Friends,
In the same ideological realm making consensus can be possible some time while
existing differences in execution can be shorted out under approved ideological
framework. If you look at the issue of secularism as define it ‘state without
religion’ and ‘politics without communal hatred’ or if you talking about
federalism of state; you can find same views within the like minded people on
the issue of protecting the interest of minorities (religious, linguistic) or
different nationalities living in minority. Vis-à-vis it is same, if you are
having opposite view.
Consolidation of different views to make consensus is not fascism if it was
built up on the basis of logic and people reached on same conclusion after
debating the issue. Sometime different views can be unresolved but you have to
provide opportunity bringing it again at the time of review. It is needed for
any sustainable institution for its discipline and smooth functioning. But if
you are imposing superiority, certain ideology, way of living, common code as
well as demolishing diversity and considering minorities as second citizen of
the country on the basis of different race or religion, suppressing the
minority views with help of strength…democracy can not survive in these
conditions and it will reach about to fascism with its own economy and politics
which is antithesis of democracy.
But I am also of the same opinion that… ‘Suppression is fascism. Liberation is
Democracy’Or the views expressed by Rabindranath Tagore on the issue.
Ambarish Rai
President, lok Sangharsh morcha
