Civility

Each time I read about the white man's burden, that unpatriotic part of me is glad that there was a time when we were thought to be uncivilized, our philosophies condemned as medieval and our cultures denounced as barbaric - if it weren't for the British colonization of India at the most appropriate time possible, we would probably never have accepted the idea of equality and rights. Hinduism in particular, has a history of contradictory ideals and theories all being housed under the same ever-expanding roof; a man who once broke away from mainstream Hinduism to establish a new religion was eventually declared an avatar of Vishnu himself. How wonderful for a skeptic to be called a god. Hinduism has long been adapting and mutating to include aspects of the dominating culture / religion of the time; Islamic rule saw the transformation of saris to purdahs, English colonizers added to that a touch of blouses and petticoats, because modesty in a woman can never be overdone. The fact that we were not white gave Europeans the excuse justifying conquest.

Eventually, our foreign-educated lawyers realised the hoax that was being pulled on them and decided that the best way to beat the evil-master was to use his own tools against him. What followed was captured only too well in history textbooks as the struggle for Indian independence. But the best thing we got from this entire deal was the idea of non-violence; the only thing guaranteed to ensure that there would be no counter to the protests. Rule 1 of trying to destabilize a government - never give your opponents the tools to criticize you or undermine your goals. Thankfully though, they kept the better ideas brought in by the West after asking them (very politely) to get out. I dread to think of what might have happened if Gandhi was an intolerant Hindu fundamentalist. He did have some rather unusable ideas on celibacy, but we may take comfort in the knowledge that the outcome of his leadership was pretty good. 

Unfortunately, the world seems to be full of people who believe violence is a justified retaliation to anything that is not approved of. Indeed, it is the job of every government to ensure that no individual is permitted to act in any way that may be offensive to anyone else. If a large number of us find the colour pink revolting, we are justified in objecting to a man painting his house pink; my goodness, make sure completely unconnected people are murdered to show this rebel our intolerance - surely it will let the infidels know that they must join the anti-pink-squad. It's funny to think we shared a political history with some of them. Indeed, calling for the head of a blasphemer is a wholly acceptable idea, but while you're at it, as Portia would put it, you haven't accounted for any drops of blood spilt in the process. The reason quoted for the warrant is apparently to demonstrate that Muslims will not tolerate insults to their religion. By that, are we then justified in refusing to tolerate your acts of violence which insult our belief in the inviolability of life and liberty, ideals that we hold dearer to us than everything else?