Charlie Hebdo: Europe's unease with Muslims

A Muslim woman walks past a poster of the Charlie Hebdo
edition after the Paris shooting

Charlie Hebdo has done it again

— with a cartoon of Prophet Mohammad — and this time in its latest edition. The cartoon has a weeping Prophet in white holding a sign reading 'Je Suis Charlie', and above him are the words 'Tout Est Pardone' meaning All is forgiven. Muslim extremists last week attacked the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo and gunned down 10 of its staff, including 5 cartoonists, for 'disrespecting the Prophet'.

At one level the cartoon is a befitting reply to the extremist forces that cannot have a laugh and muzzle secular voices. What other way than a cartoon of a weeping Prophet to condemn the attack! As Luz, the cartoonist, explained to Libération's Isabelle Hanne, "With this cover, we wanted to show that at any given moment, we have the right to do anything, to redo anything, and to use our characters the way we want to. Mohammed has become a character, in spite of himself, a character in the news, because there are people who speak on his behalf." Yet, at another level, the cartoon --when Islamophobia is on the rise--is also saying, 'It's my freedom, little sympathies for you'.

The shootings have initiated a whole lot of discussion on freedom of expression--and whether there is a limit to this freedom. The answer to it depends on which side of the debate you stand for. Do we refrain from hurting Muslim sentiments since many (wrongly) believe that it is a taboo to portray the Prophet? Or, we exercise our right and defy this rigid interpretation propagated by extremists? Interestingly, the Quran forbids idol worship but not pictorial representations. Illustrations of the Prophet can be dated back to the 14th century in Iran and Turkey. Christiane Gruber, in a recent Newsweek analysis, says, "...the decree that comes closest to articulating this type of ban was published online in 2001 by the Taliban, as they set out to destroy the Buddhas of Bamiyan."

Richard Malka, a Charlie Hebdo lawyer, was quoted in the Telegraph as saying, "We mock ourselves, politicians, religions, it's a state of mind you need to have. The Charlie state of mind is the right to blaspheme." This is in line with what Britain's deputy PM Nick Clegg said about the 'right to offend' on LBC Radio.

The argument is not so much whether one has the right to free speech--it is a non-negotiable freedom. It is whether that right can be used in a more amiable manner.

Do we have to offend a minority community, which has not yet integrated with the mainstream, for the sins of a few extremists? In the recent years, the integration of Muslims into the mainstream has become one of the thorniest issues in the immigration debate in Europe. The bans on burqas in France or minarets in Switzerland or the criticism against Muslim councils in Germany are pointers to this uneasy debate.

Added to this existing unease is a growing Islamophobia, which attacks like the one in Paris increase by several notches. It is not a coincidence that a Pegida (Patriotic Europeans against the Islamisation of the West, a political group that is against Muslim immigration) rally called in Dresden, Germany, on Monday saw a record turnout of 25,000 people, some of whom were carrying banners that read: "Asylum seekers go home!"

Thus, it is not the theological unease that prompts one to question the cartoon(s) but this societal reality of a group being seen as what Edward Said has called 'the Other'. The unease with the Charlie Hebdo cartoons should be seen from this vantage.

On a larger context, this schism reflects Europe's unease with the 'outsider'. If from the Renaissance till up to about the mid of the 20th century Europe pointed its finger at the Jew, today it is pointed at the Muslim. Anti-Semitism was so prevalent in Europe that the cunning moneylender Shylock, who demands his pound of flesh in William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, or Voltaire's anti-Semitic statements were not aberrations.

By the 19th century, because of the growth of nationalism, anti-Semitism had taken a racial colour. The works of theorists like Arthur de Gobineau (An essay on the inequality of human races) greatly contributed to this approach. The Jews, when compared to 'superior' Europeans, were seen as 'inferior' beings. Today, a similar streak of indifference is seen towards immigrants from North Africa and Eastern Europe--many of whom are Muslims.

