Viper

In my childhood, senior citizens, especially those who didn't work, men who had come home for vacation, would gather at rural tea shops to have a cup of tea, perhaps also some snacks in the morning. Everyone knew each other.

One of the notable things was that there would be at least one or two newspapers availed there. Many people would be reading different pages of the same newspaper. Once done, they would exchange the pages. While each person read each news story or told the summary out loud, there would take place some discussion about it. Most of the time, it was about politics or some societal event, or sometimes even some crime.

As time went by, a sign saying "No talk on politics" began to appear in such neighborhood tea shops. With that, open political discussions were banned. People read the news in silence and no public discussion would take place.

Is it religion, politics, or ideology that has roots in both these that divides people the most, these days? In any case, now, along with "No talk on politics", there is a ban that says "No talk on religion"! Only difference is that nowadays the venue for such discussions and bans got shifted from tea shops to WhatsApp groups. No matter how many bans are in place, people belonging to the majority religion in any society will continue to share their religious customs, rituals, arts, and beliefs without hindrance. Almost all the time those would be considered as the default! However, even the slightest hint of a different religious tradition by someone would immediately make everyone sensitive!

Occasionally, there would appear some posts with subtle political overtones in such groups. Still, they wouldn't be considered political propaganda, and are generally tolerated. In most societies, the least tolerated posts are those related to minority religious groups!

"A" is A. "B" is B. "C" is C. "A" is different from 'B' and 'C'. "B" is different from 'A' and 'C'. "C" is different from 'A' and 'B'. Is there anything wrong with the fact that such differences exist, and with acknowledging that differences exist?

Why is there such super-sensitivity to everyone's views and opinions on religion or culture, or even politics?

There is nothing wrong with the stance of 'I don't agree with you'. But, how healthy would be the stance that 'I don't agree with you. Therefore, I don't want ever to see your expressions of identity'?

It means 'I don't accept you as you are'. In such cases, not only will democracy be weakened, but it will also close the possibility of the innate sense of respect and fraternity that should come to exist in society. In short, we must realize that where expressions of identity are banned, the pace of discussion, dialogue and openness will be lessened and the viper of communalism and racism with heightened intolerance would brood in such social situations!