India is now perpetually divided between two opposing sets of people: the outragers and the outraged. Both categories are interchangeable; often those who are outraged today, become outragers the day after. Current events suggest that there are a number of people waiting patiently for opportunities to get outraged. For those so inclined, it does not take much to trigger the feeling of outrage; a commercial advertisement, a debate on TV, a newspaper article or even a seemingly innocent statement would suffice. Umbrage-seekers are quick on the draw, getting into action the moment someone says or does anything that could even remotely be construed as contrary to cultural or religious norms. It is only the silent majority, the normal people, those not endowed with the strong emotions of either group, who have perforce to listen to the sharp rhetoric and bear the inconveniences caused by the frequent confrontations between the two opposing groups.

The widespread Indian diaspora, notorious for carrying their prejudices of caste, creed and region to their adopted lands, often contribute their extreme views to such divisive debates, causing acute embarrassment to both their hosts and the Indian Government. Reverberations of the Nupur Sharma controversy, that landed India into a piquant foreign policy soup, are still being felt, even after one month. According to Ms Sharma, she uttered words against the Prophet on a TV show because she felt outraged by some remarks made by a fellow panellist against Hindu deities. In turn, Ms Sharma’s utterances outraged a host of people. It is a matter of record that the net result of this vicious cycle of outrage was untold harm for many innocent people. The ill effects of l’affaire Nupur Sharma were many; after apologising to tin-pot sheikh doms and sundry banana republics, the Government had to face a deteriorating law and order situation at home. Even that was not the end of the story.

Vociferous defenders of Ms Sharma’s comments patrol social media; two judges of the Supreme Court, who did some plain speaking in Ms Sharma’s case have become the subjects of an unsavoury debate, with netizens publicly questioning their motives and a website collecting signatures for their impeachment. Though, playing out on a wider canvas, this is not the first instance where an unnecessary controversy has roiled the nation. The hullabaloo surrounding the conception, shooting and release of the magnum opus, Padmaavat (originally called Padmavati, the name being changed to placate the outraged), provides a case study of how politics of outrage plays out. To begin with, the film based on a fictional queen was alleged to feature a dream sequence, which was objected to by a Rajput caste organisation, even though the producer denied that the movie had such a scene.

Protests were organised in different parts of the country; during filming of the movie, a Rajput caste group vandalised the sets of the movie and some miscreants went on to slap the director, Mr Bhansali. Protests intensified as the movie’s date of release approached, a bounty of Rs 5 crore was announced for Mr Bhansali’s head and his effigies were burnt, theatres were vandalised, and caste groups threatened to chop off the nose of the heroine, Ms Padukone. Four States, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana, prohibited the screening of the movie. Probably, rather than a commitment to free speech, the need to protect a vote bank had weighed more with the State Governments. Padmaavat could only be released, late by two months, after intervention of the Supreme Court. The financial angle of the Padmavat controversy also deserves mention.

Produced at a cost of nearly Rs 2oo crore, with leading actors reportedly raking in more than Rs.10 crore each, a lot of money was riding on Padmaavat. The controversy made distributors vary of touching the film; there were allegations in the media that the motive behind the protests was partly financial. Similarly, according to media reports release of the movie, ‘Ae Dil Hai Mushkil,’ was facilitated by a financial settlement, between the producer and some politicians. Many cases of outrage follow an identical trajectory. Strident calls for boycott of a popular fabric brand were made, only because the fabric brand named its festival collection ‘Jashn-eRiwaaz’ which translates into ‘a celebration of tradition.’ Seemingly, outraged members of the public objected to the use of Urdu words in context of a Hindu religious festival. In the same vein, a popular jewellery brand had to withdraw an advertisement featuring an inter-faith marriage. Such instances reveal the intolerance simmering in Indian society ~ definitely a danger sign for a multi-cultural and multi-faith country.

Moreover, the fact that little was done to rein in fringe elements, and in all cases, it was the wronged party that had to retreat, portends ill for freedom of speech. Ideally, the Government should have acted against the trouble mongers, who probably had an ulterior motive in promoting unrest. Unfortunately, for the country, the politics of outrage has shifted public attention from bread-and-butter issues like runway inflation and rampant unemployment. Resultantly, to the exclusion of hunger, poverty and joblessness, current public discourse is steadfastly focused on religious and cultural differences between communities, and other similar divisive topics. The dangers of such a narrative are manifest; the communal genie, once out of the bottle, can wreak havoc and reduce our country’s stature to that of our neighbours.

Also, we would be faced with radicalisation of minorities – the problem presently facing France ~ probably, because France had done nothing to prevent attacks on religious beliefs. As a result, France has a very real problem of religious terrorism on their hands. One only has to remember the infamous Charlie Hebdo incident, when two al-Qaeda terrorists stormed the offices of the French satirical weekly, after the magazine published objectionable cartoons of the Prophet, to comprehend the consequences of religious extremism. Armed with rifles and other weapons, the two terrorists killed 12 people and injured 11 others. Several related terrorist attacks followed in which four more persons were killed. Thankfully, despite illiteracy and poverty, followers of many religions have lived in peace and harmony in India since centuries, and despite active instigation by our neighbours, we have had no real problem of terrorism, except in Jammu and Kashmir.

Therefore, preserving communal harmony may not be very difficult, only the persistent attacks and counter attacks on religious beliefs have to stop and sincere steps have to be taken by the Government to curb hate speech. As a lesson from the current imbroglio, while thinking of ways to regulate hateful content on media, the Government should direct all TV channels not to air any debate or programme on religious issues and, under threat of disqualification, TV anchors should be made to stick to the norms of decency and fairness in TV debates.

Finally, it is for the country’s leadership to decide which path the country would take ~ a path of confrontation with neighbours and disharmony amongst our own citizens over religious issues, or the promised path of vasudhaiv kutumbkam (all the World is our family) and sabka sath sabka vikas? Taking the latter path is much easier. Nelson Mandela had said: “No one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”