These salutary principles cannot be over-emphasised in view of the alarming rise of intolerance. It is depressing that we have reached a stage where even a moderate expression of a different point of view is met with hostility. Of late there have been vociferous demands for bans. The banning itch has become infectious. Sikhs are offended by certain words in the title of a movie, Christians want the movie The Da Vinci Code banned because they find it hurtful, the production of Deepa Mehta’s Water had to be abandoned in India because of disruptive protests by some intolerant groups.

The nadir of intolerance was reached when the prestigious Bhandarkar Institute at Pune, where American author James Laine had done research and had written a biography of Shivaji which contained some unpalatable references, was vandalised by bigots and invaluable manuscripts were destroyed. Consider the case of actor Aamir Khan. One may disagree with his views or criticise him for supporting the Narmada Bachao Aandolan movement. However, to burn his posters, prohibit the screening of his films and subject him in Gujarat to social and economic sanctions is terrifying intolerance.

Of all the threats to our democracy the gravest is the rise of intolerance which is utterly incompatible with democratic values and must be curbed. The state is under an obligation not to infringe the fundamental rights of its citizens. This obligation is not merely negative in nature. It is a well-settled principle of human rights jurisprudence that the state also has a positive obligation to promote fundamental rights by preventing non-state actors, for example, like the Bajrang Dal, from de facto violating freedom of expression and also to take necessary steps against them. The state cannot remain a mute spectator and by its non-action permit freedom of expression, a cherished fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, to be held to ransom.

... contd.