That’s pretty much the same reasoning in this case… The [last time][1] this happened, the Hindutvas trashed a research institute. This is the same whether it’s majority or minority.
[1]: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute - Wikipedia[quote=“billstewart, post:36, topic:22919”]
And occasionally even Buddhists, who are even more tolerant than Hindus, have occasionally been violently oppressive, such as the current violence against Rohingya Muslims in Thailand, or the Sri Lankan ethnic conflicts.
[/quote]
Well, those are different countries (I think Rohingya Muslims was a Burma case, btw). I agree with your fundamental point here; fundamentalism is everywhere.
But in this case, it’s not an ethnic or economic conflict. A scholar has made some statements about their religion which doesn’t fit into their narrative, so they want to stamp out the dissenting voice to maintain control over the narrative.
A scholar has made some statements about their religion which doesn’t fit into their narrative, so they want to stamp out the dissenting voice to maintain control over the narrative.
Usually that sort of thing is accomplished by writing and publishing an academic counter narrative, though not everyone has the intellectual capacity to write a compelling critique. Book burning, riots, death threats and other “barbarian” impulses allow the disadvantaged equal say in our culture. A ban on this sort of activity would be most discriminatory.
To the fundamentalists, this isn’t about counter narratives. It’s about suppression and control. They don’t want us to be able to read both sides and decide; they want us to only be able to read their side.
I think they exist everywhere; in some places, they’re more powerful. In India, we’ve unfortunately given them too much power…
