W Power 2024

Soli Sorabjee: Freedom from Intolerance

The right to dissent and tolerance are the bedrock of a democratic society. Unfortunately, they cannot be legislated

Published: May 26, 2010 10:20:34 AM IST
Updated: May 26, 2010 10:21:14 AM IST
Soli Sorabjee: Freedom from Intolerance
Image: Amit Verma; Illustartion: Vidyanand Kamat; Imaging: Sushil Mhatre
SOLI J. SORABJEE, Former Attorney General, India

One of India’s most eminent jurists, Soli Sorabjee was the Attorney General between 1998 and 2004. Prior to that, he was the country’s Solicitor General. He was awarded the Padma Vibushan in 2002 for his defense of the freedom of expression and protection of human rights. He also served as a member at the Permanent Court of Arbitration at Hague between 2000 and 2006. He is the author of numerous books and articles on law.

History is replete with instances of violent upheavals and breach of peace on account of intolerance leading to oppression of minorities and other unpopular groups. Violent conflicts which we are witnessing today are also the result of intolerance. What we need urgently and should aspire to is the practice of tolerance. It is noteworthy that the Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations proclaims that to achieve the goals of the Charter we need “to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours”. Again the Declaration of October 24, 1970, on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States also states “that the peoples of the United Nations are determined to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another…” The link between tolerance and peace is thus clearly recognised. In reality there is indeed an essential linkage between tolerance, human rights, democracy and peace.

Tolerance entails a positive attitude which permits and protects not only expression of thoughts and ideas which are accepted and are acceptable but also accords an accommodation as hospitable to the thought we hate as that assured to the orthodoxies of the day.

Disagreements with the beliefs and ideology of others is no reason for their suppression because tolerance recognises that there can be more than one path for the attainment of truth and salvation.
Intolerance stems from an invincible assumption of the infallibility of one’s system, the dogmatic conviction about the rightness of one’s tenets and beliefs and their superiority over others. When intolerance reigns, reason takes a back seat. Intolerance thrives on prejudice. It fosters feelings of ill will and enmity between different classes and communities. Intolerance eventually leads to forcible imposition of one’s ideology and dogmas on others and results in violent conflicts and breaches of peace. An intolerant society does not brook dissent. An authoritarian regime cannot tolerate expression of ideas in the form of writings, plays, music or paintings which challenge its doctrines and ideology. Consequently censorship is an indispensable instrument for a totalitarian regime. An intolerant authoritarian regime and censorship are indeed natural allies.

Our Supreme Court has accorded a high place to tolerance in our polity. A fine example is its landmark decision in Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala. Three students of the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith were expelled by the educational authorities because of their refusal to sing the Indian national anthem even though they respectfully stood up in silence when the anthem was sung. The High Court of Kerala upheld the action of expulsion. In appeal the Supreme Court accepted the plea of the students that they were forbidden by their religious beliefs to sing the national anthem of any country. The Court held that their expulsion was violative of their fundamental right to freedom of expression which includes the right to remain silent. The Court concluded with a ringing note: “Our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our Constitution practices tolerance; let us not dilute it.”
In its celebrated judgment in S. Rangarajan vs. P. Jagjivan Ram, our Supreme Court emphasised that “freedom of expression protects not merely ideas that are accepted but those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of the pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society.”

Right to dissent and tolerance are the sine qua non of democracy. The hard fact is, tolerance cannot be legislated. We must develop the capacity for tolerance by fostering an environment of tolerance, a culture of tolerance. We must not penalise the right to dissent and must protect the dissenter against coercive action by the State or non-State actors, especially fanatical intolerant groups. Education has a vital role to play in this connection. Indeed the highest result of education is tolerance.

The Press too has an important role to play in highlighting the necessity of tolerance and condemning instances of intolerance. It should ensure that prejudices and stereotypes about certain communities and classes are not popularised and thus perpetuated. The Press should incessantly preach the message that no group or body has the monopoly of truth and wisdom and we must respect the point of view of the ‘other minded’.

Our priority should be to promote tolerance in our multi-religious, multi-cultural nation and thereby strengthen our pluralist democracy and thereby ensure that freedom of speech and expression and freedom of the press become living realities. Our Constitution prescribes a list of fundamental duties to be performed by citizens. To my mind, the practice of tolerance is imperative and should be the foremost fundamental duty of every citizen. If it is conscientiously performed, it would result in salutary change in our society and also bring about harmony in relations between peoples of the world.

(This story appears in the 04 June, 2010 issue of Forbes India. To visit our Archives, click here.)

Post Your Comment
Required
Required, will not be published
All comments are moderated
  • VRgrao

    Family is the corner stone of Indian society With Sec like 498a which is used or threatened to be used by unscrupulous and intolerant against innocent males, their parents and kin denying them gender equality and equality before law under art.14 and upsetting lives of innocent children. What peace and happiness is there for such unfortunate males. Is it not time for legal luminaries to think of asking for amending such law to protect innocent males at the same time saving affected married woman?

    on Oct 30, 2010