A series of recent incidents have again confirmed the
increasing intolerance in the country, the intolerance of opposition to
established wisdom, the intolerance of contrarian views or the intolerance of
countering societal consensus. This has been noticed more starkly in the
aftermath of the recent surgical strikes in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. As
Indians, we were impressed by the way our valiant armed forces crossed over to
teach a lesson to our western neighbour.

However, as is natural in a democracy, doubts and questions
were raised by a section of Indians about the veracity of the orchestrated
feat. Some sought evidence and some even junked the claim of any such surgical
strike. Similar questions were also raised about the circumstances and
genuineness of the recent encounter in Bhopal as the entire operation appeared
to have been stage-managed.

Instead of appreciating the diversity of opinion and healthy
debate, in keeping with our tradition of arriving at the truth through
discussion and debate (Vaade Vaade Jayate Satyabodh), there have been strong
protests against such doubting Thomases and sceptics. They have been termed as
traitors and quislings by the jingoistic fringe. They refuse to accept any
questioning or criticism of these acts, which they think should be deemed
sacrosanct and beyond reproach. Such an attitude is not only dangerous, but is
also against the very ethos of our democracy.

Through such protests, bordering on intolerance of a
different opinion, we actually compromise the very system we have so
assiduously built up over the years. Making everyone toe the majoritarian
viewpoint smacks of McCarthyism of Cold War vintage when anyone suspected of
being a Communist was put through mass pressure or persecution to force them to
follow popular political beliefs. If those who are questioning the surgical
strikes or the Bhopal encounter are wrong, then the section which questioned
the Emergency were also wrong.

The Emergency was an ugly political reality of the 1970s and
some were courageous enough to question its imposition. These people were also
put through the same grind and harassment but finally, Indian democracy came
out stronger because of the courage of the few who came forward to question the
dominant view. It was the same intolerant outlook which was evident when some
people questioned the protests against the alleged anti-India slogans by some
JNU students. Kanhaiya Kumar, the JNU Students Union president, was condemned
for harbouring certain perceptions. Those who have been booked on sedition
charges over the years include Arundhati Roy, Kanhaiya Kumar, Aseem Trivedi,
actress Ramya and Amnesty International . The charges were later dropped by the
courts.

The Supreme Court has observed that ‘criticism of Government
does not constitute sedition’.  In a
recent judgment, it has cautioned the police against misuse of the sedition law
(Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code) and directed them to follow its earlier
Kedar Nath judgment. It has also directed the authorities across the country to
abide by that judgment which limits the scope of filing sedition cases under
the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

As someone rightly remarked, “One must dig deep into
opposing points of view in order to know whether your own position remains
defensible. Iron sharpens iron.”  Whether
or not it is right or wrong, we ought to allow the expression of opposing
points of view. John Stuart Mill was right when he said, “If all mankind minus
one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that
one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing
mankind”.

If our arguments or views are stronger, then they would
remain so despite the opposition by a minority and would, in fact, appear more
clear against their banality and falsehood. But if they were true, then we
would lose the benefit of being corrected. So, let’s not be in a hurry to
condemn or criticise because others may not do or think as fast as we do. There
was a time when we also didn’t know what we know today.

As Aleksander Solzhenitsyn said, “Intolerance is the first
sign of inadequate education. An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant
impatience, where truly profound education breeds humility.” So, let’s agree to
accept a differing standpoint; otherwise we will continue forcing a Socrates to
take hemlock or a Galileo to recant his discovery of ‘earth moving around the
sun’ following condemnation by the Church.

It is quite possible that an individual’s wisdom may hold
against the dominant societal discourse, as Mill once pointed out. It bears recall
that social reformers, pre-eminently Raja Rammohan Roy or Ishwar Chandra
Vidyasagar, had stood up against the prevalent socio-cultural wisdom to oppose
sati or to promote widow remarriage.

The Constitution or laws do allow contrarian discourse and
debates and they don’t fall within the realm of reasonable restrictions. The
people, as Indian citizens, are perfectly entitled to ask questions. We
encouraged public trial or questioning by trying to derive political brownie
points out of the surgical strikes in Uri or encounters. As Pakistan would have
never accepted them, keeping the strikes secret would have given us a better
tactical advantage over the neighbour.

Many observers feel that by going public, we actually
limited our diplomatic options. It would have been advisable for the
authorities to share the details when we agreed to go public. Selective
revelations are neither here nor there. The jingoistic chest-thumping which
followed further vitiated the atmosphere by encouraging a pathological one-upmanship
among the political parties. As there have been recorded and proven
indiscretions or deviations by a section of our police and armed forces, the
questioning is justified if they have indulged in abuse or misuse of power.

As Pastor Martin Niemoller once said famously: “First they
came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.
Then, they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was
not a trade unionist. Then, they came for the Jews and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to
speak for me”.

We, the people, need to speak up and our right to ask
questions ought not to be unlawfully restricted; otherwise we would soon lose
our conscience and the pride of belonging to a vibrant democracy.

In a democracy where the rule of law is supreme, none is
above the law and our armed/police forces are very much liable to questioning.
So, let’s not be intolerant of divergent opinion not least because this vibrant
debate distinguishes us from the rest. Otherwise, we shall soon be reducing
ourselves to the level of those whom we revile, grovelling in the dust at the
loss of the uniqueness and distinctiveness that characterise the pluralistic
culture we have always celebrated.

By Saumitra  Mohan

(The writer is an IAS officer posted as District Magistrate,
Burdwan, in West Bengal.  The views are
personal and not the government’s)