Why is there a lack of tolerance towards differing opinions in our society?

Let's start with Voltaire's famous quote: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." It was Voltaire who ignited the flames of the French Revolution, and the French Revolution itself introduced the world to the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity. The journey of modern democratic values began with the French Revolution. Democracy, by definition, entails tolerance for differing opinions. A democratic society will have a variety of thoughts, beliefs, and ideologies; however, democratic politics means reaching a specific goal and achieving a peaceful resolution through non-violent dialogue, discussion, and debate.

Here, tolerance means establishing the right for others to express their views and giving importance to their opinions. The attitude of "Justice is important, but the palm tree is mine" represents a denial of tolerance. In society, there are various opinions and paths. The more opinions there are, the more flowers will bloom. Mao Zedong said, "Let a hundred flowers bloom." The Cultural Revolution in China was based on this idea. A society that does not allow a hundred flowers to bloom becomes a stagnant pond. Over time, a stagnant pond turns into a decaying, polluted swamp. Clinging to a specific ideology is called fundamentalism. The ultimate consequence of fundamentalism is sectarianism. Instead of non-violence, violence is inevitable there.

Tolerance towards differing opinions is needed not only in social and political life but also in personal and family life. If we do not give importance to or respect others' opinions, conflict is inevitable. In philosophy, it is said that you can show the highest respect for others only by giving proper importance to their opinions. All religions and philosophies emphasize the importance of tolerance. One of the main goals of philosophy is to establish equality in society. And on what basis will this equality be established? On the basis of dialogue. A society without dialogue is stagnant. A stagnant society has no progress; it is static and confined, a heap of refuse.

In our society, state, and family, there has been a severe lack of tolerance towards others' opinions. There are many reasons for this, but the primary reason is the collapse of our agrarian society without the establishment of a modern bourgeois society. A bourgeois society has not been created here. Since the 1980s, some people have received a flow of cash through remittances, the establishment of small businesses, and commercial industries like garment factories. However, this wealth has not been accompanied by a relationship with knowledge and science. As a result, bourgeois development has not occurred, and values have not been formed. There has been no education or awareness about valuing others' opinions.

The need for tolerance towards differing opinions was absent in our society fifty or sixty years ago as well. This was because the society was stagnant and centralized, meaning it was agrarian-based. Generations lived their lives based on the traditional beliefs, customs, rituals, and thought processes of their ancestors. Due to being part of the same culture and economic system, they were compelled to remain within mutual understanding and agreement. In that sense, there was no compulsion to be tolerant, as tolerance was inherently part of that society's culture. However, that cultural environment has now collapsed. The collapse has occurred because we are now part of a global culture. The whole world has become a village, and even the most remote village is constantly exposed to various aspects of global culture. Political and cultural influences, along with many contemporary ways of life, are now penetrating our society.

Tolerance towards differing opinions is deeply connected with politics. Historically, before the partition of the country, politics in our society was not significant in the same way. In East Bengal, politics began to deeply penetrate the minds and consciousness of the people primarily after 1940, through the "Pakistan Demand" movement. For the first time, the Muslims of East Bengal demanded a separate state for themselves. Although there was politics before that, it was not a part of the common people's lives. The absence of significant politics also meant there was little debate or discussion, and without debate, the need for tolerance towards differing opinions did not arise.

Before the partition, the common Muslims and Hindu followers in this country were primarily farmers, fishermen, blacksmiths, weavers, domestic workers, and other low-income laborers. Many well-to-do households could not be considered bourgeois in the modern sense. Ordinary people had little connection with the state. Instead, their relationships were primarily with landlords, landowners, moneylenders, and sharecroppers. Most of their daily issues were resolved within the boundaries of their villages. The judicial system was also based on local panchayats. This means that except for criminal cases, they did not often face legal or judicial matters.

