Dr. Rao,

a very interesting article, and I will complement you on your balanced viewpoint, it is refreshing.  A few thoughts though.

<i>it is a human instinct to see and ensure every one is like him</i>

Is it a human instinct to submit to martyrdom for one's faith?  Many thousands of Catholics and later non-Catholic Christians went out to preach the Gospel by deeds and words among the various pagan communities and submitted themselves to martyrdom, this is definitely not possible based on a desire to have everyone like him.  I'm not sure if I've ever heard of such a practice among non-Christians, but perhaps someone will enlighten me.

<i>Invariably, the guiding religious leaders do not see or concede to better aspects in others religions and beliefs. This is close to religious intolerance.</i>

No, tolerance has nothing to do with yielding to another religion, it has to do with allowing people to pursue their own beliefs without undue imposition. 

<i>Religion has to be <b>personal purely</b> and men must have option and <b>liberty</b> to choose the path of salvation of their choice.</i>

By "personal purely" do you mean simply the liberty to accept or reject a particular religion, or something else, that perhaps might place an imposition on the duty of all members of the true faith to spread His message? 

With due regard to my prior point on "intolerance", choosing one's path in the hopes of salvation is no guarantee of finding that salvation, all religions must claim to be the truth in order to have even a semblance of internal logic, adherence is a requirement of salvation in these religions (with possible consideration for those who may not find this path through no fault of their own).  So if I believe adherents to another religion are not following the path that God has provided for their salvation, I am not intolerent, just following reason.  If I seek to force them onto the path of my own religion or otherwise prevent them from exercise of their rights, that is intolerance.  Spreading a message is not intolerant. 

<i>However in practice, such liberty does not exist in most of the societies and religion is forced on people and those born in a religion are prevented from crossing over. This can be termed as religious dictatorship in other terms.</i>

This is true where it's true, but I'mm not sure it's fair to say that this is the case in "most of the societies", unless we take the view that casual exposure to religious expression is somehow forcing religion on someone, as is the view of most liberals in the US.

<i>Over enthusiasm in missionary work also results in fundamentalism which has to be prevented</i>

Could you explain this please? It seems to me that enthusiasm is only a bad thing when it leads someone to violate the rights of another, an abundance of enthusiasm doesn't necessarily manifest itself this way (see my prior comment on martyrs). 

If you try to prevent "fundamentalism", isn't that intolerant?  I guess it depends on your definition of "fundamentalism".  While I consider Christian fundamentalists to be in serious error, I'm not familiar with significant cases where they violated the rights of others on any scale (Westboro Baptist Church aside).

<i>All our scriptures that form the basis for  individual religions are upright and  violence or  related problems in the missionary work  is the human limitations</i>

This is an overly broad generalization, while I know nothing of the texts held to be sacred in most religions, I know that in the Koran there are a number of verses which suggest if not order that non-believers should be mistreated or even killed.  I acknowledge that the majority of adherents do not subscribe to this, but the words are there.

Reido,

<i>The crusades used the same methodology, and basically most every war did same -- that is, the opponents each considered themselves to be on the side of Truth.</i>

Sorry that is innaccurate.  While abuses did occur, the crusades where fundamentally a defensive war to protect Christian pilgrims, and ultimately to <b>restore</b> the lands which had been usurped by the mohammedan invaders.

God Bless,

Matt