Protest These Protests

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right tosay it

Voltaire

***

It’s astonishing that the liberal intelligentsia in thiscountry, which saturates us with its opinions on all topics that catch theirfancy, have so little to say on what’s going on in Europe for the last fewweeks. I refer of course to what is being called the CartoonControversy. Unfortunately,the issue is not funny at all. Now the 'protests' are spreading to India - in J&K and New Delhialready. The Indian media, with some notable exceptions, seems equallyunresponsive. But ignoring the issue will not make it go away. It needs to beconfronted head on as many liberal societies in Europe are trying to do.Remember, no British newspaper published the cartoons, yet there were Islamicextremists on the streets of London chanting "Death to Infidels."

Understandably, there are religious sensitivities involvedhere. One could question the wisdom of such a provocation in these times whenMuslims, as a community, already feel targeted by the West. But, as a cursoryglance at the timeline available from the bottom of this page would reveal, this is not a case of spontaneous publicoutrage, but an orchestrated campaign. Yes, there are those who actuallyfeel offended, and their hurt feelings are being cynically exploited by theextremist fringe. It would seem that there are forcesout there who are hell-bent on ensuring that a 'clash of civilisations' doestake place. Viewed in that light, those rousing the rabble, as it were, areactually only reinforcing the stereotype of Muslims as an intolerant and violentlot, doing far more harm to the innocent Muslims, those who actually hold theirfaith in deep esteem.

First, yes, there is a disconnect. There is the whole European Enlightenment history which rests on questioning, making fun, mocking and even offending the various religious orthodoxies and sensibilities. The Muslims, on the other hand, argue that as per tradition, there cannot be any depiction of the Prophet at all, leave alone in such a derogatory and offensive manner. Surely, yes, the Muslims are entitled to register their protest, even as they need to be pointed to such historical iconography, art and imagery depicting the Prophet that's very much extant. A simple Google search is enough to show up enough illustrations, with many of these in reputed museums and libraries.

Arguably, the so-called cartoons could well be considered inbad taste or even "offensive". One of them apparently shows Prophet Mohammad wearing a headdress shaped like a bomb, while another shows him saying that paradise was running short of virgins for suicide bombers.But let's pause here. These may not be funny cartoons, but they do provide somefood for thought. Surely the sort of protests they have elicited begs the question: what is more offensive? When the name of Islam is misused and innocents, women and childrenincluded, are slaughtered by those brainwashed into believingthat their reward would be such and such or when a cartoonist, in howsoever anexhibition of bad-taste, mocking just those sort of terrorists who employ suchmethods? Could it not be argued that the one being mocked is not the Prophet ofthe true believers but the false one of those who misrepresent him? Or ifone wished to object, surely that could be taken up withthe newspaper as such without involving the whole country, and now theworld, into it?

To give in to bullying under duress for the questionable -even arguably, grievously misguided - acts of one publication, would be suicidal for anysociety that values free speech. Can we imagine what the result would be if anygroup of people took to protesting against any cartoons they found or claimedwere "offensive"? Where would we stop? First we banned the Satanic Verses because it"offended" some Muslims who hadn't read the book. And yes, then laterwe also banned aSahmat exhibition based on the Jataka tales that showed Ram and Sita as brotherand sister. Surely, yes, we could question the motivation, intelligence or thewisdom of such acts of provocation, and even disagree with them, but can one'sprotest not be registered without intimidations, and issuing of death threatsand involving the whole country and the world into it? Or take the various playson the assassination of Mahatama Gandhi because the Congress party objects or books on Shivaji becausethey allegedly offend some Maharashtrian sensibilities that get routinelybanned. Where is all this supposed toend? How far can a liberal, secular society bend to accommodate the dictates ofextremists claiming to be acting on the outraged feelings of the innocent truebelievers?

The reason why nearly 30 newspapers in 13 European countriesdecided to republish the impugned cartoons is not to insult Islam but to challenge what they see as a trend towards self-censorship for fear ofintimidation. Satire, criticism, and poking fun at the presiding deities - bethey religious, political, or cultural - is the essence of a liberal, tolerantculture. Freedom of expression is too precious to be negotiated at the threat ofguns and violence. And humour has been a very effective instrument with whichindividuals and societies have historically overcome even the strictest regimesof laws and taboos.

