Theory of Intolerance and curious case of 98%

So finally I break my silence on this supposedly sensitive issue... :)

While the debate on intolerance is still on and drawing new participants each passing day, I thought it will be interesting to see if there is any data exists which could answer the debate on Intolerance in a more scientific way...

So statisically speaking, you  can only say "Intolerance is rising" if you have clearly defined definition for "Intolerance" and "Historical measurable data" which clearly shows a remarkble change...

Dictionary definition of "Intolerance" is "Lack of tolerance;unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect opinion or beliefs contrary to one's own"

Going by definition I think "Intolerance" is more a social issue than a legal one...It becomes a legal matter when this intolerance leads people to use violence to enforce their ideology.

So question is whether Indian society is "Intolerant" compared to other nations?
If yes than can present government be blamed for promoting intolerance?
Has there been an increase in violence directly attributed to intolerance?

Now in this entire debate, while both sides have quoted number of incidents (Intolerance+violence) to strengthen their theory, however one thing is pretty clear that no one so far has produced any reliable data to either prove or disprove this Theory of Intolerance... So what you really have is one set of people quoting "isolated incidents" like #Dadrilynching #KalburgiMurder and opposing people quoting #KashmiriPandits and #1984riots......btw even google couldn't produce any statistically measured and documented data on Intolerance in India. :)

Our constitution provides for a "secular state" with "freedom of expression" (I picked these two, as they are most relevant to current debate), which essentially means that you are free to pursue your religious beliefs and also express your views on any matter freely...This framework allows any act of intolerance to be dealt with legal system...
So Wouldn't it be interesting to see some report of

"recorded crimes which can be directly attributed to intolerance"? And if we have any such report over a number of years, we can use that to make some concrete comments on ongoing debate...

Now all this leaves scope for confusion...

And there lies dilemma of majority of people like you and me....the 98% ......

That missing 2% is what comprises "Fringe brigade".... 1% on either side...

Ok don't hold me to these numbers... I just cooked them out of thin air for sake of convenient argument...  :)

Now that fringe 1% on either side is not only convinced on their respective ideologies, they also make every effort to convince confused 98%....

Now my view is that this 98% , irrespective of their religion or race simply wants nation to progress economically so that their children can have a better future...They are "Tolerant" in every sense of the word...they want to coexist...Problem is they are confused on "Rules of coexistence" ...This is not really surprising considering that anyways "rules of coexistence confusion" has its roots in building blocks of any society... which is "Family"....isn't it fair to say that "there is some element of intolerance" in every family?...so you have Saas-Bahu sagas, husband-wife tussle..brothers fighting, parents-children conflicts etc...in some cases this intolerance also takes violent turn, and I think it will be appropriate to club them in 2% "fringe element" basket.



In essence this 98% may be confused on "rules of coexistence" may have "difference of opinion on variety of topics including eating habits"....and hence "slight undertones of intolerance" but I think as long as they don't resort to "violent means" it's ok...we can always hope that next stage of evolution will probably take us beyond these concerns...It will be nice to have 100% tolerant society but utopia only exists in stories and movies not in real world..

In the interim, one important job of the government is to handle that 2% fringe element group, with iron hand...I see an opportunity for Mr Modi to make a strong statement by ensuring that all "Intolerance+violence" cases are handled on top priority and end the debate once and for all....

Post Script: 
A google search "Which country is most tolerant?" leads you to a page describing "Canada" as the most tolerant country...This is as per "World Values Survey"....India prominently features as "Least Tolerant countries"...However questionnaire used in the survey was more suited for measuring racial tolerance hence may not be very appropriate measure to settle current debate.....
And before you rush to blame this on our PM Mr Modi, mind you this article dates May 15, 2013 so survey must have taken place prior to that...and wasn't it UPA govt ruling country than? ....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/

Another google query specifically for "religious intolerance" leads you to "Pew Research Center" page. Pew Research Center analyzes extent to which government and societies around the world impinge on religious beliefs and practices. In social hostilities index India ranks poorly as "Very High". In government restriction index not very encouraging "High".
Two things, one as a Indian, I would like to believe that this is wrong, second even if it were to be true, mind you this data also pertains to 2013.
Again, I think it is completely uncalled for to blame current government and Mr Modi for rising intolerance.....

In conclusion, I would like to leave you with some thoughts --

Difference between "Intolerance" and "Intolerance+violence"
Question whether Indian society itself is more intolerant than its global peers?
Can it be proven beyond doubt that current government is encouraging intolerance and government elements are participating in Intolerance+violence?

