Licence or Right?

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his address to a group of Muslim girls in New Delhi on the occasion of the celebration of Milad-e-Sherif (birth anniversary of the Prophet of Islam) said that no one had the licence to ‘criticise or run down’ other religions. On the face of it, Dr. Singh’s words convey a secular and democratic principle that no one should badmouth any religion. Fair enough. In a decent civilised society, one is not expected to malign anything, let alone religion. But I feel rather disturbed by his statement that one should not ‘criticise’ other religions. Does that mean that one has the right to criticise one’s own religion?

Perhaps the Prime Minister’s good-intentioned sermon can be construed as meaning that criticism of a religion should come from within itself. If this logic is applied, a person belonging to Islam has no right to criticise practice of caste system in the name of Hinduism. The caste system, however, is constitutionally outlawed in India. But there are retrograde practices practised in the name of religions, such as polygamy allowed in Islam. Can women’s rights activists belonging to other religions criticise the practice of polygamy in Islam? If the answer is ‘no’, then all of us, Hindus, Muslim, Christians and those from other religions are heading towards a sanitised zone where everybody will strictly adhere to an unwritten code of self-censoring. If a religion demands that it be insulated against public scrutiny, it is all likely to have a set of beliefs and irrational practices that cannot stand the test of such a scrutiny. However innocuous Dr. Singh’s words may sound, they represent the voice of religious orthodoxy which is engaged in an all out battle against liberal secular democratic values that have surpassed retrograde value systems integral to different religions.

Dr. Singh’s advice also represents the scourge of cultural relativism that is often presented as intellectually fashionable in liberal democracies because it is defended in the name of multi-culturalism and based on philosophical postmodernism. Shorn of all its intellectual trappings, cultural relativism is nothing but revival of identity-based tribalism often repackaged as post-colonial and anti-imperialist quest of disparate marginalised social groups for authenticity. The idea of ‘universal humankind’, proponents of relativism argue, is just a concept of assimilation of the marginalised identities by the dominant identity. As author Irshad Manji, a critic of cultural relativism, says: "The entire world is steeped in politics of identity which compels talented individuals to conform to group thinking, to the religious, cultural and ideological correctness of their tribes.". This politics of identity highlights "different identities at the expense of different ideas", she argues in her conversation with Salman Rushdie who agrees with her. Rushdie debunks cultural relativism: "There is a sense in which multi-culturalism is an obvious fact. We live in multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-faith world...That is not going to unhappen...But when it [multi-culturalism] decays into cultural relativism, that is, if you like, the end of moral sense...If it is your culture to impose cliterectomy on women, it is fine..."

Treating all cultures as equal goes against the Enlightment values that are universal. If a religious doctrine or prescription, which is against the values applicable to the entire humankind such as gender equality, human rights, equality before law, is still being practised by a section of the population, that doctrine or prescription is subject of scrutiny and criticism in a democratic society. If we choose to adhere to the Prime Minister's opinion, we have to keep mum even when, for example, a prominent Muslim leader (as happened in Kerala) openly defends polygamy citing reasons that are equally outrageous to men and women. In a liberal democratic society, every one has the right to hold such views provided he or she accepts the right of others to criticise them. No one can blame you if you believe privately that your religion isthe best religion, that your Holy Book contains all knowledge and answers to all problems. You cannot expect these beliefs to be protected from criticism if they are announced in public.

The authority of the Church that held absolute control over Europe from fourth to the 13 th century would not have eroded if its dogmatism and intolerance had not come under repeated intellectual attacks from freethinkers and scientific inquirers. The Enlightenment and its system of universal values would not have come into existence if the Church had been given the privilege of being outside the purview of critical scrutiny. The Church was the primary target of the Enlightenment as it inaugurated a departure from the religious authority. A major weapon used by Enlightenment thinkers was freedom of expression, though the Church fought back with blasphemy laws. The defeat of the Church in that battle was decisive in shaping modern emancipatory value systems that have defined our modern concept of democracy. If somebody asks us to forgo what the humankind has won through centuries of struggles, not for us to give that up as if it is a worthless gift that does not have any utility today.