In fact, even as the Islamic extremists have gone on rampage,there is an art exhibition currently on in London titled "Was JesusHomosexual?" One of the exhibits carries the inscription "God Loves F******!"and Virgin Mary is depicted as a crack whore in the other. There are many whomust be feeling deeply offended by these exhibits. Yet, the creators of thisartwork have justified it by arguing that the aim of art is to provoke andquestion one’s own deeply held assumptions. Indeed it is but it seems itapplies only to non-Islamic faiths.

Yes, one could argue that not many mainstream newspaperswould take on religious figures, particularly in these tense times. But here the issue transcendsthe wisdom ofpublishing those cartoons, and is about the right of free media to publish them without being threatened.Sure, there could be limits to free speech, and different societies havedifferent concepts of it anyway. In this, Europe which was at the forefront ofEnlightenment is having to revisit the dark ages of India in the 80s. This is Satanic Verses revisited. A bunch of mullahsdecide what’s worthy of being read or seen and what’s not, and the extremists taketo the streets, making the majority of them believe that their faith has beenviolated, abused, insulted. The government bows to their demands and the cycle continues asextremism only begets extremism.

Today, there are voices of protests andviolence raging in the Middle East. Those who are shouting the loudest, quietlysit by when the Arabic media routinely insults Jews and thrives on all kinds ofconspiracy theories that pass for journalism in the region. The way dissentersor critics of Islam are treated is alsosymptomatic of a larger malaise. Be they Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasreen or morerecently, Irshad Manji -- a lesbian Muslim woman writer who hasdared to question Islam’s treatment of homosexuals now has to walk around witha posse of bodyguards. Is this the best way to negotiate our differences? Ofdealing with minorities?

Embassies are being burnt in the Middle East, protests havereached the streets of J&K and New Delhi but instead of confronting the real issue,which is that there cannot be double standards on the issue of Free Speech, such is the level of ignorance among the provocateurs that it is notbeing realized that in a free society the press does not work for the government.

Common sense demanded that thecartoons be seen as actually strengthening the faith of the peaceful andcompassionate believers because they only targeted the terrorists and theirmethods. And also pointed to the perception problem that Islam faces in theworld today. But instead of containing the violence, it is being sought tobe spread, it is being advocated openly. During a protestrally last week in London, placards read "Massacre those who insult Islam,""Europe you will Pay, Fantastic Four are on their Way," referring to thefour British-born suicide bombers who killed 52 people in London on July 7 lastyear. Such extremism completely overshadows the moderate voices in the Islamiccommunity. A Jordanian editor asked Muslims to be reasonable and wrote in hiseditorial, "What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures - orpictures of a hostage taker slashing the throat of his victims?" He wasimmediately sacked.

But the fact that he stood up, risked sacking and worse,should be seen as a sign of debate and introspection that seems alreadyunderway in the not talked about private spaces. It is time to strengthen thatdebate. Of discussing traditions and making the point that even if the internetwere to be filled with all sorts of sacrilegious and blasphemous nonsense, asany visit to any 'discussion area' of websites would readily reveal, it is noloss to the faith or the strength of the religions being maligned. Perhaps weshould realise that with each such transgression, the press would gradually chipaway the intolerance. Look at the post-Enlightenment Europe and the way aPassions of the Christ or a Da Vinci Code do not ruffle many feathers. MontyPython have perhaps immunised the believers from taking offence. Only becausecaricaturising Christianity which once led to bloody crusades has becomeroutine.

But for now the extremists have been successful in forcing the BritishGovernment and the US State Department to repudiate the publication of thesecartoons. It is ironical that the two states at the forefront of the fight tobring democracy in the Middle East have been the first to challenge the bedrockof any democratic society, freedom of expression. Islam is a dignified religionas are all others. All our religions appeal to the highest aspirations ofhumankind. But when we allow them to be dominated by the extremists, we do ourreligions and their founders greater dishonour than when we poke fun at them.

Yet, on this current controversy, the silence of the majorityof those leading protests against sundry bans is deafening. Is it because if this issues comes in to the public domain, passionswill start running high? Is this the fear of being threatened and bullied by theextremists? If so, it’s a sorry state of affairs. The silence of the liberal intelligentsia will beself-defeating. How would they next be able to protest if another religiousgroup were to suddenly get up and stridently demand more bans? What if apolitical party's supporters started giving death-threats because their leaderhad been caricaturised in a cartoon?

Avoiding sensitive issuesjust because we don’t want to rock the boat will only lead to self-censorshipwithout any bounds. A threat to the freedom of expression is particularlydangerous for minorities. How can my speech be free if yours is so expensive?We better start discussing it first if we want to confrontit.

Harsh V. Pant teaches at King’s College London.