Author: Bal Ram Singh
Publication: India New England
Date: August 15, 2004
URL: http://www.indianewengland.com/news/702058.html?mkey=1060861
Recently an article entitled "Want
to Prosper? Then Be Tolerant" was written by Paul Johnson, a prominent
British historian and author in Forbes magazine (June 6 issue; www.forbes.com/columnists/free_forbes/2004/0621/041.html)
The article pointed out the economic
value of being tolerant. This is a welcome observation that must be promoted
and pursued with more vigor than tomahawks to open at least an alternative
front to deal with the current turmoil in the world.
India's tradition, particularly
the Hindu tradition of tolerance, has been exalted by Paul Johnson to make
his point that whenever a society develops tolerance, there is prosperity
in the society. He makes two contrasts to
send his message home.
One is the communist/Marxist mindset
pervasive in the '50s, '60s and part of the '70s in China (under Mao Zedong),
and until the '80s in India (under the Congress party). It is notable that
as a result of the recent Indian elections, not only is Congress back in
power but it has communists on its piggyback for the first time in Indian
history.
If Johnson's theory is correct,
it may lead to shocking retrogressive results in the Indian subcontinent.
Second, Johnson draws upon focus
on the escalation of intolerance in the Islamic Society and increase in
poverty in many Islamic countries such as Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
There has been much talk of root causes of Islamic terrorism, particularly
the Israel-Palestine and Kashmir issues. I believe these latter issues
are really the shoot causes, rather than the root causes.
The sad travesty is that the United
States has a tendency to fight one with the help of the other. So, the
United States, in its fight against the Soviet Union, used the Islamic
militants, whereas now we are using communists, including China and Russia,
against the Islamic terrorists.
Intolerance is not quite, but comes
closest to, the root cause of terrorism throughout the world. That is the
only enemy of humanity which should be targeted, irrespective of its source.
That said, I take strong issue with
the concept of tolerance being promoted as the magic capsule of the world's
current problems.
I recently had a brief encounter
on this issue with a faculty colleague in my department at the University
of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Just like Johnson, the whole intelligentsia
has bought this politically expedient word, "tolerance," as the panacea
for world's ills.
While tolerance could mean sympathy
for other's beliefs, its primary and common meaning, "to endure pain or
hardship," does not bode well for tolerance to be embraced readily.
Tolerance gives a message that every
time I see you I get pain that I manage to endure. How long would such
a state last without exploding?
In reference to India, the word
that I think describes the practice is at least acceptance, if not celebration.
I know numerous examples throughout history, and still today that, when
left alone by politicians, ideologues and religious demagogues, people
in India happily live in harmony while celebrating their differences.
In today's modern world, the most
pervading concept has become "survival of the fittest," whereby the selfish
nature of animals and humans is the driving force of this world, perhaps
even the universe.
Of course, such assertions are touted
to be based on a sound science of natural selection ably propounded by
Charles Darwin in his famous book, "The Origin of Species."
Interestingly, Darwin never used
the concept of "survival of the fittest" in his book. It is a modern construction
of sociologists and the business world to suit the selfish behavior of
today's powers in the world.
As a matter of fact, Darwin propounded
a concept contrary to the idea of selfish interest or hateful exploitation
of others.
A set of experimental observations
of S. Sinclair, published in London's Gardner Magazine in 1826, find their
way into Darwin's "Origin of Species," where he states, "It has been experimentally
proved that if a plot of ground be sown with one species of grass, and
a similar plot be sown with several distinct genera of grasses, a greater
number of plants and a greater weight of dry herbage can thus be raised."
Darwin clearly propounded the idea
of the principle of divergence for natural selection and evolution. Thus,
tolerance of diversity is contrary to not only Indian tradition, but even
the tenets of some of the most fundamental scientific ideas.
Therefore, in ideologies which prescribe
or promulgate a single way of life, be it in the name of communism, Islamism,
or the many other -isms Paul Johnson could also have mentioned, one would
not only lose economic but social, family, moral and spiritual prosperities.
The Indian concept of "Vasudhaiva
Kutumbakam" (the whole planet is a family) needs assertion more now than
ever by propounding acceptance and celebrations of the diversity on our
planet, rather than its painful tolerance being touted by pseudo intellectuals
as the panacea for the world's woes today.
Bal Ram Singh, the director of the
Center for Indic Studies at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.