Instances like these underline the importance of secular and democratic institutions. European leaders cannot let their minorities 'survive' on the margins of society if they really want them to integrate and prosper. The rise of the Right in many countries in Europe, from Britain to Germany to France, does not inspire hope about a seamless integration. A majority, by nature, is not a threat to a minority, but it becomes one when a group within that majority starts to impose its narrow, bigoted views on the minority. And that's not a cartoon.

(This appeared in the Hindustan Times on January 15)

'ISIS is an American myth'

Many European countries — including France, Germany, Denmark and Britain — have asked the Bashar al-Assad government to ‘take care’ of Europeans who have been radicalised and are fighting in Syria.

These startling revelations were made by the Syrian ambassador to India, Riad Kamel Abbas, on Wednesday. “Intelligence leaders of many European countries came to Syria to meet officials”, Abbas said, and offered to not press charges of human rights violation on the Assad government if Damascus made sure that they (European citizens fighting in Syria) did not return to Europe. They fear that these fighters might return to their countries and radicalise more people at home.

Speaking at an interaction with the media arranged by the Indian Women’s Press Corps in New Delhi, Abbas was critical of the role of Turkey, the US and its West Asian allies. “ISIS is an American myth, which gets direct support from Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey and is funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar”.

“Al Qaeda appeared in Syria after the US invaded Iraq. Before that there was no al Qaeda in Syria. It is clear that al Qaeda was created by the US and it is supporting ISIS.” Abbas also said that the UN was not helping Syria and is under the US’ control.

As fierce fighting is underway in Kobane, Abbas expressed little hope in the government in Ankara.

The ambassador, however, appreciated the Modi government’s stand of not joining the US’ coalition against ISIS.

(This news report appeared in the HindustanTimes on October 17)

Lesson for Narendra Modi from Lionel Messi

Lionel Messi

The curtain call at Estádio Maracanã on Sunday night put a lid on a month-long football extravaganza. The final, played between arch-rivals Germany and Argentina, was a befitting tribute to a wonderful cup - by many means the best World Cup to be held till date.
Throughout the tournament, media scrutiny along with the weight of expectation hovered over some players like dark monsoon clouds. Brazil's Neymar was one such player. Given that the World Cup was hosted in Brazil, a lot of expectations were riding on him. But an injury and the subsequent (humiliating) defeat to Germany in the semi-finals put an end to what could have been a fairytale ending.
Portugal's Cristiano Ronaldo was also one such player - but given a relatively weak team and the 4-0 loss to Germany in its first game not many expected miracles to happen.
But Argentina and thousands of football fans around the world expected miracles from Lionel Messi. While he didn't find the net as much as expected, he played pivotal roles when it mattered the most-the 118th minute dribble and pass to Di Maria against Switzerland stands out.
However, Sunday night a lone goal from Mario Götze saw the Germans lifting the Cup. A Messi bereft of emotion reflected a million shattered dreams.
Comparisons are often tricky, especially if they are across different spectrums, and preposterous as this may sound there are a lot of similarities between Lionel Messi and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Both are leaders of their sides and have won the hearts of their people. They captain their sides and have earned the respect and honour of their teammates.
While Messi has shown that he was born to be a footballer, and an excellent one at it, Modi has shown in Gujarat that he is a politician and an exceptional one at it. Messi's genius at league football and Modi's success story of the much-talked about 'Gujarat model' have soared expectations to such a dizzying height that each time both are expected to not just win but win in a thumping manner.
There are also lessons Modi can learn from the situation Messi found himself during the World Cup. Messi came to Brazil carrying the hopes and wishes of a whole nation and they saw in him a hero after Diego Maradona. Modi has brought the BJP back to power after a decade. In the resounding victory, the party has received lie the hopes of millions of Indians. Many see in Modi a Prime Minister like never before. Part of the victory is because of the poor show of the earlier government but majority of it is on the hope that Modi can spin the fortunes of the nation.

