One feature of the emerging, new India is the growing intolerance between people with differences in actions, beliefs and practices — in short, the inability to tolerate different lifestyles and cultures. If one has to examine the tendency, one has to ask: is tolerance an important virtue in society and whether universal tolerance is possible at all? An obvious response to this question would be to emphasise that tolerance allows people to make their own choices without interference or fear, thereby contributing to freedom and liberty. Such a state of affairs would allow greater autonomy and agency for individuals. Society would be less prone to conflict. One’s lifestyle choices would never be a source of stigma or shame. Hence, the food one eats, the clothes one wears, the gods one worships, the social rituals one practises, one’s sexual preferences and, above all, one’s political beliefs and ideologies would be respected and honoured. However, these differences ought to be open to debate and discussion in public forums. Any society that wishes to improve its quality would have to strive towards universal toleration.
This ideal state of affairs is, actually, not the reality in any society. There are limits to freedoms and liberties, usually sanctioned by the State. The reason for this is as follows: if a society tolerates intolerance — say by tolerating the actions of a violent minority such as a religious sect or a terrorist group — then the intolerant would ultimately gain the upper hand vis-à-vis the tolerant majority and vitiate the entire society. It would be a disaster. This is the famous Paradox of Tolerance pointed out by Karl Popper in his well-known book, The Open Society and its Enemies. If that is indeed the limiting point, then to what extent should a society accept intolerance?
One has to seek a dividing line between what is tolerable and what is submissive. One possibility is to consider actions or practices that cause harm to others. A regulator might consider limiting such actions. Consider an example: banning a political ideology that permits murder as a way of tackling political opposition might be justified to ensure that freedom does not lead to bodily injury or cause harm to others. This is called the Harm Principle as expounded by John Stuart Mill. The Harm Principle allows tolerance to continue to the extent that one’s actions, beliefs or practices do not harm other people. In this context, should a society allow actions by individuals that are harmful to themselves? An individual decides to smoke heavily knowing fully well the damage caused by smoking; or should one allow substance abuse like the use of narcotics? Most societies crack down on these actions in some ways, from high taxes to outright bans. Similarly, should a society allow suicide? This is the ultimate harm to one’s own self.
Reasoning suggests that toleration should be a nuanced position taken by society where some actions are tolerated while others are discouraged or not tolerated at all. A problem becomes evident immediately: who decides what to tolerate and what not to tolerate? Should it be the majority’s decision to restrict a certain class of actions, beliefs and practices? If yes, then one has to confront the possibility of the majority dominating the minority. The discussion on tolerance indicates that there are limits to toleration, and that universal toleration might be impossible to attain.
Having said so, can the issue of social toleration of differences in values and lifestyles be looked at in an alternative way? It can. Suppose intolerance is the rule in a society. In other words, one can contest and counter any differences that one might observe in people and in communities. Hence, if one does not like what the other is eating, then one can try and prevent the consumption of that food, such as preventing the eating of beef. One can think of effective means of coercion that prevent people from eating beef — from an outright legislative ban to life-threats to those who habitually eat beef. This would clearly be a society marked by violence. The important thing to note is that the only alternative to tolerance is hatred. If one does not tolerate differences, then the only alternative is to forcibly restrict the eating of beef. If threats do not suffice, then direct violence will have to ensure the desired outcome. In other words, a society that is not tolerant of differences would necessarily have to be marked by vicious hatred.
It is this inevitability of an undesirable outcome that makes tolerance necessary as social practice despite its many limitations. Society must decide what should be the actions, beliefs and practices that are not to be tolerated. The Harm Principle could be a useful starting point for discussions and public debate.
There is another aspect of intolerance of differences that might lead to disaster. If, for instance, a majority views a minority — religious or ethnic — as intolerable, then the majoritarian power can easily suppress the rights of the minority. However, this cannot stop there. The majority itself is never completely homogeneous; there would be differences that would surface. Hence, a new kind of difference would come to the fore, leading to a new intolerance. This might go on indefinitely. The logical extension of this is a society where every member hates one another. That would be the final road to self-destruction, or it may lead to the emergence of a dictator. Many would applaud the rise of a strongman as a ruler who uses paranoia to further a political agenda. History has enough examples.
It is not difficult to tolerate differences if one tries. However, in most cases, people are conditioned into thinking rigidly that their own culture is the best. A tolerant society, whatever may be its imperfections, can always strive to become more tolerant. Hence no instance of intolerance should be beyond the scope of public debate. A tolerant society is necessarily diverse. The advantages of living together in diversity and variety are not difficult to appreciate. Yet, humanity seems to be too paranoid and selfish to accept this fact. It is worth remembering that all roses are not red, and that all flowers are not roses. Life comes in many colours and shapes.
Anup Sinha is former Professor of Economics, IIM Calcutta
