to

this unabashed differential treatment. Perusal of recent events

(listed below) lends further credence to the continuance of
this ingrained perfidy.
September 25, 2015: In Yavatmal, Maharashtra, a Hindu
police constable, Amol Manohar Badukale standing duty
outside a mosque is repeatedly stabbed by a Muslim, Abdul
Malik Razzak to the cry of 'Tumhari government beef
ban karti hai, toh yeh lo (Your government bans beef, so take
this).' The national media fails to acknowledge this incident
promptly; weeks later a report surfaces (Indian Express,
October 21).
October 9: Prashant Poojary, a 29-year-old flower vendor,
involved in a campaign to close illegal slaughter houses is
brutally hacked to death by six Muslims in Moodbidri,
Karnataka. Again our media scribes fail to deliberately take
note. Finally, on October 25 almost 16 days later, the Indian
Express runs a report branding the victim as a Bajrang Dal
activist as if being a Bajrang dal activist makes him fair prey
for decimation.
September 28: In Dadri UP, a Muslim suspected of
slaughtering a cow is set upon by a mob and killed. All hell
breaks loose instantaneously. The news makes the headline of
each and every newspaper, becomes the focus of heated

television debates and writers line-up to return their national

awards. Till today the saga continues with selected scientists
and film personnel jumping on to this bandwagon of
manufactured protest.

ll three incidents are acts of violent intolerance that are

equally horrendous; the quantum of injury is also similar:

Two deaths and one near death. Logic and morality would
dictate an identical response, yet the reactions are varied: A
shrill pandemonium bordering on hysteria in the Dadri case
versus a telling silence in the other two.
I would hate to believe that the identity of the victim was the
determinant; nevertheless it is the only plausible explanation.
Let us face it: Hindu victims are less likely to find sympathy in
the warped ideological narrative of this intellectual cabal.
Far more dangerous than a few isolated incidents of hyped up
intolerance is what I call the rise of intellectual dishonesty; a
language that threatens to turn upside down the traditional
paradigm of right and wrong; right and wrong are no longer
defined by impartial ethical standards but by the slanted
parameters of a twisted secularism in which the Hindu is
always the fall guy.

Can proponents of such inequitable values be our moral

guardians? This charade must be stopped in its tracks. We
need to subscribe to a non-negotiable and universal concept of
propriety that is blind to the caste, colour or religion of the
victims in order to ensure a truly egalitarian democracy.
Neither can honest moral dissent be dampened by the
specifics of the party in power. But our writers beg to differ;
their vitriol is reserved for a select few. In 2013 when
Narendra Dabholkar, the anti-superstition crusader, was shot
dead in broad daylight in Pune, Maharashtra, there was
hardly a whimper of protest; not a single writer handed in
their awards. The reason: Sonia Gandhi's Congress was the
ruling party both in the state and at the center.
Taking victimisation to a new high, this ghastly murder is now
being resurrected and clubbed together with the M M
Kalburgi case to give it a semblance of a series of atrocities to
further impugn the Narendra Modi government; an example
of rank skullduggery that defies temporal or logical validity.
There is no denying that the slaying of the Kannada scholar
Kalburgi in Dharwad, Karnataka, is a reprehensible act that
warrants outright condemnation. However, with the criminal
investigation still in its infancy and no definite pointers, the
liberal establishment's haste to convict Hindu outfits (and the

BJP government by proxy) via a media trial with the reversed

injunction that Hindu groups are always guilty unless proven
innocent makes mockery of the basic rule of jurisprudence.

lso please explain to me how the BJP government at the

Centre is responsible for this murder. As per the Indian

Constitution, law and order is exclusively a state responsibility
that absolves the BJP of any direct responsibility bar a moral
one for these atrocities. It is the Congress state government
that is culpable; likewise in the Dadri lynching it is the
Samajawadi Party that must be in the dock.
All these instances lead me to conclude that this anti-BJP
protest is an ideologically driven witch-hunt sans logic, sans
morals and sans evidence; in other words rank bigotry. And
this bigotry was in full display when the journalist Rajdeep
Sardesai questioned the veteran writer Nayantara Sahagal
(Nehru's niece, a Sahitya Akademi Award winner and a ring
leader of the 'Crucify BJP project') about her ethical
inconsistency. Without offering any reasons or factual
corroboration she tersely replied: 'Now there is a Hindutva
government at the Centre.'
So we have it right from the horse's mouth. This government
is being targeted for not what it did or did not do, but because

of the name that it has been branded with. If this is not

bigotry, then what is?
India is a vast diverse nation of 1.4 billion people with
contrasting ethnicities who inhabit 638,000 villages, 5,100
towns and 380 cities and home to almost every religion in the
world.
Therefore when viewed objectively and demographically
bereft of ideological baggage, these incidents though
unfortunate and unjustifiable are tiny insignificant blips (that
have neither increased nor decreased) on an extensive canvas
of moderation and lack the capacity to adversely impact the
broad narrative of a pluralistic modern India. The inference
that intolerance is on the rise is factually untenable.

hat irks Modi's detractors is his impeccable

performance in his tenure so far. He has stayed away from any

controversies, focused on good governance, singularly strived
to jump start India's economy and has given much needed
direction to a nation.
There have been no large scale riots or terrorist attacks;
corruption is on the decline and financial scams are a
desiderata.

Therefore a perception of rising intolerance is being

manufactured wherein normal aberrations of society are being
given a diabolical hue and exaggerated to paint them as
harbingers of a dangerous slide into extreme religious
fanaticism.
Non-issues have been converted into ugly controversies by
hyperbole and distortion; slips of profanity uttered in the heat
of an election campaign by low ranking no name functionaries
have been given front page billing and advertised as the norm
of the party and die-hard historical interpretations of
miniscule fringe elements are being posited as the official
party line. In short, it is a campaign of unsubstantiated
demonisation.
Moreover this protest is not an exercise in constructive
engagement to affect a positive outcome. The language of this
protest is not dialogue; if it was, instead of sensational
resignations and hate filled invectives the writers would have
reached out to the government.
The language of this protest is blackmail pure and simple; an
arrogant diktat of a privileged clique with an exaggerated
sense of entitlement that subscribes to the motto: 'It's my way
or the highway.'

o blinkered is this vendetta that even national interest is

being sacrificed; the Digital India project is being undermined

and no stone is being left unturned to batter the government's
image to hamper the increasing foreign capital inflows. Such
authoritarian and destructive tendencies cannot be allowed to
prevail.
Despite the hoopla the government has not been tardy in its
response. On October 1, the ministry of home affairs sought a
report on the Dadri incident from the state government of
Uttar Pradesh and on October 5 issued the following
statement: 'The home ministry today issued an advisory to
state governments stating that there is zero tolerance for any
attempt to weaken the secular fabric of the nation and
exploiting religious emotions or sentiments. MHA has called
on the states to take strictest action as per law against such
elements without any exception whatsoever.'
The BJP has nothing to be apologetic about. The claim of
intolerance is hyped and if any intolerance does exist it cannot
be attributed to the government. The wider nationalist
sentiment which has never advocated violence or intolerance
cannot be bracketed with lumpen fringe elements (who still
remain the fringe and not the core) and any effort to do so
must be pushed back forcefully.

While the government must be relentless in its efforts to curb

unruly elements to ensure secular harmony and protect its
goal of national development, it must not lose the moral high
ground by giving in to the antics of the anti-nationalist lobby.
They must be countered and relegated to the dustbin of
history with facts and logic if India is to progress.
For too long have they gotten away with their malicious and
disruptive shenanigans. It is time to call their bluff, once and
for all.