Well, I'd say Narayan is right in many ways, but he lacks one very important aspect in his views. And it's the fact that being tolerant and non-violent in India has lost it meaning, simply due to its (or rather that of the two phrases) misuse by the corrupt political class. It's used only when somebody is about to be exposed or to loose their GADDI (power). He may be damn right in the Singapore context, but he misses one simple fact. Singapore won't allow the kind of non-sense that many fundamentalist outfits are known to do in India. I, myself as a person who is secular to the core, would not agree with Narayan's view, cause being silent against the issues you known are causing damage to your society is a greater sin....one can debate about the way the opposition to all such issues should be made, but the disenchantment and its expression can not be questioned.
