Aamir Khan, intolerance debate and Goebbelian propaganda
Bollywood Actor Aamir Khan has reignited the intolerance narrative that appeared to have died down following the BJP's debacle in Bihar elections.
While speaking at the eighth edition of the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards, Aamir Khan remarked how his wife wanted to leave India because of growing intolerance in the country.
Following this, the social media burst in protest. Many people including a few from Bollywood criticized Khan's statements. Many showed their protest by boycotting Snapdeal that is endorsed by Khan.
The way things have unveiled in the past few months and considering how a narrative of intolerance has been built, it is quite clear that if at all intolerance is growing, it is only in the minds of certain people belonging to the left-liberal camps.
On the other hand, statistics clearly show that there has been no sudden surge in intolerance after the arrival of the Modi government in the center.
But what is more worrying is the fact that there is an attempt to silence those voices who are questioning the attempts of left-liberals to create this fictitious narrative of intolerance. When Anupam Kher organized March for India questioning the motives behind those returning awards and creating a false impression of intolerance, he was criticized for hampering the freedom of expression of those who returned the awards. In fact, his March for India was upheld as proof for growing intolerance.
Similarly, articles after articles are now being published saying, the fact that people are criticizing Aamir Khan over his comments show that there is growing intolerance. The shallowness of the argument is revealed if only one were to just stop a moment and think.
How come the freedom of expression is applicable only to those who are running this narrative of intolerance and not to those who are protesting it? If Khan has the right to speak about intolerance, then people also have the right to criticize his actions and urge Snapdeal to cancel their agreement with him. If Nayantara Sehgal has right to return her awards, then even Anupam Kher has every right to carry out March for India. Freedom of expression cannot be applied selectively.
Yet, this is what is being propagated in the media and by those in influential positions. The peddlers of this intolerance narrative appear to be aimed at creating an environment of fear among the masses so that people become insecure and hostile to each other. The peddlers appear to be trying hard to create a real situation of riot and intolerance by first creating a false narrative of the same.
What else explains their strategy of creating false narratives and portraying those who oppose this narrative as an example of intolerance? The liberal logic that is driving this intolerance narrative can be summarized thus:
- Intellectuals, film-makers, and other well-known people will claim that intolerance has increased. If there is no opposition to these assertions, if people do not protest against this, then it proves that 'intolerance' is indeed rising. Otherwise, someone would have protested.
- Intellectuals, film-makers, and others will claim that intolerance has increased. If some people protest against these assertions, if people become angry and outrage at fictitious claims about their country, then portray it as a living proof for the growing intolerance.
In other words, irrespective of how people respond, the liberal agenda of establishing that India is another name for intolerance is established. Though the Liberals claim to hate Nazis, they appear to have adopted the Goebbelian propaganda of repeating the lies again and again till they are accepted as the Truth.
It is high time that Indians woke up to this propaganda and recognized the Truth behind this intolerance narrative.