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."
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."
1 comment:
Hindus themselves need to fight parochialism and the caste system, which is a worse scourge than apartheid. Ironically, the beneficiaries of the caste system, namely, the Brahmins have become the victims of backlash from the backward communities.
Government plays the villain by continuing with the colonial legacy of divide and rule. They dole out reservations based on caste, not on economic backwardness, reminding the society of their hierarchy, never letting us forget that we are citizens first, not a caste based group of people.
Post a Comment