In society at that time, most debates revolved around religion and customs. Discussions about what should or should not be done were often resolved through verbal dialogue. These debates were less about solving state problems and more about passing time and entertainment. Without much work to do, people would engage in such discussions as a pastime. Their pursuits outside their own professions and homes were limited. After the partition, global modern philosophies, state ideologies, and moral principles began to gradually infiltrate the country. Bengali nationalism emerged beyond religious politics. Marxism, progressivism, materialism, and the waves of the Russian and Chinese revolutions made their way to Bengal. Middle Eastern religious ideas and European industrial, literary, philosophical, and political thoughts also began to influence the region.

The wave of global thought began to reach our region as early as the beginning of the last century, perhaps even in the early 19th century. However, it did not reach East Bengal as quickly as it did Kolkata. It is true that the infiltration of global thought into this country occurred somewhat later. After the partition, people in this country became more politically aware. Hence, our first renaissance era was primarily in the 1960s, which led to our independence. However, after independence, our society could not maintain the progress it had achieved. The reason is that the society could not reach any political stability. There were successive coups, counter-coups, and popular uprisings; the democratic journey was repeatedly unstable.

It's not just politics that is to blame; our cultural environment has been completely overturned as well. However, politics is always behind any culture. Yet, it seems that the people of this country do not fully understand what politics is. They perceive politics as merely voting every five years and the exercise of power. They have not realized that politics is an integral part of daily life for ordinary people. What has happened in Bangladesh over the past twenty years was, in fact, inevitable. Along with money, television, satellite dishes, the internet, mobile phones, computers, and Facebook have all entered people's homes.

Anyone can write whatever they want on Facebook-YouTube. Anyone can publish whatever they want. What an impossible madness makes people forget their sense of self-respect! Many people were intoxicated with a strange perverted joy by posting things that did not like one person. Along with this, artificial intelligence technology distorts anyone's image and creates a video, and the competition continues. As a result, social media like Facebook-YouTube in developing and underdeveloped countries become a place of revenge, unhealthy competition, which further weakens the social sense of absolute tolerance. There is a lot of good content on social media, but it gets very little exposure.

Globalization serves the interests of capital. The influence of capital is so powerful that it will penetrate, even if by force. It cannot be stopped. Alongside this has come neoliberalism and the free market economy. In a free market economy, both religious and morally questionable individuals are compelled to buy and sell in the same marketplace. While they operate within the same economic system, their beliefs and values often diverge, leading to inevitable conflict. Consequently, instability prevails all around. The lack of tolerance towards differing opinions is a common occurrence, but can a society survive without it? We have seen debates over atheism versus theism, nationalism versus internationalism, progressivism versus reactionism, and even controversies surrounding places like Shapla Chattar and Shahbagh. There are also arguments about what clothing women should or should not wear.

Debate is not inherently bad; in fact, it is beneficial. However, when debate turns into violence, it becomes dangerous. When does debate turn into violence? It happens when individuals can no longer express their opinions through reasoned argument. We have seen that many of our thinkers and intellectuals become intensely aggressive. They are more interested in belittling and disparaging others than in presenting their own arguments. As a result, instead of resolving disputes through debate, conflicts are often settled through violence. The prevailing instability in society has now spread everywhere. Ordinary people become easily agitated. Physical altercations on the streets have become a common occurrence. Facebook has also turned into a battleground. When someone dislikes another’s comment, they respond with intensely aggressive remarks, almost equivalent to a threat of violence. It has become difficult to discern who is saying what and who is doing what.

Recently, there has been a significant change in our political landscape. A long-standing dictator government has been ousted through a popular uprising. Some are calling it a revolution and many are attempting to bring about fundamental societal changes. However, it is important to remember that while a popular uprising can be achieved through the force of the masses, cultural change is not something that can be imposed by force. It requires understanding, education, and the development of refined taste. Although there have been previous uprisings in our country, they have not led to revolutionary changes. This is because the majority of the society's mindset and thought processes have not undergone a transformation.

The time for change has now arrived, and the opportunity is here. We must make the most of this opportunity through mutual understanding. This involves extensive dialogue, debate, and reading. We need to become acquainted with modern thoughts and philosophies and truly understand them. Simply jumping into action without understanding will be akin to self-destruction. Such impulsive actions will not advance us rather it will take us backward.

Author: Fiction Writer and Journalist.