JOIN USPrime Minister Narendra Modi has done well to break his silence over the words and incidents of religious intolerance which have been increasing after the NDA government came to power. He has rightly underlined every citizen’s right to freedom of religion and declared the government’s determination to protect it. Though it was the minorities who were at the receiving end of the verbal and other attacks by leaders and members of some Hindutva groups, the prime minister did not make a distinction between majority and minority groups in his statement. He said that he would not allow any religious group to incite hatred against others. It was a declaration of a general principle which should guide all governments and should not have called for reiteration. But the fact that he was making the statement at an event organised by a church group might serve as a promise and assurance to the religious minorities.
The prime minister’s silence over hate speeches, the ghar vapsi programme and attacks on minority places of worship had created misgivings among the people. There was even an impression that they had the tacit support of the government and the BJP leadership. There were six attacks on churches in Delhi in the last three months and they were initially dismissed as robberies or aberrations. It was after the latest incident last week that the prime minister called the Delhi police commissioner for an explanation. The electoral setback for the BJP in Delhi and the international concern over increasing threats to religious freedom in the country may have forced him to take a clearer stand now. It is unfortunate if the commitment made by the prime minister is only because of a political exigency. Similarly, it is often argued that the government’s development agenda cannot be implemented if there is no communal peace and harmony in the country. It is also a wrong approach to religious freedom. Tolerance and respect for freedom are not attitudes to be adopted or discarded to suit political situations. They are also not means and instrumentalities to achieve an end, like development. They are ends in themselves and so it is the constitutional duty of the government to promote and protect tolerance and freedom of religion.
It must also be ensured that the prime minister’s words of assurance are translated into action. The delay in making the promise was unfortunate, and he could have been more specific. But a commitment to protect religious freedom has been now made in public and it should turn out to be real and genuine.