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)