The Bastion Under Siege

We may not admit it. Nay, we won't, lest we deny ourselves even our firm foothold in what we believe is our last bastion already under siege: our commitment to what we think is our inalienable rights that maximise our freedoms and happiness. Perhaps it is a matter of time before our embattled citadel of freedoms is trounced by those who don't give a hoot about what is valuable to us, namely, our right to freedom of speech, right to mind our own businesses, right to happiness and our right to criticise. Yes, we don't admit that all of us are set to loose the battle, because that is as good or bad as admitting defeat when the battle is not yet over. So we can afford to pretend that our cosy little walled city of joy built upon our cherished ideals of freedom, democracy and reason, is not facing the prospect of any imminent fall.

Let us ignore the latest assault in the form of a violent protest against a Kolkata-based newspaper. We will continue to pretend that the arrest of the Editor and the Publisher of the The Statesman for publishing an op-ed article that has 'hurt' the inflammatory sentiments of a religion and its followers is not a serious issue to reckon with. The arrest was just a formality as Ravindra Kumar and Anand Sinha, the editor and publisher of the daily, were charged under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code that forbids "deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings". The arrest calmed the violent protests by some Muslim organisations in Kolkata against the newspaper that published the article in the first week of February. It was originally an article published in the British daily The Independent on January 28. There was no outcry in the Indian mainstream media against what they themselves know was a threat to the very raison d'etre of their existence. "If we were unable to fulfill this role [provide space to all view points], we would rather cease publication with honour than compromise our basic values." These words from a note issued by The Statesman in the wake of the backlash should have come from the collective consciousness of the mainstream media in India. But discretion is the better part of valour. Yes, we had better tell the truth in a language full of tact and circumspection, if that truth may hurt a significant number of people. That doesn't mean, we can argue by putting up a brave face, that we are surrendering our basic values. On the contrary, we are just pretending that we don't mind those values for the time being.

As I am keying in this post, I ask myself 'Who is this generic "we" that I think I belong to?' Can I belong to "them" who is opposed to "we"? Is it possible that both "we" and "them" are right? There is no absolute right or absolute wrong, I hear somebody telling me. Truth is just one side of the story or one among different stories, the voice tells me inviting me to "them". I am reluctant to accept the invitation, but I decide to go to their side for joining them to see their world view, which, as my relativist voice tells me, is just one way of understanding the world in which we live.

Seeing from this side of the divide, the bastion I left looks invincible, unassailable and well fortified. It is built upon strong foundations laid by Baruch Spinoza who has said that "pleasure is man's transition from a lesser state of perfection to a greater" and that the end of the state is "to lead men to live by, and to exercise, a free reason"; Voltaire who states in his Treatise on Toleration that "The man who says to me, 'Believe as I do, or God will damn you,' will presently say, 'Believe as I do, or I shall assassinate you': John Locke who has observed that the "end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom"; and Bertrand Russel who has written that "[T]he most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way."

There is comfort on this side of the barrier as it is full of certainties defined by the absolute authority of an absolute dogma. Relativism is a tactic. Firm conviction that 'God is on our side' is its hallmark and looked from this side, the other side, however strong it appears, looks divided, disoriented and always guilty. Democracy may be an alien idea on this side but there is no dearth of homilies meant for the other side: "Even in a democratic society with strong protections for freedom of speech and press, there are still limits that must be imposed", goes one; "as a society, we must take into account the sensibilities of others", blurts another. On this side, you are told what to eat, what to read, what cloth to wear, who we should talk to and who we should meet. There is always a Rubicon that you cannot cross, a belief that you cannot challenge, a thought that you cannot think...

Everything is black and white here. No doubting, no questioning, no debating. Free expression is permitted here as long as it doesn't challenge the dogma. Grand ideas that form the core values of the other side look ridiculous to this side. For those inhabiting this side, human rights, gender equality, freedom of thought and such other principles are not universally applicable ones. All human beings are not equal, but all cultures are, they say. Here they think that men have more rights than women and that men and women belonging to 'our' faith and culture are superior to those of other faiths and culture. Here they call for their culture that violates human rights to be treated as equal (if possible, even superior) to another culture that respects human rights as a universal value. Looking from the vantage point of certitudes, the citadel I have left to have a feel of its other side looks unsure of its own founding principles.

I am back to "our" citadel surrounded by "them" after the imaginative journey. It is clearly a matter of time before the night falls and those who guard the fortifications of freedom let their guard down. Have I already started hearing canons battering the walls built of bricks and mortar that we thought will withstand any assault? Knocks at my door? Have I already been gagged? Or is it just a nightmare? Am I afraid of people who believe that they have a monopoly on righteousness?

