The past vice-president of India made some critical remarks about the the condition of minorities in India. It was on the last day of his office. He was trolled very badly for his comments.
I too agree that the timing was not so perfect. He should have said it much before or once he quits the office. If you leave aside that problem, you should try to judge the arguments, not attack the person. Today ad hominem (arguments against person) is the best way to attack anybody. When your vehicle hits with another vehicle, the villain is the one whose voice is lower. Is India became a den of the attack against the person?
We have a rich Indian tradition where many schools of philosophies existed simultaneously. They had debates and arguments, which even west can’t boast off. They were really arguments based; i think the best would be between Sankaracharya and some eminent Buddhist scholars. The land which has accepted diverse thinking and accepted debates based on it, is now on a different mode. The powerful, the rich, the louder, the mightier wins the argument. If you don’t have any means to win, attack his/her identity if such a possibility exists.
I am Christian needn’t mean all my arguments for Christians are wrong (surely a little bias may be there). A minority’s argument for minority rights needn’t always be wrong. The same is applicable for anybody else. We have the great TV channel anchors who knows who is right (better than courts, police and everything). They can shout louder to create facts and truths.
When we will stop attacking persons and give responses and reactions to arguments?
When we will stop judging a person as prejudiced when s/he defends her/his own community and start analyzing/judging the critical remarks made?