As a columnist and journalist, I have long got used to angry letters and criticism in general. The printed word has a lot of potency and anything in the papers is bound to attract those who hold another point of view. In fact, those who concur rarely write; it is only when the writer had provoked someone that he gets a response. From angry denunciation to mild rebuke, a commentator sees it all.

But criticising the article or its theme or its writing style is one thing; denouncing the person and his or her entire class is another. This is what I have seen more and more in recent times. Letter writers are not content to say "I do not like what you said." Instead, they declaim, "The article was typical of you and your tribe of elite, English speaking, westernised, secular journalists." As if that is not harsh enough, comes the final nail in the coffin: "You are a tiny minority, out of touch with the real India."

Last I checked I was an Indian, but I am always intrigued by who or what this "real Indian" is. Economically, it would be the man who is barely earning enough to keep his head above the water and could even be described as poor. If religion was the criteria, it would have to be a Hindu. And viewed politically, one would have to say he (and she too) would be largely middle-of-the-road. So does that rule me and my ilk out? If I was a Muslim leftist with a good income, would I not be a "real Indian?" Do middle-class Hindu radicals make the cut?

The implicit message in this criticism is that anyone who does not conform to the majority idea and ideology is somehow not real enough and also that if one is a minority of any kind, especially in terms of thinking, one is out of touch. This is dangerous and anti-democratic. Everyone has a right to their ideas and expression of those ideas. Being an urban, English speaking and yes, westernised person does not take away my right to be a as much a real Indian as my opposite number. As for secular, that is what the constitution describes India as, so secularists are actually very lawful people.

The worst word that can be used about anyone nowadays is "elite." It used to be a term of high praise; now it it is contemptuous.

It shows how far we have come, from a country that respected its thinkers to one that holds them guilty of being disconnected from the masses.