Our Groups, TAHZEEB and PAC, have hosted threads, that saw spirited
participation, dedicated to square and unqualified condemnation of the Paris
shooting. I am and our Groups are stoutly opposed to violence in any form, and
to promotion of discord and hatred in any manner.
See, for instance:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Tahzeeb/permalink/859955174025575/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Tahzeeb/permalink/861091283911964/
However, tragic occasions like the Paris carnage also serve as occasions
to objectively assess the issues involved. Involved today is the issue of the
nature and scope of freedom for free speech, and the manner of protest if
offended.
Personally I will not even contest the accusation that Muslims in general
are far more intolerant to any criticism of their faith than are most other
believers of organized and structured religions. And I will also readily agree
that their protest has often been violent.
Islam is the most recent of the major religions. Just as Christians have
learnt to tamper their opposition and protest over the centuries, Muslims, I
hope, are on the learning curve.
But are Muslims alone in restricting such free and unhindered speech? Are
there other forms of press censorships? Why just faith, how about holding to
scrutiny a culture, a political ideology, a state, its agencies and
machinations?
Muslims have been jailed for criticizing Israel and Zionism, and for
questioning the holocaust. A media mogul like Murdoch had to apologize for a
mere cartoon against the Israeli PM. Can you imagine a critical, no-holds
barred article, however truthful, and much less a derogatory cartoon, against
Bal Thackeray in Mumbai? TV channels and newspapers have regularly censored
articles against one or the other issue. Which issues do they regard as holy
cows may differ but censorships, restrictions did apply most of the time?
But how do the others protest? Do they go, kill the writers?Mostly no. But
often enough they preempt such publications, muzzle the press, suffocate
inquiry, and distort the truth. For a chronicler of times, this is no less
heinous.
Arguably no other major religious community has been subjected to such
turmoil and injustice lately as were the Muslims, perhaps due to historic
geo-political factors, specially due to European colonialism of the last three
centuries. Most of the territories we see burning with violence today have been
brutally exploited by the colonialists that today preach us tolerance and
co-existence. Entire civilizations have been extinguished from Australia to
Latin America by the plunderers, reducing the natives to heritage specimens.
Power play takes many forms. Violence is just one.
If Iraq’s was a completely unjust invasion and massacre, Afghanistan’s
was an excessive and misdirected retaliation to 9/11. Palestine – now a sort of
nursery for cradling Muslim terrorism - has been a gory example of European
immorality. The vulgar interference and manipulation by US and Europe in the
political affairs of the Middle Eastern people and their subjugation through
puppet regimes for the sake of oil and other business opportunities, has
generally set the Muslims globally against the West - literally shaping up a
sort of clash of civilizations.
Israeli / Zionist manipulations and sway on the international press has
often withheld the truth and distorted our perception. We are either given
half-truths, or sometimes completely false accounts.
Also, we notice a hugely imbalanced news coverage and disproportionate
emphasis on the European white. Boko Haram, for instance, is said to have
burned down an entire town killing about two thousand people this same week.
This news, however, made no more than a fine print. Contrast this with even the
coverage of the search of a missing accomplice in the Paris incident, and one
wonders how killing can be so different, how human lives can be valued so
disproportionately. Isn’t such racism an extreme form of violence, too?
Many an account has since appeared from questioning the very veracity of
the Paris incident as reported, to completely justifying it. More balanced and
reasoned responses have, however, agreed on the need to nail extremism, promote
tolerance, and also on nuancing the criticism of faiths and its leaders.
If Mohammed’s admirers commit a crime, caricaturing Mohammed is probably
not a fair thing to do. Deliberately hurting a community – and enjoying
ridiculing its scriptures and icons - for no constructive purpose, is another form
of violence. Ultimately, it is the intention and the sincerity of purpose that
determine the validity of the action.
Freedom of speech is not an absolute, unqualified construct, and must be
subjected to reasoned and dynamic restraints, quite like freedom of action,
movement, stay and ownership, of keeping and using weaponry etc. Consider for
example that ridiculing sitting judiciary, a mere state construct, is taboo in
most countries and is subject to contempt proceedings.
Here is an alternate point of view. More citations are welcome.
https://firstlook.org/…/…/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/
In Solidarity With a Free Press: Some More Blasphemous Cartoons - The
Intercept
The professed affection for offensive cartoons aimed at religions and
their adherents dissipates fast when some groups are the targets rather than
others.
No comments:
Post a Comment