Sen, a distinguished economist and a Bharat Ratna recipient, emphasised that intolerance of dissent did not start with the "present government". This period has only added substantially to the restrictions that already were, he said.
He also called for a reexamination of the need to continue with "remnants" of the the colonial rule such as Section 377 and Section 295 A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which he said impose "unfreedom" on people.
"The problem is not that Indians have turned intolerant. It's on the contrary. We have been much too tolerant even of intolerance. When some people are attacked by organised detractors they need our support.
"It's not adequate for us to be offended by their attack. We need to do something about it. This is not happeing adequately right now. And it did not happen adequately earlier as well," Sen said.
More From This Section
Sen, the author of seminal works such as 'The
Argumentative Indian' and 'The Idea of Justice', stressed it was important to "understand the reasons" if one feels offended.
"Ask yourself why are you offended?...We are easily offended when offence becomes a major industry," he observed.
As citizens, Sen said that Indians should "move away" from blaming the Indian constitution for what it "does not say." "We should not allow colonial penal codes that impose unfreedom to remain unchallenged."
"The courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have good reason to examine comprehensively whether India is not being led seriously astray by the continuation of the rules of the Raj. Not just Section 377 but the totality of the penal codes," he said.
Noting that Indian media has a record of standing up to intimidation, Sen said that most Indians, including those classified as Hindus, have no difficulty whatsoever in accepting different food habits.
He said that small but "well organised" political groups, who are ready to jump on others, want to propagate beliefs and sentiments that have to be "protected from sunlight".
Sen said that painter MF Hussain, who had to spend his later years in exile, was "hounded out" of India by relentless prosecution led by a small but orgainsed group.
"In that ghastly event Indian government was not directly involved but it could and should have done more. The government's complicity was more direct when India became the first country to ban Salman Rushdie's Satanic verses," he said.
"As Indians we have excellent reasons to be proud of the tradition of tolerance and plurality but we have to to work hard to preserve them...More is needed from courts and from the people at large," he said.