‘Intolerance’: a Spitefully Malicious Anti-National
Campaign
Major General Mrinal
Suman
Intolerance is the flavour of the season (pun intended). Feeling ignored and craving for attention, issue a
public statement against intolerance or announce returning of award as a mark
of protest. It is a sure recipe for instant publicity. It is also another way
of reminding the world that you are a recipient of an award, a long forgotten
occurrence. Interestingly, no one has returned either the medal/scroll or the
prize money. Worse, they continue to enjoy all the privileges and benefits that
go with such awards. Can there be a more apt example of hypocritical and
duplicitous conduct?
If you are a public figure, a jibe against intolerance will get you days of media attention. When Shah Rukh
Khan or Aamir Khan accuses the prevailing political environment of intolerance, a storm breaks out. Newspapers
are full of diatribes against the ruling party. TV anchors scream themselves
hoarse with farcical debates.
In fact, intolerance
has become the most convenient tool to beat the government with. Whatever be
the personal grievance, fire the salvo under the guise of intolerance and it works. Take the case of Shah Rukh Khan. Shah
Rukh Khan has been highly critical of the allegedly-growing intolerance in the country. Well, his
anger is understandable. Let us recount three incidents which caused him
extreme distress.
One, the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) banned him for five
years from entering the Wankhede Stadium for the ‘trivial misdemeanour’ of manhandling
a security guard and hurling the choicest of abuses on its officials after an
IPL game in May 2012. How intolerant
of MCA! It should have been more broad-minded and tolerated King Khan’s gross misbehaviour
in true sportsman spirit.
Two, an illegal ramp constructed by Shah Rukh outside his house
‘Mannat’ to park his vanity van was objected to by the neighbours as it
hindered smooth flow of traffic. Displaying gross intolerance towards the superstar’s unauthorised construction, they
had been demanding demolition by Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for
long. All was well for years as a tolerant BMC continued to ignore all pleas.
However, BJP MP Poonam Mahajan showed a distinct lack of tolerance and sought
its removal. The ramp was finally demolished in February this year. Naturally, King
Khan was furious at the environment of intolerance
in the country.
Three, imagine the degree of intolerance
of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in calling Khan to explain the sale of
shares of the Knight Riders Sports and alleging forex violations of around Rs
90-100 crore. ED noted that the share transfers had taken place at par while
the fair value was 8-9 times more. For King Khan, it was indeed a matter of
gross sacrilege that a person of his stature had been doubted by the lowly
officials of ED – visible signs of growing intolerance
in the country.
Similarly, Aamir Khan may be having his own grouses against the
environment and his right to migrate to a ‘safer country’ must be respected by
all Indians. But, does he honestly feel that India has become highly
intolerant? His movie PK was a block-buster. In which country can one ridicule a
god of the majority community by showing him hiding behind a commode? Could he have
taken such liberties with any other religion, including his own? Riots would
have broken out. Yet, he had the audacity to fault the country for intolerance.
With a single imprudent statement, Aamir has undone all the good
work carried out by him over the years as an
ambassador of 'Incredible India' campaign to promote tourism. Now, he has told
all foreign tourists not to visit an ‘Intolerant India’. Although he supported
return of awards as ‘one way of getting
your point across’, Aamir opted not to return his Padma Shri and Padma
Bhushan
awards. Surprising indeed!
Everyone has a right to express one’s opinion and draw attention
to the grievances, both real and perceived. There can be no dispute on that
issue. However, two points must be kept in mind.
One, if something goes wrong
in a family, every member has a responsibility to correct matters rather
than choose the easier option of abandoning it. Similarly, it is a sign of
cowardice to consider leaving one’s own country instead of setting things right.
Whatever be the rationale, no loyal citizen ever maligns his own country to play politics and garner publicity. It is rightly said that loyalty is a trait of –
either a person has it in him or does not have it.
Two, it is only fair that all grievances are first projected to
the concerned authorities and a reasonable opportunity given to the government for
redressal. If not satisfied with the response in a reasonable time-frame, the
aggrieved person is justified in going public. It is the right course to follow
for all citizens – more so for the public figures as their allegations get huge
publicity.
Both Shah Rukh Khan and Aamir Khan are matinee idols with mammoth
fan following. Both have access to the top leadership of the country. Aamir
Khan has met Modi on a number of occasions. One wonders if both of them
approached their state Chief Minister, Central Home Minister and the Prime
Minister with their anxieties and apprehensions before going public. In case
they failed to do that, their allegations can be considered to be malevolent in
intent and politically motivated.
When Tharoor declares, "It's safer
to be a cow than a Muslim in India today," he puts the whole country to
shame. The world media flashes such headlines with sinister pleasure. India’s
image takes a terrible beating. Just to score a brownie point against the
government, Tharoor presented a convenient propaganda handle to the forces
inimical to our progress. How low can a leader stoop!
It will not be inappropriate to
recall an old story here. An entrepreneur used to export frogs from India in
lidless containers. When quizzed, he replied, “These are Indian frogs. When any
frog attempts to rise and get out, others pull him down. So why waste money on
lids?”
The above is equally true of most Indian
leaders and the intelligentsia. They
have no scruples and can go to any extent to further their selfish agenda,
including harming the interests of the country. They cannot digest the fact that Modi has been highly
successful in kick-starting developmental revolution in a short period of 18
months. Therefore,
they have resorted to the highly slanderous intolerance
crusade to undermine his efforts. They want to undercut his ‘Make in India’
mission with their spiteful ‘Hate in India’ campaign, a la Indian frogs.
In view of the above, it can be said with
certainty that the well-orchestrated campaign of intolerance is malicious in intent. The sole objective is to stall
all progressive reforms by tarnishing the image of the government. When Modi is
visiting other countries and trying his best to attract investments to improve
the quality of life of India’s masses, the self-proclaimed champions of tolerance
are busy dissuading foreign investors through treacherously detrimental
utterances. How else can anti-nationalism be defined?*****
