Yes, Free Speech. Yes, Still!
The Terror Attacks
The recent news from Paris, that of the beheading of a school teacher, dubbed as a terrorist attack by the French President, has shaken the world. It is one of the many instances in recent history where we have seen violence after blasphemous utterances, overwhelmingly overrepresented among the attackers being Muslims. A cruel joke, as one of my friends called it, is that the teacher was giving a class on free speech. But is this problem, that of being in fear of repercussions, often violent, of speech, only recent? No. Only a few days ago, it was the 5th anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo attack. The aggrieved party were, again, Muslim fundamentalists, who saw it fit to kill people for a caricature.
So, there’s one more question. Are these attacks limited to Europe? And the answer to this, as well, is no. In India, too, we have repeatedly seen how the declaration “Gustakh-e-Rasool ki ek hi saza, sar tan se juda” are fulfilled. We remember how a part of Bengaluru saw a riot-like situation where a police station was torched and vehicles were damaged. The police were issued shoot-at-sight orders, which led to the death of 2 people and about 110 arrests.
But, there was a closer to literal manifestation of that slogan, around a year ago, the murder of Kamlesh Tiwari. He was murdered by, surprise surprise, a Muslim fundamentalist for writing obscene things about the last prophet of Islam, in response to some obscene things said by another Muslim about some Hindu gods. All sorts of defenses are given for these murders. Even the condemnations are conditional and colored with apologia. More audacious are statements by popular leaders of the masses, like Asaduddin Owaisi, warning of dire consequences for words and images. And this man has been defending his younger brother for “hate speech”.
What I Think Is The Problem
This brings me to the issue at hand, one I have wanted to write about for quite some time, that is the absolute necessity of the ability of speaking our mind, irrespective of what others may think about it.
The origin of the problem discussed here lies in the fundamental conviction in the belief that certain words or expressions are so far out of the domain of social acceptability, that the only punishment it deserves is death. I mean, think about it, really. What could a person say, that would make you so angry or would so offend you, that you could reason your way into revoking their right to live?
If the line is as subjective as “whatever offends people’s deepest sensibilities”, I ask why stop at blasphemous speech or expression? If we are to regress to medieval standards, why not also expand the scope to, say, style of worship and prayer? Idolatry is highly objectionable to many, and not of their own volition, but backed by scripture.
We do not even need to go into mundane things like religious worship. Just consider being petty enough to moralize people about their personal life choices like whom people choose to love. Homosexuality would also incur the same fate, death. Should we, as citizens of a free society tolerate these palaeolithic morals and bend over backwards to accommodate these ideas, that go against not only the values that we gave ourselves as a secular, liberal, democratic republic in Independent India, but also the “timeless” principles that the civilization that underlies the modern Indian State is based upon? Or should these outdated values be reformed and be made more commensurate with the contemporary situation?
However, when it comes to these religious ideas, they originate in certain scriptures, scriptures that explicitly say that they cannot be changed. That being the case, what are we supposed to do?
What I Think Can Be Done
My answer is rather simple, except it is in the sense that it is simple, as in uncomplicated, and not simple, as in easy to implement. I think, and I claim no credit for coming up with this idea, we must strike a distinction between a faith, i.e. a set of ideas, and its practitioners, i.e. people who believe in such ideas. An idea may not be allowed to be reformed, through divine sanction, but people can most certainly be reformed. I do not subscribe to the notion that religion and people are entirely inseparable, or the notion that every follower of any faith is a living embodiment of all its tenets and commandments. In my opinion, with the right push and prod, people can reason themselves out of any bigotry they may otherwise espouse.
I hope, in my own stupidly optimistic bubble, that this sparks a discussion around exactly how radicalized some sections of the Muslims society have become. The onus on deradicalization lies with everyone. Moderate Muslims must take the initiative. They must come forward and offer a different pathway to people who might go astray.
And, since it affects us all, we all have a role to play. The least we can do is stop the urge to paint all Muslims with the same brush as a small section among them, i.e. the fundamentalist elements. They must be brought to the mainstream culture of India and integrated into it. They have to make certain compromises with respect to their religious ideas, since they are blatantly antithetical to the values of secularism or even something as basic as mutual respect or universal brotherhood of man.
And this does not appear to be a vain effort. One must keep in mind that the Triple Talaq Bill was passed with much less of uproad than would be expected, considering the Shah Bano experience. In fact, many women among the Muslim community itself welcomed the move. I personally, do not blame Modiji as much as I would blame others for trying to pander to Muslims to whatever extent he does so. That political capital is needed to make any kind of change happen in the Muslim society. He has to earn their respect and quell any reservations or misgivings they may have about him.
Patience Is A Virtue, Still
However, we must also realize that a top-down approach will not help. We all have a duty to give those adrift at sea a compass and lead them to the shore. I realize that this is not easy to do and that it certainly needs a lot of patience, but it must be done. Muslims must be given a fair chance, genuine chance considering what they have to leave behind and how much of a hold it has over them.
And one big prerequisite in order for that to become an eventuality is our willingness to talk to each other about really contentious issues like fanaticism, radicalism, calls to all sorts of Jihad (some might even include Love Jihad) or equal status for women in the society. And this has to be done gradually, by pushing boundaries. One has to realize that Indian Muslims are Indians. They are our brothers and sisters.
In order for any change to come about, we must continue to step over lines, but not so far as to alienate people where it is unwarranted. One does not help the situation by ridicule or disdain or insults. If we want to start any reform, it has to be done incrementally. And since we want others to stand the test of their ideas undergoing criticism, we must also reciprocate by letting others criticize our ideas as well. We cannot expect someone to be more open while we ourselves are not.
I am not talking about the legality of any such speech or expression, because it is an underlying assumption that the State must, at no cost, censor any opinion, no matter how uninformed, unorthodox or offensive it may be, as long as it is not an incitement to imminent lawlessness. What I am talking about is the embodiment of that principle by the people, by being more tolerant of what other people say. We do not have to take each and every opinion seriously, and there’s certainly no reason to take them so seriously that we feel the need to respond with violence.
Free Speech Is Still Of Value
That brings this essay full circle. The only way any real progress can be achieved is by being willing to be in a rather cohesive coexistence, where we actually speak to each other. In order for that, we all need to agree that free speech is absolutely indispensable for our society to function smoothly. Blatant insults or deliberate denigration of religious ideas or gods is collateral damage we must pay for it, in return for genuine criticism. Either way, anyone who honestly wants to have a conversation would not resort to such juvenile antics. It is off-putting and a huge red flag to indicate that such a person will add no value to the discussion and is best ignored.
But it is only via discussion and dialogue that we will find an answer to extremism. We must fight ideas with better ideas. This is how we desensitize people and make them more receptive to criticism. This attitude of not listening to what one doesn’t like is childish and points to a deeper problem in a society that it needs a paternalistic authority to protect them from evil words. I fundamentally disagree with such a worldview. I believe that if people are given the possession of all facts and ideas, they can and will make the right choice. Sunlight, as they say, is the best disinfectant. That is why transparency is of utmost importance. I believe in the ability of people to figure out what is beneficial for them and choose wisely. What we have seen in India, over and over again, is a kind of social messaging that sermonizes Hindus way too much, irrespective of whether or not it is warranted, while ignoring the actual intolerance shown by other (Abrahamic) religions, and that lopsided virtue-signalling is what irks them and they push back against even genuine criticism.
I really hope that this situation changes. The way to start is by embodying the principle of freedom of speech and expression by people, unimpeded by the force of the law or social pressure or anything else. I realize that this dream is a little too optimistic, at this point in time. As I often say on Twitter, I am a stupid optimist, that way.