The lynching of an Indian Muslim for allegedly possessing beef has received wide press. Although the Indian Constitution protects religious pluralism and freedom, there is growing international concern over the future of pluralism and diversity in India. Is the lynching incident an aberration in the country’s good record of religious tolerance and freedom? Is it an isolated case of vigilante religious violence or part of a sustained assault on the secular, liberal institutions by the Hindu nationalist (Hindutva) forces? Is it a mask for deeper social, economic and political conflicts arising from the desire of certain sections of society to exert their domination? Historically, in the dynamics of global religion-inspired violence, aggressive nationalism has played an important role, serving as an inspiration for and justification of discrimination against religious minorities. Nationalism often serves as psychological inspiration and rational justification for bigotry and intolerance. Its collective impulses have waxed and waned in various eras but, even today, there is no shortage of elements using the deadly cocktail of religious extremism and hyper-nationalism. Religious violence can also feed off existing inequity, powerlessness and exploitation in society, and the manipulation of these by self-serving leaders. Unfortunately, in the push for economic progress, political expediency often trumps national conscience. The focus on rapid development, swift economic growth and job creation can overshadow an upsurge in exclusive politics and divisiveness. Moreover, states and societies always contend with regressive forces in their midst that idealise some past era combined with the belief that the world has gone awry. These forces declare certainty and the correctness of their religious vision. They display complete unwillingness to compromise with those who disagree with them. In fact, they willingly assume the role of God’s ‘hit men’, defending their deity and its representatives against all perceived insults. They exploit a sense (actual or imaginary) of deprivation, injury, injustice and insecurity of the masses. Once unleashed, they routinely accept the desired ends as justification for employing unsavoury means. They thrive in the decline of liberal and secular institutions, religious polarisation and communalism. Civilisation has yet to completely evolve from the age-old assumption that it is right and justifiable to maintain religious supremacy by force and to kill heretics and dissenters if necessary. It is difficult for the opposite assumption to prevail that it is wrong and unjustifiable to use force and to kill in the cause of religion and, moreover, that religious tolerance and freedom are morally and politically desirable, and should be given effect in laws and institutions. Toleration entails at a minimum the willingness to recognise and accept a degree of religious coexistence and pluralism. Political freedom is equally precious and indispensable but this freedom with its related political rights is so closely tied to the existence of religious toleration and liberty that the two are essentially inseparable. Clearly, no country can simultaneously flirt with religious intolerance and democracy. It cannot concurrently guarantee freedom from coercion in the observance of religion beliefs while overlooking crimes against alleged blasphemers, apostates and now beef-eaters. The effort to improve religious tolerance can only be successfully delivered when society ceases to give fascist forces the opportunity to exploit the poverty and misery of the people for their own ends in the name of religion. Reacting to the lynching incident, Prime Minister Modi implored people to ignore political leaders who have jumped on the issue in recent days to win votes along religious lines ahead of the elections. Earlier this year, in response to a series of attacks on churches and a Christian school in Delhi, Mr Modi had unambiguously stated that fanaticism would not be tolerated and that his government would give equal respect to all religions, and would not allow any form of violence against any religion. In addition, he said that his government believed that there is truth in all religion and that the freedom to have, to retain and to adopt a religion or belief is the personal choice of a citizen. However, it seems that in light of the growing number of communal incidents more needs to be done to combat rising religious bigotry, violence and backwardness in India. Mr Modi, like the other son of Gujarat, Mahatma Gandhi, needs to offer a broad, tolerant vision for the country and its multi-religious society. He must issue a stern warning to emboldened Hindu extremists before their actions turn further progress on economic reform into a sideshow, with politics and divisiveness occupying centre stage. The stakes in India — present and future — are very high. After all, the freedom to follow the religion of one’s choice, or no religion at all, is one of Indian civilisation’s notable accomplishments, and notable treasures. One hopes that the rise in communal incidents will not deter the majority of Indian citizens of what they should prize most highly, which is religious tolerance and freedom. Which India will prevail: that of religious freedom or religious intolerance? Time will tell. The writer can be reached at shgcci@gmail.com