TOLERANCE, SRK AND YOGI ADITYANATH

TOLERANCE, SHAHRUKH KHAN (SRK) AND YOGI ADITYANATH ! 

What is tolerance? To me, it seems, 'Restraint and responsibility laced with magnanimity'. In other words, it is one's ability to exercise self control and stay composed when provoked mentally or physically. If one reacts under whatever reasons, it is intolerance. To pontificate others in the name of freedom of expression is no excuse. To be frank , if you are a celebrity or a public figure , this need for restraint and self control increases manifold. 

In an age of competitive religions and competitive politics, there is always a game of action and counter action. Responsible public figures must not make statements which will draw ire from other side. Tolerance is all about ignoring pointing barbs by other side which provoke you. Difference of opinion is not intolerance but adding emotions to it is intolerance. When a celebrity or a public figure jumps into a raging controversy, it is an indication that he has lost self control and has been swayed by his emotions. 

A Public figure must realise that Indian Media is a double edged weapon. It cuts both ways. It would extract a sound byte from one side and then rush to other by making it more spicy. Thus, it starts a never ending verbal wrestling match. It plays a pimping game in such scenarios. It adds fuel to the fire by bringing in opposing views. Accordingly, a non issue becomes a controversy. SRK and Yogi Adityanath controversy is result of this tell- tale issue. 

SRK should have known that any remarks of his on "religious Intolerance" was representation of his own intolerance. May be remark was deliberately made to provoke respondents of "intolerance debate". And he did get a mouthful from the respondents. What does he mean by "growing religious Intolerance"? Taking sides on controversial issues publicly, shows sparks of personal intolerance. Therefore what is the difference between SRK and Yogi Adityanath. If SRK reacted on "Beef eating", So did Yogi Adityanath on his allegation of Religious Intolerance. 

We must note that Shiv Sena opposition to Ghulam Ali and Pakistani artists was not because of religion but nationality. How can this be  branded as " Religious Intolerance"? Mumbai swarms with Muslim actors and artists without any opposition by Shiv Sena.  Rightly or wrongly, opposition to Pakistan by certain segments of Indian society was inherent in the Two Nation Theory. The issue is not of really of Intolerance but of fabricated concept of "Hindu Majority" and imported concept of Secularism to fight this fabricated myth of Hindu Majority. 

So, the battle lines were drawn right at the birth of this country, when "Two Nation" theory was accepted by Congress, against the wishes of Mahatma Gandhi. At the heart of this problem was exclusion of Muslims from the overall gamut of a modern word "Indian". In other words, the definition of a 'Hindu of Hindustan', should have been at par with the word "Indian" and inclusive of a Muslim, a Sikh, a Budhist etc and not open a can of worm by calling Hinduism a separate religion as Two Nation theory stated. While "Two Nation Theory' incorporated, Sikhs, Budhists, Jains, Parsis, Jews, Jats, Rajputs, Brahmins, Dalits and Kayasths, all, with their different rituals and processes in the lap of Hinduism, it excluded Muslims. This was a faulty thought and out of tune with the stratagem of a multicultural society. This seeded the Intolerance, we see today. This is what should be avoided by guys like Shah Rukh Khan. 

Take the case of Professor Kulburgi. Is the freedom of speech meant to slight and berate other man's belief and faith. Going public with it is a heinous crime. It is your intolerance. How do you expect others to be tolerant when you preach urinating over Hindu idols? During a seminar, in June 2014, Kalburgi had denounced idol worship as a “meaningless ritual”, angering Sangh parivar elements.He further added, “One can even urinate on idols”, while quoting from a distinguished Kannada scholar Professor U.R. Ananthamurthy’s work.In the work, the Jnanpith award winning litterateur, Ananthamurthy had narrated how he had pissed on an idol to prove that the idol had no powers and to rid himself of the fear induced by his traditional upbringing. 

One is welcome to hold such views in private. But should you go public, you are hurting others. Claiming to urinate on Hindu idols is a bigger sin than publishing prophet Mohammed's Cartoons? It enraged the Muslim's all over, including Shah Rukh Khan. Where was SHARUKH Khan when Salman Rushdie's book was banned or when he was disallowed from Jaipur Literary Festival ? 

Where was Shah Rukh Khan when Taslima Nasreen was hounded in Hyderabad and thrown out of the country. This selective approach of Shah Rukh khan was bound to invite counter views of other side. Who does not about this drama being enacted by paid agents of Congress ? And everyone knows where does Shah rukh Khan stand politically. When Shah Rukh khan was supporting such views, he is bound to invite reaction from persons like Yogi Adityanath. It was Shah Rukh Khan's political intolerance , couched in Religious tones, that needs to be questioned. It is not to say that one supports BJP or Modi and to say the least to support yogi Adityanath. No, Never.