Loads of stuff going on in the world of freedom of speech, expression, satire and being offended... right from Charlie Hebdo to PK to 'ghar wapsi'. It seems like we are moving towards a singular point in time and space of humans. The fight may lead to a decisive victory one way or the other and will change the world as we know it.
While this much was obvious to me, I didn't quite understand what the two fighting factions represent....
Is it a fight of Islam against the rest of the world?
Maybe that's what Al-Shabab, Boko Haram and ISIS may believe, but I don't think so.
Is it a fight between extremism and moderation? Maybe that's what us people who want to go on with user existential existence may believe, but I don't think so.
Is it a fight between religious intolerance and intolerance for religion? Maybe that's what the people of France may believe, but I don't think so.
Is it a fight between freedom of expression and those who want to curtail it? Maybe that's what the artists, bloggers and twitterati may believe, but I don't think so.
Is it a fight between terrorism and the state? Maybe that's every state may want the people to believe, but I don't think so.
I think this is a fight between the right to 'be' and the right to be offended by someone for 'being'. The first side of the battle has always been a part of every war that has ever been fought. This side of every war is a fight for the very existence itself. The other side of the war was usually fought by people who wanted to deny this right to someone else.
This time, however, the second side is just different. This includes all people who feel that it is their right to be offended by some one or something just by their very presence. By this definition, each and every human being will be part of both camps..... and for this reason, the war is going to be extremely dangerous, long drawn out and will affect every person in this world.
Let me explain....
In France, it is between Muslim immigrants who want to a decent life to go about leading their lives against those who feel offended by their very presence. The very presence of Muslims wearing an attire they feel comfortable in, is banned...
At the same time, in France, it is between satirists being able to do what they do against those who find their very nature offensive. This time it may have been Al-Qaeda, but it may well have been VHP or Sri Ram Sene in another land.
It is between those (artists or otherwise) who express their views on social reform against those who stick to a 'construed glorious perfect past'. For all those who believe in past Hindu glory, I can only say....ya, may be India had a glorious Hindu past, but if we are just going to go on about the past, we are surely going to end up in an inglorious future. These guys are offended by the mere presence of anyone who may question the validity of a glorious past...
It is between those who wish to have a better life by getting a ration card, who care a damn whether they are Hindu or Muslim or Buddhist or Christian against those who are offended by their very right to exist.
Many constitutions in the world recognize the right to freedom of speech... but does any constitution recognize the right to be offended? Well, in my view, if you are offended, then it is your business. But then again, if my presence causes harm to your well-being, (like I sing too loudly in my bathroom at 12.00 in the night), then you do have a right to be offended. The point I want to make here is that these fault lines are so blurred between the warring factions that it is difficult to pick sides for anyone.
Our (Indian) constitution has the very vague law which bans anything which may disturb communal harmony. In some sense, this law promotes people to be offended very easily... in fact, not just be offended but to actually disturb communal harmony. Our constitution, condones those who actually disturb communal harmony and put things on fire just for the heck of it, while condemning those who are expressing their opinions about any matter. The arrest of the girls due to the facebook post about Bal Thackray and banning of Vishwaroopam come to my mind immediately.
I found it very difficult to pick sides in this war, but after a lot of deliberation, I have realized that no one can. How can you fight for the right to be without being offended by those who get offended by you. How can I not be offended when some one tells me that they are offended by my very being?
While this much was obvious to me, I didn't quite understand what the two fighting factions represent....
Is it a fight of Islam against the rest of the world?
Maybe that's what Al-Shabab, Boko Haram and ISIS may believe, but I don't think so.
Is it a fight between extremism and moderation? Maybe that's what us people who want to go on with user existential existence may believe, but I don't think so.
Is it a fight between religious intolerance and intolerance for religion? Maybe that's what the people of France may believe, but I don't think so.
Is it a fight between freedom of expression and those who want to curtail it? Maybe that's what the artists, bloggers and twitterati may believe, but I don't think so.
Is it a fight between terrorism and the state? Maybe that's every state may want the people to believe, but I don't think so.
I think this is a fight between the right to 'be' and the right to be offended by someone for 'being'. The first side of the battle has always been a part of every war that has ever been fought. This side of every war is a fight for the very existence itself. The other side of the war was usually fought by people who wanted to deny this right to someone else.
This time, however, the second side is just different. This includes all people who feel that it is their right to be offended by some one or something just by their very presence. By this definition, each and every human being will be part of both camps..... and for this reason, the war is going to be extremely dangerous, long drawn out and will affect every person in this world.
Let me explain....
In France, it is between Muslim immigrants who want to a decent life to go about leading their lives against those who feel offended by their very presence. The very presence of Muslims wearing an attire they feel comfortable in, is banned...
At the same time, in France, it is between satirists being able to do what they do against those who find their very nature offensive. This time it may have been Al-Qaeda, but it may well have been VHP or Sri Ram Sene in another land.
It is between those (artists or otherwise) who express their views on social reform against those who stick to a 'construed glorious perfect past'. For all those who believe in past Hindu glory, I can only say....ya, may be India had a glorious Hindu past, but if we are just going to go on about the past, we are surely going to end up in an inglorious future. These guys are offended by the mere presence of anyone who may question the validity of a glorious past...
It is between those who wish to have a better life by getting a ration card, who care a damn whether they are Hindu or Muslim or Buddhist or Christian against those who are offended by their very right to exist.
Many constitutions in the world recognize the right to freedom of speech... but does any constitution recognize the right to be offended? Well, in my view, if you are offended, then it is your business. But then again, if my presence causes harm to your well-being, (like I sing too loudly in my bathroom at 12.00 in the night), then you do have a right to be offended. The point I want to make here is that these fault lines are so blurred between the warring factions that it is difficult to pick sides for anyone.
Our (Indian) constitution has the very vague law which bans anything which may disturb communal harmony. In some sense, this law promotes people to be offended very easily... in fact, not just be offended but to actually disturb communal harmony. Our constitution, condones those who actually disturb communal harmony and put things on fire just for the heck of it, while condemning those who are expressing their opinions about any matter. The arrest of the girls due to the facebook post about Bal Thackray and banning of Vishwaroopam come to my mind immediately.
I found it very difficult to pick sides in this war, but after a lot of deliberation, I have realized that no one can. How can you fight for the right to be without being offended by those who get offended by you. How can I not be offended when some one tells me that they are offended by my very being?