Is AIB Knockout-Roast of Ranveer & Arjun a new low in entertainment and humour?

I think YES..and let me start from the verdict so that people who think otherwise have a fair chance of choosing whether to read further or not....

Before I outline my views as to why I think its a new low in public entertainment as a whole (As-a-whole Not Ass*** ..hmm..sorry..after effect of AIB   :)   )  and humor/comedy in particular, allow me to specify what I am not against.....

• I am not against freedom of speech and expression.
• I am not against people's right to decide, what they want to watch...how they wish to be entertained...after all, there are enough people who find, movies of Farah khan, Sazid Khan, Karan Johar etc, extremely funny and entertaining...
• I am not against self deprecating humor...on the contrary I encourage that..big celebrities doing it, is actually fun and in good spirit...
• I am not against use of expletive cuss words..in fact all of us do that in our private lives..

Did I laugh while watching it? 

Yes I did...at least intermittently..

Was It funny?

Yes it was..at least in bits and pieces..

Does it mean there is audience for such content?

Yes indeed..

But does above alone justify public performance and public circulation of such content?

Hmmm....????...I have my doubts...

So what next then? How about live pornography? 

Hey that's a great idea..involving celebrities will be fun...how about we check with Deepika/Ranveer, or may be Karan/Ranveer/Deepika ( :) ) if they could do a live show...After all AIB sold "Roast" tickets for Rs 4000..I think we can easily price something like this at Rs 50000. And we can package it with some nice charitable cause, so that audience with conscience can go back home guilt free, thinking they paid for charity...  

In essence, my point is where are we leading with this? The moment you do something which no one has ever done, you give someone else an idea to go even further...now that's a good thing if subject is technology, science, or even craft of film making...but questionable if it pertains to rules of society..

This become all the more complicated when you involve celebrities...celebrities command followers, power to influence people...so celebrity endorsement also means something which could have been considered "Gross & vulgar" can be looked as "cool and hip"....

Let me present a scenario...Now what stops people from considering this as acceptable humor at work place too...so if some people start using such language, gestures with their female colleagues, or take a derogatory dig on their personal lives, will it qualify to be an attempt at humor or harassment at work place?

Let me present another scenario, if you are a women walking on a random street, and you pass by a group of unruly men. Those men did exactly the same..used filthiest of the words, gestures etc, and mind you, not directly at you (may be just talking among themselves but loud enough). would you consider it acceptable? 

If I am guessing it right..I think genesis of this idea (humiliating celebrities publicly), must have been that, we Indians are often blamed for having very poor sense of humor..we don't appreciate humor, we don' laugh much, least of all at ourselves...we get offended too soon (latest example being Deepika Padukone getting hugely offended by Times publishing her cleavage photo with juicy headlines...I will come back to this later)

Yes, our society is a bit too intolerant..which is not a good thing...but food for thought is, while we expect society to be tolerant, do we know where to draw the line?

All of us at some point have been outraged by moral policing, online or offline. It is anyways sad that our society (and by extension our institutions such as police/judiciary) still looks down upon public display of affection...so there are young couples being arrested for kissing/holding hands in public...But at the same time if we allow this, some other group might demand cuddling/being intimate in public places as their right...than some other group will emerge demanding right to fondling of "private parts" in "public places"....and finally some morons will even claim that "having intercourse" in open public places as their birth right...

So again question is where to draw a line..

To conclude, what AIB and Karan/Ranveer/Arjun did in "Roast" is nothing new. In fact that kind of humor is very much part of our lives. We indulge in such humor on a daily basis, BUT in our own privacy or with close circle of friends (including those naughty WhatsApp groups all of us have)...any one who have ever lived in a hostel, would tell you that they have seen and been part of even worst...but again that is within a close knit circle..

Problem with this AIB approach is that they made it too public...and by doing that they may have opened another pandora's box...what will it lead to next is food for thought...

A society lives by rules....some rules are law driven hence legally enforceable, some rules are in the nature of self censorship...and every society needs to find its own balance....How to find a balance between legally enforceable rules and self censorship rules is a big question.....

P.S: 

By the way coming back to Deepika, isn't it amazing how sportingly she took all those nasty comments in the AIB show? just few months back she was so furious when TOI published that cleavage pic and all hell broke lose. She invoked all sorts of adjectives for the paper and reporter including blaming them of being misogynist. Well I think people change.