Disrespect is an unfortunate human trait and particularly when it is expressed towards the gods and faiths of fellow human beings. Recent months have seen a tumultuous rise in this phenomenon. Nupur Sharmas offensive response to Tasleem Rehmanis hurtful words about Lord Shiva on an Indian TV news channel was directed at the most revered Prophet of Islam. It was a competitive verbal diatribe: I am hurt, so I will hurt. It led to protests, violence and cases being registered across the spectrum.

Ancient Indian traditions of vada encourage mutual respect as an essential element of debate, while allowing for gentle and polite questioning: If we dont question, how do we grow or resolve or reform? This spirit of respectful probing also extended to the religions and gods of all people within Indic cultures. It is proving difficult in the debating square today. Why?

Nobel-prize-winning mathematician John Nashs game theory comes to mind. Remember the movie A Beautiful Mind, starring Russell Crowe? It was based on Nashs extraordinary life. Nash essentially laid out how rational decisions are made in strategic interactions. The key insight: People calculate the cost-benefit accruals of their decisions, but not in isolation. They also keep in mind the cost-benefit returns to others playing with them.

India is currently facing this knotty issue of competitive insults to religions. Or gods. Or prophets. Game theory will hold that if the gods/prophets/scriptures of one religion are treated with respect and those of another are treated with noxious disrespect, it will create a state of disequilibrium. Equilibrium the Nash Equilibrium in game theory will be re-established either if the gods/ prophets/scriptures of all religions are treated with equal respect, or if they are treated with equal disrespect.

This is not the prevalent situation in India. Indeed, it is not so in much of the free world. In the West, one can see the untrammelled disrespect of the radical woke Marxists (who sometimes self-identify as left-liberals) for Christianity. It offends me, and Im not Christian. At the same time, these radical woke Marxists treat with extreme respect religions that they either favour or fear wokeism and Islam. In India, the situation is similar: Radical woke Marxists routinely criticise Hinduism. Recently, lewd remarks were made on the sacred Shivling by journalists (from leftist and Twitter-based fact-checking websites) and politicians (mainly from West Bengal and Maharashtra). Such noxious comments have pained and offended innumerable Hindus. At the same time, these same people called for the head of Sharma for her noxious words on the Prophet of Islam.

The common theme is that the religion of the majority in the land Christianity in the West and Hinduism in India is attacked. It is easier to gain traction when hitting out against the dominant majority group from an appropriated position of self-victimisation. But this rule does not apply in Islamic majority nations/states (think Pakistan or Turkey) or woke majority nations/states (think California).

Going forward, this situation can move in two directions: Either the radical woke Marxists and radical Islamists treat all religions with equal disrespect/respect or believing Hindus in India and believing Christians in the West (and even developing countries like Nigeria) eventually begin using the same tactics against those who insult their revered figures, such as police cases in India under Section 153A. The world will then be staring at a spiralling cancel culture, destruction of careers, police complaints, court cases, and sometimes even violence. On all sides of the debate. Not just one side. Shockingly, the tragic blasphemy killings of Kamlesh Tiwari in Lucknow (2019) and Kishan Bharwad in Ahmedabad (2022) are freely used as examples by radical Islamists to spread fear, even as their radical woke Marxist Indian allies airbrush these from mainstream media. You, dear reader, may not even be aware of these two killings. And now we have Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur.

The Nash equilibrium will be achieved in one of these two directions. However, as a follower of Dharmic traditions, I am unhappy with both these equilibriums. Respectfully questioning human pursuits, including religions, must be enabled, indeed nurtured. But in doing the latter, why insult the gods, prophets or rishis? Why not practice civility and politeness?

There are some among all religious groups, including Muslims and woke Marxists, who present an alternative model. They protest if their religious/revered figures or scriptures/doctrines are disrespected. But their demand for respect is not a one-way street. Even Indias Permanent Representative to the United Nations, T S Tirumurti, has been making a case for treating phobias against all religions equally.

This model can bring peace and is certainly preferable to senseless and diabolical violence (and even situations akin to civil war). But even this alternative model is not ideal. For peace may prevail but modernity and a scientific temper would be difficult to build. The latter begs a rational, inquiring spirit.

All religions can be treated with respect and also questioned and reformed with gentle nudges, as propounded by Richard Thaler. Casteism in modern Hinduism can be quizzed using the sterling words of the Bhagavad Gita; misogyny in modern Islam can be questioned using the inspiring example of Lady Khadija, and child abuse in the Church can be interrogated using the true message of Jesus Christ. This is not impossible to achieve. Let us confidently push back against radical woke Marxism and radical Islam.

Let us take conscious charge of the movement towards a healthy equilibrium. Something our dharmic ancestors taught us.

Roy is a writer and has most recently co-authored Dharma with Amish

More:

There is only one solution to the problem of competitive insults to religions - The Indian Express