Narendra Modi

Predictably Sunday's defeat has not gone well with many La Albiceleste fans who are blaming Messi's poor form for the defeat. Social media is abuzz with strong views calling Messi 'selfish' and he winning the Golden Ball has not helped his case -'Messi won while Argentina lost'.
A bad monsoon, the crisis in West Asia and a dull global economy are only some of the problems that are beyond Modi's control - but, nevertheless, if he falls short of anything but spectacular the people will feel let down.
The BRICS summit, currently underway in Fortaleza, Brazil, is important on many counts as it is Modi's first international engagement after assuming office. What he takes away from the summit is important to sustain the people's hope in the 'Modi magic'. Messi left Brazil with a heavy heart. It is hoped that Modi does not follow.
It's a difficult spot to find oneself in, but it is triumph in such situations that create legends. Messi and Modi have set the bar too high and now the challenge is to live up to it.
(This article appeared in Hindustan Times on July 14)

Sooner or later Hitler had to come in

Rahul Gandhi

In the heat and dust of ‘Election 2014’, allegations and counter-allegations have been dominating primetime in news studios, headlines in newspapers and posts on social networking sites. Leaders, cutting across party lines, have been trying to satiate the enormous political appetite of the electorate, often with half-truths and white lies. Allegations, even personal attacks, on political rivals have become a part of discourse in Indian politics. While it is often the old guard that has been involved in name-calling, the younger leaders have shown more restraint. Of course, there are exceptions.
And this is why Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi’s veiled attack on BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi while comparing leadership styles comes as a surprise. Gandhi, while speaking at a rally at Balasinor, in central Gujarat on Tuesday, said there were two types of leaders: One, who meets the people, understands them and their problems and is humble and not arrogant. The other type is like Hitler who believed that they do not have anything to learn from the people. While the Congress scion might not have used Modi’s name, the inference, given the context and that he was speaking in Gujarat, is hard to miss.
Gandhi has made the political equivalent of an Internet truism — Godwin’s Law, which states that ‘if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism’. The campaign for the 16th Lok Sabha has been on for a long time but that’s not an excuse. However, political niceties and courtesy are not something one expects from our netas.

Vladimir Putin (left) with Hillary Clinton in 2012

With his ‘Hitler’ comment, Gandhi is in the esteemed company of former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton and the state media in North Korea. Clinton, last week, pointed out the similarities between Nazi Germany’s actions in the 1930s in Czechoslovakia and Poland to Russia’s actions in Crimea. Never mind that she later tried to clarify her comment saying that she wanted everyone to have a ‘little historic perspective’ and that she was not making a ‘comparison’. The North Korean news agency KCNA in an editorial in February compared Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to Hitler for his plans to revise Tokyo’s pacifist constitution opening the frontiers of the military.

Salman Khurshid (left) and Mani Shankar Aiyar

In attacking Modi, Gandhi joins party colleagues Mani Shankar Aiyar and Salman Khurshid, among the many others who have done it in the past. If Aiyar called the Gujarat chief minister a ‘chaiwalla’, Khurshid, while addressing people in his constituency Farrukhabad in Uttar Pradesh, referred to Modi as a “napunsak” for not protecting the people of Godhra. Gandhi had disapproved of both Aiyar’s and Khurshid’s comments.
Gandhi’s ‘Reductio ad Hitlerum’ or ‘playing the Nazi card’ can be interpreted in many ways. There were a lot of issues that could expose the much-talked-about ‘Gujarat Model’ — as was done by AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal a few days ago. Gandhi, in his speech, focused on the plight of the farmers; that Gujarat was shining only for a few people; accused the state government of taking credit for the Amul story and for appropriating the legacy of Sardar Patel.
Then why would Rahul Gandhi, who is otherwise careful in choosing his words, use the ‘H’ word? The answer to this, perhaps, lies in a 2007 article that appeared in The Economist. While discussing citizenship policies in Estonia and looking at the tone of discussion on the Internet in Russia, The Economist had said that ‘A good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument’. Now that’s some food for thought.
(This appeared in the Hindustan Times on March 13, 2013)

