Let's first untangle two issues here.
1. Were the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists Islamophobes,
racists, and were thus responbsible for their own deaths?
2. Should newspapers around the world have republished the
toons by way of protest and upholding of free speech?
1. The first point.
What started as a trickle post the cold-blooded gruesome
murders has now developed into a stream. It is being steadily suggested that
the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are so bad, so offensive, so crass and mischievous,
that it is almost natural justice that the cartoonists should pay for it by getting
murdered.
In what Salman Rushdie aptly calls the 'but brigade', an
ever-growing list of apologists at work are trying desperately to indicate that
freedom of expression should carry a degree of self-censorship. Freedom is
sacrosanct—but—it must be constrained in the interests of social harmony or
some other goal unconnected to the primacy of individual liberty. (Read Vivek
Dehejia here: http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/h9dvjWNLrQUCmbkdQu1jCK/Charlie-Hebdo-and-the-but-brigade.html?utm_source=copy).
That is one slippery slope.
Freedom of Expression is the bedrock of liberal
societies, and is fiercely guarded by law in advanced nations in Europe and
America. With good reason. Modern Europe has been built on the gradual retreat
of oppressive traditions when faced with disbelief and mockery. To demand this
cease now, as some liberals do, is to spit in the face of three centuries of
history. (Read Mihir Sharma here: http://getpocket.com/a/read/811272535)
And freedom of expression cannot exist without the implicit
right to offend. For FoE to work, it must be absolute. (One of the reasons why India
isn't a liberal society, but more of that later).
It will be pertinent to remember that Charlie Hebdo did
not single out Islam. It followed a time-honoured French satirical tradition that
pulls no punches and backs out from no ridicule.
The left-wing satirical weekly has a history of pocking
fun at the prophet Muhammad but also at popes, presidents and France’s high and
mighty. It took digs at all forms of dogmatic thinking and sought to bring down
gasbags.
In fact, in the week the cartoonists were murdered, they
had taken a brutal dig at Michel Houellebecq, a well-known Islamophobe.
So why did Islam feel so threatened by the cartoons that
they had to silence the mocking voices? What sort of intolerant religion teaches
followers to answer a penciled mock with guns?
The Islamic militants who clearly wanted to impose a
medieval speech code on a liberal society, ironically forgot that the medieval Caliphate
they would want a modern society be transformed into was in itself a far more
tolerant society than the home of Islam, Saudi Arabia, is right now.
Respecting religions?
What sort of an animal is "responsible satire"?
Besides, I find this a disturbing logic. Who draws the
line on sand?
PK did not offend me. But PK takes a very mocking and
brutally satirical look at idol worship. Not only did Hirani use one religion
as the punching bag while taking perfunctory digs at others just for record, there
are scenes in the movie which convey what Christianity and Islam -- both monotheistic,
proselytizing faiths -- criticize Hinduism about. It questions the very basis
of what constitutes Hinduism (carefully tiptoeing around Islam). It did trigger
a lot of protests in India.
But, and this is important, the movie which takes a
massive dig at India's dominant religion, becomes the highest-ever grosser in
Bollywood. I imagine some Hindus might have seen and liked it or else this
wouldn't have been possible.
But what if tomorrow some misguided Hindu youths take up
guns (god forbid) against the makers of PK because the movie hurt their
sensibilities? Would we then sit down and evaluate whether the degree of insult
in PK was more than the degree of insult in cartoons? Would we then apply the
dubious logic of shifting the blame of murders on the victims and somehow
present it as though they deserved to be killed for mocking religion?
In this case, killers cease to be the violaters of the
most sacrosanct of all social contracts in civil society and become some sort
of vigilante justice system against all perceived hectoring of religious sensibilities.
If we are to justify and contextualize Charlie Hebbo
murders, we are letting loose the possibility of civilization's degeneration into
chaos.
2. The second point.
Absolutely. Because only a ruthless republishing of the
cartoons will serve to bring down the culture of taking offence that so plagues
religions now. There are two aspects though.
In countries where FoE has no legal heft, it could be
plain risky to carry the toons and tempt a lawsuit and subsequent penalty, as
in India. This is separate from the liberalness or illiberalness of the
society. One assumes that in such a country as ours, where religious nutters go
around wearing their faith on their sleeves, carrying Charlie Hebdo toons would
be tantamount to suicide, more so as the government isn't least bit interest in
uploading the freedom of expression. In fact, we have gone a step further and
banned all possible avenues of right to offend with Sec 295 A.
But in liberal societies like the US, it sure was inconceivable
why prominent publications like NYT, Washington Post or FT refrained from
carrying the cartoons. If the terrorists had wanted to drive home their code by
instilling fear of god into the opinion makers, they couldn't have succeeded
more spectacularly.
