Good morning, respected judges, participants and my

dear friends the topic at hand today is In the opinion

of the house, democratic spaces are shrinking due to
rising intolerance please note my emphasis on
these two words.
Let me begin by defining what intolerance means in the
first place before going on to prove that such claims
made by the proposition are nothing but a complete
farce. The Merriam Webster defines intolerance as the
unwillingness to ALLOW or accept something. My dear
friends if this country was indeed intolerant, would
you be even allowed to speak in the manner you are
today? But let me not be rhetorical.
The fundamental question is what does these huge
phenomena of rising intolerance mean? Is this claim
backed by any statistic? Have there been more riots in
the last few months?. Have there been incidents where
members of one community have protested against
another? Have there been cases where the freedom of
speech has been stiflied? The answer to all of these
questions - In case you are wondering, is NO.
Let me ask the proposition what is your definition of a
tolerant country? They might say USA or France or
Australia. But let me bring it to the attention of this
house that even in the USA (the supposed pinnacle of
democratic values) there is a grave amount of
intolerance against people from certain ethnic and
religious groups. In the recent past there have been
rising incidents of African Americans protesting against
what they claim is a racist police force. There have
been rising cases of Islamaphobia wherein a large

number of Muslims are insulted, abused and sometimes

assaulted in public by their Caucasian counterparts. In
France and some other European countries wearing
of the hijab, a fundamental religious practice is
banned. Thereby, practically making it difficult to
practice the religion of your choice if it is Islam. IN
Australia, the ex -Prime Minister note the ex -PRIME
MINISTER in an infamous comment talked about
immigrants adapting to Australian lifestyle or leaving.
There was no case made for immigrants to have the
freedom to have their own lifestyle in the manner they
choose in their personal life.
And so how does India compare to these so called
bastions of tolerance and acceptance? Unfortunately
the proposition is blinded in this British era mindset
where the West is assumed to be superior to India in
everyway, which is certainly not true in so far as
tolerance and respect for religions is concerned.
Now, there has been a huge uproar over Awards being
returned (especially by Artists and Writers). Many who
joined in this race to return awards include intellectuals
from the Left and thus make this issue of Award
Wapasi a political and not a socio-cultural one. A large
majoirity of those who returned the awards were also a
signatory to the petition signed before the 2014
elections, calling for Narendra Modi to not become the
PM of India. They claimed that if he became the PM
India would be ripped apart by communalism and
religious intolerance but after 18 months in power,
this cannot be proved in any way whatsoever, and so
what better way to justify themselves than by creating

a hype on intolerance? With all due respect to them

the Award Wapsi issue is nothing but a poltical one
and should be taken as such. (But please note, if these
people were so concerned, why had they not returned
awards before 2014 when Muzzafarnagar and Assam
riots took place? Or even before then? Do such grave
events exist today that there is an urgent need for such
a massive decision wherein you give up an award
conffered to you as a mark of respect by the NATION of
India (and not any government per se?)
Now let me concede that there have been certain
atrocious comments made by certain people (and
groups) associated with the ruling party. And they
deserve to and have been condemned greatly. But
just because of a few pathetic statements made by
rabid motormouths doesnt make a country of 1.2
billion intolerant does it? Early last year there was an
alleged spate of rising violence against Churches but
let me remind the propistion what this was. Each one of
those attacks were ones of criminal nature one was
attacked by a don and his group, another by a scorned
lover, and another was a simple robbery. There was
indeed nothing to show that this was done with a
mindset of intolerance towards Christianity but it was
unfortunately painted as such. When these facts came
to light - nobody really cared to correct their mistakes
and a perception was formed. It is this perception that
continues to blind the opponents of the government.
Lately there have been a spate of crimes rising from a
Law and order issue but have been incorrectly been
painted as such. The incident of a man being lynched in
Dadri is utterly condemnable. The death of the Dalit

children recently too cannot be justified but let us not

politicize the issue and try to claim that they stemmed
from some sort of government supported plot against
minorities. Their deaths is a failure of the Indian
administrative system, of the police, law and
intelligence. Let us take it as such and ensure that
systems are improved to prevent such law and order
situations, let us refrain from taking the easy way and
connect it to the perception that blinds many, including
the propostion.
Lastly, before I completely run out of time let me
address the issue of the Beef Ban which has been
made out to be an issue bigger than what it actually is.
To my mind, this issue is a completely cultural one
and should not in any way be made into a religious one.
The cow has been culturally sacred in Indian culture
which is why in large parts of the country it was already
banned even before the current government was
formed. Now let me draw a parallel to the USA where
the dog is culturally important and so cannot be
slaughtered or eaten. However, in China the same
dog is a cultural delicacy would the proposition claim
that there is intolerance being practiced by Americans
because dog slaughter is banned despite the fact that
for Chinese it is a delicacy? Obviously no! Please do
take note that in areas where beef is an important
aspect of their diet such as the North East beef is
not banned. Lastly, if the case is made that this ban
has imposed by the allegedly intolerant current
government, let me point out that the issue of Beef Ban
has even been outlined in the directive principles of our

constitution and so by extention does the proposition

claim that our freedom fighters, our heroes too were
intolerant?
Let me end by stating that people have every right to
question the restrictions on eating beef afterall we are
a changing society and in a democracy they have a
right to question the government and urge them to
draw the ban back. But it is completely unfair if this is
used as an opportunity to bring religion into the picture
divide society and then try to pin it on assumed
perception of intolerance. That my dear friends is
completely unacceptable.
And so I hope I have convinced you that India is not
indeed an intolerant country and if not anything,
democractic spaces in the counry are actually
increasing as India progresses to a much more mature
democracy. Thank You