Iran nuclear deal: It's an opportunity the world shouldn't miss

For decades Iran has been the bad boy for the West. The antics of its leaders in public coupled with its nuclear ambitions have not earned it many friends. But since June, when Hassan Rouhani was elected president, there have been changes in this outlook. The earlier round of talks, to put a tab on Iran’s nuclear programme, held in Geneva, between the West and Iran missed an agreement after France scuttled the deal at the last minute. While differences continue among the P5+1 (the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, and Germany) and Iran, leaders like US President Barack Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron have made the right moves: Mr Obama has stuck his neck out to stress the need for talks and the easing of sanctions, while Mr Cameron called up Mr Rouhani (a first in a decade by a UK PM) to ‘address concerns on both sides on the nuclear issue’. Given this, it is not in the best interests of anyone to further impose sanctions on Tehran. The loosening of sanctions would mean that Tehran has more flexibility with its trade on gold and oil, which is good news for New Delhi.

Naftali Bennett, Israel’s economy and commerce minister and leader of the ultra-nationalist Jewish Home Party, said a few days ago that Iran was six weeks away from enriching weapons-grade uranium. The fear of nuclear proliferation is not without merit but what about nations that have nuclear weapons acquired under the table, like Pakistan or North Korea? Douglas MacKinnon, a former White House and Pentagon official, has rightly asked, in a Fox News op-ed: “Are we endangering our own safety and that of Israel by over-exaggerating the nuclear threat posed by Iran while drastically under-estimating the growing threat posed by Pakistan?” There is a need for international pressure and scrutiny on Islamabad for its clandestine nuclear dealings. This is the clear and present danger — more than the likelihood of Iran’s plans.

The talks with Iran are perhaps one of the greatest tests for Obama. A deal could also bring greater peace to the region and change the course of world politics.

Global AgeWatch Index: Ageing gracefully is not an option in India

In a country that has more than 50% of its population under the age of 35 years, it is expected that the older people are taken good care of, if not revered. That, sadly, is not the case in India where the older people are often seen as cheap labour or as a liability. Instances of children abandoning their parents by the roadside or at old age homes reflect this. The economic pressure and the breakdown of the joint-family system have adversely affected the dignity of life of older people. This plight is worsened as, unlike many developed Western nations, the safety net of social security is absent. As is always the case, when faced with a crisis, it is the older women who doubly suffer.

Given this, it is not surprising that India is ranked at an unimpressive 73 among the 91 countries surveyed as ideal for older people to live. HelpAge International launched on Tuesday the first-ever Golbal AgeWatch Index ranking ‘countries according to the social and economic well-being of older people’. The parameters for developing the index were: the income status (including the pension coverage, poverty rate in old age), health (including life expectancy at 60, and psychological wellbeing), education and employment (including educational status of old people) and the living environment (including physical safety, civic freedom and access to public transport). Sweden tops the list, followed by Norway and Germany. India can take cold comfort in the fact that Pakistan (ranked 89) and Afghanistan (91) are at the bottom of the table. On the other hand, China (35) and Sri Lanka (36) have fared much better. Colombo’s long-term investments in education and healthcare have paid off providing a better standard of living for its older people, and New Delhi should take note of this achievement. The study dispels the myth that the wellbeing of older people is better in wealthier economics. None of the BRICS nations — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — that accounted for 40% of the global population and 25% of the world’s GDP based on the purchasing power parity in 2012, figured in the top 20 nations on the index. The high ranking of countries like Bolivia and Mauritius showed that smaller economies could also be good places for the old. The West, especially Scandinavian countries, has done well and this is mainly because the system is geared towards the demographic shifts taking place.

India has at present about 8% of its total population above the age of 60 and in the coming decades this is set to increase. The index shows that India’s rank in health is low. This is mainly attributed to the lack of availability of good healthcare facilities in rural India where most of the country’s ageing population resides. Some states, like Kerala, already have a significant number of older people and in the coming decades, unless farsighted policies are implemented, the quality of life for older people will not improve.