Are you scary? Sorry, I have no intention to make you scary. Let me conclude this with a funny story. Bjorn Atldax, a Swedish jeans manufacturer, has designed a jeans brand with an anti-Christian logo: a skull with a cross turned upside down on its forehead. He told The Associated Press that "I have a great dislike for organized religion."He says he wants to make young people question Christianity". He also told that that he has plans "to make something anti-Hindu because I think its caste system is awful." He said he was not considering any anti-Islamic designs because "there are already a lot of anti-Islamic sentiments."

Defending Free Speech

The 1979 English comedy film Monty Python’s Life of Brian was advertised in Sweden as “The film so funny that it was banned in Norway”. It is a religious satire that parodies the life of Jesus Christ as it tells the story of a young Jewish man called Brian Cohen who lives in the same era and location as Jesus Christ and is mistaken for the Saviour. A British magazine describes the film as the greatest comedy film of all time. The film has many hilarious scenes that can be dubbed blasphemous by Christians. After its release, the movie was banned for some time in a few countries like Ireland and Norway and some States in the U.S. But there was no street protest, no flag burning, no embassy attacks and no killing. In February 2007, the Church of St. Thomas the Martyr in Newcastle upon Tyne in England screened the film in the church, defying the opposition from some Christian groups. Rev. Jonathan Adams, one of the clergy of the church, defended the screening saying that the film was not mocking Jesus but highlighted hypocrisy and stupidity that can affect religion.

I often feel that our world would have been lot more peaceful and happier if there had been more people like Rev. Jonathan Adams who advocate and tolerate free speech that is so fundamental in secular democracy. Unfortunately, we have lot of clerics and priests who will incite mobs to attack expression of personal freedoms. Zealots as they are, they cannot be expected to behave differently. But I can’t understand when even sensible and secular-minded people argue that religion is outside the purview of criticism and satire in works of art and literature or in public discourse. Why should religion be given such a privilege? Should religion and religious issues be viewed as off-limits or too sacred to be satirised or criticised?

A secular democracy cannot function without a collective awareness among its adherents that their beliefs, however passionately they may hold them, are just opinions in the realm of public discourse. No belief or opinion or view is marked out as issues excluded from criticism or ridicule in this realm. You cannot expect such a realm of openness and debate in a country such as the erstwhile Soviet Union where Communism was the official ‘theology’ and where any expression of opinion or view that was against the official political dogma would be treated as blasphemous. Those who argue that religion should be respected and kept out of this realm of public discourse are tacitly acknowledging the privileging of religious dogmas when they say that nothing should be said or done that will hurt the sentiments of believers.

Like any other set of ideas and views, religion is not outside the dominion of public discourse. In fact, it is too important a subject to be excluded from public debate and scrutiny. If my neighbour gives away his under-aged daughter in marriage and justifies it in the name of his or her religion, I cannot simply say that it is a purely private issue. It is a social issue no less important than any other issues that come up for public debate in various forms, as a subject of satire, of public scrutiny and of critique. Should I respect the call for ban on stem cell research by some groups of believers and turn a blind eye to the fact that the research will have a great impact on treatment of ailments such as Parkinson’s disease? Should I ignore the social implications of religious beliefs on a naïve argument that I should not hurt the sentiments of the faithful?

A secular democracy allows room for dissent. If what I say can be proved to be defamatory under the secular law, I can be prosecuted and punished. But calling for my death is stifling free speech. The argument that we should censor ourselves if what we want to say or do is going to hurt the sentiments of believers is worse. If respect for established belief systems had been the thumb rule of every society, there would not have been much social progress.

Here is a quote from the satirical movie directed by Terry Jones that Rev. Jonathan Adams has allowed to screen in his church:

Wise Man #1: Ahem

Brian’s Mother: Oh!

(She falls over in chair)

Brian’s Mother: Who are you?

Wise Man #2: We are three wise men.

Brian’s Mother: What?

Wise Man #1: We are three wise men.

Brian’s Mother: Well, what are you doing creeping around a cow shed at two o’clock in the morning? That doesn’t sound very wise to me.

If anybody feels that his or her sentiments are hurt by this satiric dialogue and other similar scenes in the film, blame the sentiments that are so vulnerable to be hurt.