A look at the world of politics, statecraft, diplomacy and books
The attack on the editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo the satirical magazine which won international notoriety for publishing offensive cartoons pertaining to Mohammad, the founder of Islam. Two or three heavily armed men stormed into the building by forcing the woman at the gate to enter the access code of the high security building and fired 37 rounds of ammunition from Ak 47 rifles before making their escape they shot dead a critically injured policeman. That the attack was well planned and meticulously executed can be gleaned from the flawless getaway, escape from the scene into the woods surrounding the Parisian countryside. The French President, Francois Hollande declared that the killers would be hunted down and that the attack on the journalists was an attack on French Laws which guaranteed "freedom of expression". The French, American and Western media have framed the attack in terms of the opposition between the liberal West which has the civilized approach to life and liberty and the barbaric totalitarian jihadists who kill in the name of religion. This way of framing the issue privileges the superiority of the West which is allegedly governed by "laws" and not "men".
Charlie Hebdo was known all over the world for its irreverence and indeed hostile caricature of non White/ Western cultures, religions and personalities. It may be pointed out that when one of the early satirical magazine, a predecessor of the contemporary, Charlie Hebdo, published a spoof on Charles de Gaulle way back in 1970, it was banned and all copies of the magazine forfeited and destroyed. It is therefore clear that the French claim that they respect Freedom of expression rings hollow. As long as the target of attack is not European or White then it is OK. This seems to the limits set to freedom of expression in France. Can the right to offend be subsumed under the right to freedom of expression.
The western world has seen the disenchantment of the sacred and in most parts of the world people do regard certain personalities, beliefs and symbols sacred and beyond ridicule. Unfortunately in India where political discourse is derivative and based on the pretentions of the western world there is a tendency to equate the freedom of expression with the right to offend. Nothing can be more disingenuous than this argument. In the west only political and national symbols command allegiance of the people. In India we have a whole menagerie of animals, hosts of symbols, a horde of personalities all of which clamour for attention and respect and notional symbols of a recent transition to nationhood are at best second or third tier allegiances. Hence, there is no use of equating the freedom of expression with the right to offend. Reasonable freedom can exist only within the limits of mutual respect and the attack on Charlie Hebdo only demonstrates that the boundary between freedom and respect has been irrevocably broken or breached.
There is a lesson in this tragedy for France. Even since Nicholas Sarkozy became the President of France it has followed a policy of intervention in the Islamic countries and in this there is a pattern of continuity between what was happening under the rights regime and the present pseudo socialist one. The attack on Libya, Tunisia and the provocations in Syria all anger the Islamic societies and added to that is the cultural arrogance of caricature.
The attack on the editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo the satirical magazine which won international notoriety for publishing offensive cartoons pertaining to Mohammad, the founder of Islam. Two or three heavily armed men stormed into the building by forcing the woman at the gate to enter the access code of the high security building and fired 37 rounds of ammunition from Ak 47 rifles before making their escape they shot dead a critically injured policeman. That the attack was well planned and meticulously executed can be gleaned from the flawless getaway, escape from the scene into the woods surrounding the Parisian countryside. The French President, Francois Hollande declared that the killers would be hunted down and that the attack on the journalists was an attack on French Laws which guaranteed "freedom of expression". The French, American and Western media have framed the attack in terms of the opposition between the liberal West which has the civilized approach to life and liberty and the barbaric totalitarian jihadists who kill in the name of religion. This way of framing the issue privileges the superiority of the West which is allegedly governed by "laws" and not "men".
Charlie Hebdo was known all over the world for its irreverence and indeed hostile caricature of non White/ Western cultures, religions and personalities. It may be pointed out that when one of the early satirical magazine, a predecessor of the contemporary, Charlie Hebdo, published a spoof on Charles de Gaulle way back in 1970, it was banned and all copies of the magazine forfeited and destroyed. It is therefore clear that the French claim that they respect Freedom of expression rings hollow. As long as the target of attack is not European or White then it is OK. This seems to the limits set to freedom of expression in France. Can the right to offend be subsumed under the right to freedom of expression.
The western world has seen the disenchantment of the sacred and in most parts of the world people do regard certain personalities, beliefs and symbols sacred and beyond ridicule. Unfortunately in India where political discourse is derivative and based on the pretentions of the western world there is a tendency to equate the freedom of expression with the right to offend. Nothing can be more disingenuous than this argument. In the west only political and national symbols command allegiance of the people. In India we have a whole menagerie of animals, hosts of symbols, a horde of personalities all of which clamour for attention and respect and notional symbols of a recent transition to nationhood are at best second or third tier allegiances. Hence, there is no use of equating the freedom of expression with the right to offend. Reasonable freedom can exist only within the limits of mutual respect and the attack on Charlie Hebdo only demonstrates that the boundary between freedom and respect has been irrevocably broken or breached.
There is a lesson in this tragedy for France. Even since Nicholas Sarkozy became the President of France it has followed a policy of intervention in the Islamic countries and in this there is a pattern of continuity between what was happening under the rights regime and the present pseudo socialist one. The attack on Libya, Tunisia and the provocations in Syria all anger the Islamic societies and added to that is the cultural arrogance of caricature.
