Talking tolerance

A sand sculpture in Odisha talks about the #AwardWapsi campaign and the debate around 'intolerance'.

A new Indian government was sworn-in last summer. It had a mammoth mandate. It promised reforms and began revitalising brand India across the world. While for some it has reimposed India’s position as a global player, to others it has only played on perceptions without adequately strengthening the pillars of the economy and society. Some laws have been passed, other major economic reforms are still stuck in logjam. While on a grade scale where green would stand for excellent and yellow for disastrous, the government’s performance is more like a lime green. Some of it’s said work shows, some doesn’t.

But evaluating the government’s first 18 months in office is not the aim of this essay. An 18-month evaluation could also be as misleading in hindsight in a few years as it may be detailed right now, if attempted. The use of the words tolerance and intolerance and actions that have invoked them is what this essay is about. It was also provoked by the notion of perceptions and how they affect states.

Tolerating tolerance

Tolerance by definition means “the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislike or disagrees with,” according to the Oxford dictionary. It goes on to say that it originates as late middle English word to denote the, “action of bearing hardship, or the ability to bear pain and hardship.” Tolerate is defined as, “Allowing the existence, occurrence, or practice of something one disagrees with without interference,” by the Oxford dictionary. While the word has now become part of common parlance, such an origin and current usage of the word should be questioned, especially when it is used in lines such as, “India is a tolerant society,” “India culture is all about tolerance,” among many such one-liners.

When used in such a way, the word by itself, tends to establish or promote a certain power relationship. Viewing the statements mentioned above, is India tolerant because it is more powerful and can allow it? Or is India tolerant because it is less powerful and does not have an option to argue against it? Does that ability or willingness to tolerate not draw from a power relationship again then? And should this act of accepting or rejecting other views be excused on the grounds that the other (again a form of a power relationship) is able to or willing to tolerate or not tolerate the opinions or actions? How does the ubiquitous usage of such a word then impact the freedom of expression or the freedom of choice then? Is it seen as something that is allowed (once again a word that establishes a power relationship) or as something that cannot be allowed or rejected, but just exists? Does it not just change the fundamental meaning of a fundamental right? How is it a right if there’s a power equations involved? The word intolerance uses the same premise, making a call for tolerance seem like a request at times, more than an appeal.

Here, India’s tolerance levels were subject of the questions and thereby the playing field would be international relations. Now, wouldn’t the usage of tolerance propagate a realist ontological view then and impact policy decisions? Change that subject to say the government’s actions or a religious body’s remarks, and they would again re-emphasis on a certain power relationship, where someone is understood to have taken the high horse. 

Where’s the room for a constructive approach then? Well, that’s where the constructivism’s inherent optimism comes out. It means that even while using the word tolerance, we can actually move towards a society, a region, religious factions or even states that are more tolerant, and may be while we are attempting to get there, we can think of a newer word, or an older one to describe this attribute as a given and not just something that presupposes the existence of a power relationship.

Now let’s get to the ongoing national discussion. Rising levels of intolerance as decried by some or bogus calls as argued by others. We’ve all got sides and arguments. Choosing a side is not the objective of this essay as that may put the other content of it under a certain bias again. While such discussions strengthen or theoretically should strengthen democracy, acts of ‘intolerance’ harm it, and with it the global flow of capital (or capitalism) which has come to be very closely associated or guided with the values of democracy, political and economic stability and infrastructure among others. That’s where perceptions come in, especially global perceptions about states, their politics and economics. And these influence business.

Playing on perceptions

Perception. It’s a strong word that can make or break relationships, of any kind - from emotional to commercial. It’s also a word that impacts the sway of democracy, capitalism and  corresponding debates. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word as “the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted” and as “intuitive understanding and insight”. So, essentially, a perception is how a certain object, action or phenomenon is recognised, irrespective of the actuality of that object, action or phenomenon. 

A perception could therefore be correct, incorrect or in between the two at varying shades. What contributes to this possible change in the actual nature of the object, action or phenomenon and the perception of it could be a stubborn pre-established bias or ontological view, the complexities it exists in and an inability to sieve through them, an apparent attempt to paint it over for whatever reason, or a combination of both. And since a perception impacts the understanding and recognition of the object, action or phenomenon directly, it therefore also directly impacts any discussion on the object, action or phenomenon and the peripheries along which such a discussion is held. Thereafter, impacting any other discussion that it leads to or is invoked in.

In global politics today, perception holds great value, especially amid the changing nature of the perceived nature and discourse around capitalism, socialism and the likes. The way how a country is perceived, when it comes to political stability affects the inflow of investments, the perception about economic safety affects businesses too, and the perception about societal security affects tourism, among others. We all know the salience of brand value. It is also a great source and indicator of soft power.

In that respect, and in the current context on tolerance and intolerance, it is the perception about it that may finally seal the deal when it comes to how it affects the image or perception of India, globally, at varied levels - in academia and in regular conversations, in business and in schools as well. While the Indian Prime Minister with his numerous foreign trips is trying to build on positive perceptions of and about India, actions such as #AwardWapsi or a celebrity being vocal about insecurity about living in the country may have mixed impressions on it for different audiences. This is not to say that the former should be supported and the latter disgraced. Both have different objections and are not part of the same debate too. More importantly, both may only affect short-term perceptions, thereby having economic and cultural impact, only in the short-run. In the long run, those perceptions will only be shaped by the supporting policy measures or their absence that the government takes or does not take and the positive or negative discussions on measures like #AwardWapsi and the impacts of those discussions.

Meanwhile, let’s try and find a power-neutral word for intolerance and tolerance. Illiberality and liberality came to mind first, but  I suggest open and closed for now. Simple and direct. Won’t that work?