The French Dogma-Dilemma
It is a less contended fact that the French Revolution (and the French Nation Building) significantly influenced contemporary Europe and upheld the principles that form the foundation of modern Western Democracies — “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”. The French, even today, cherish these values and take pride in having them ingrained in the French ethos. However, recently, one of these values, Liberty, in particular, has become the centre of a storm. The portrayal of caricatures of Mohammad Prophet, leading to heinous terrorist attacks and in response, a firm endorsement of ‘Right to Mock’ by the French President has left the world in two splits. The Islamic World believes the caricatures to be blasphemous, which invite stringent punishments, even death penalty, in Islamic countries. It has thus, in varying intensities slammed the French president for “hate-mongering”. On the other hand, the EU and other western countries have slammed the acts of terrorism and are vociferously defending Macron and the “freedom of expression.” New Delhi took a nuanced approach, while strongly condemning the terrorist attacks and personal statements against Macron, it did not condone the caricatures nor did it touch on the French “freedom of expression”.
To have a finer look on the debate let us go back in time — when France transformed from a Kingdom to a Nation-State. Nation-building in France relied on homogeneity. French was declared the national language and local dialects were discouraged. A uniform system of weights and measurements was put into place. So was the case with currency. Likewise, other nation-states emerged in Europe on ethnic or linguistic lines. The ethnicity or language formed the common thread for a national identity. Fast forward to the 21st century, rapid progress in technology and globalization has enabled the movement of people, ideas and information at unprecedented speeds. This has led to diversified societies. France, which once had nearly one kind of people, is now a pluralist society with lots of refugees and other countries’ diaspora settling in. This kind of alters the context against which the founding principles were laid and hence there is a friction between the traditional French values and the contemporary society, even the French society.
A remarkable thing to note here is that what problem challenges the Western world today has been a long and recurring theme in the Indian civilization — Unity in Diversity. How do communities of diverse ethnic, linguistic, religious fabric co-exist together in harmony? Perhaps the western world can look up to India for potential solutions. An important point to note is that the values shared between India and the western world have their unique context and implementation in India. One of the most striking is “Secularism”. In Europe, during the old times, the Church commanded a lot of heft in the Kingdom and significantly influenced the political and administrative decisions. Later the Church was separated from the administration/politics, thus achieving the European secularism — “non-interference of the Church in the affairs of the state”. However, in India there is more to it, which is perfectly captured by — “sarv dharma sam bhaav”, meaning respecting all religions, thus leading to peaceful coexistence. This has been followed since long in India, popular patrons being Ashoka the Great and Mughal Emperor Akbar.
Garrett Harden, in his article “the tragedy of commons”, highlighted that in a shared resource system when individual users act independently only out of own self-interest, they behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling the shared resource through their collective action. Drawing parallels to the French episode — “freedom to mock” may serve the self-interest of the publishing magazine or some individuals with vested interests, but all of this at what cost? Violence, unrest and chaos! Not only limited within the nation’s boundaries but in the global arena! To achieve a peaceful and harmonious co-existence one must be sensitive to the core values held by others. It is, but natural, that humiliating caricatures of a person deeply revered by a community will trigger outrage. That said, it does not warrant any form of terrorism. Any protest must not be violent. One may take legal recourse for remedies. Neither is the freedom to expression absolute nor is any act of terrorism justified under any circumstance.
The freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and must not be muzzled by gun. It is a vital ingredient in fulfilling higher purposes of human life. Freedom of speech gives individuals and organizations great power. But one must remember Uncle Ben’s wise words that “with great power comes great responsibility”, and use this power responsibly.
