I am Charlie, I am Perumal Murugan, I am ……, …...
I was, I am, I will be
Just days after such a strong support rally in support of Charlie Hbdo and for freedom of expression, French police reported to have arrested 54 persons including 4 minors and a cartoonist for expressing views banned in France. He had said, “Tonight, as far as I am concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly”. You can’t express view there against someone, for violence, support killings. This is one thought which says it is ok ridicule one’s faith but its not permitted to support violence, to sacrifice thought of safety. And here is another thought which says that life is insignificant, even my own life, against my prophet my religion, my faith, whatever I hold in sanctity. Each thought is threatened, is vilified, is marginalised by the other. Such issues exist id all parts of the world in different forms, be it related to religion, cast, race, language, nationality, poverty. The important challenge today is how to bring together these apparently opposing thoughts.
Many people had pointed out that Charlie Hebdo had also published cartoons of Jesus and Pope.But is it same as printing cartoons of Muhammad? Are Christianity and Islam looked with same eyes? Try shouting ‘Jesus’ and ‘Allahu Akbar’ in an aircraft in Europe! Minorities who are feeling marginalised, feeling exploited are more sensitive than others who are comfortable, in control. For example you need to be careful how you refer to jews in France and Germany, blacks in USA, backward casts in India. And major achievements in alleviating their concerns do not go through satire and ridicule. There are many parallel ways to achieve this. The most significant change can happen when the majority starts feeling inclusive about minorities, oppressed, when ‘they’ become ‘us’. And this route definitely pass through respect.
In any case, freedom of any sort is never absolute, limitless. In different societies it is defined differently, but there some limits nevertheless. You have freedom to dress but in most societies there are limits to how less one can wear, and different limits for men and for women. You have freedom of movement but there are definite out-of-bound. You may have right to property, but in certain situations governments can direct you to give it up. All fundamental rights have limitations, have exceptions. As evolving societies it has been our endeavour constantly expand these limits, to reduce those exceptions. In situations of threats these limits start contracting, exceptions start increasing. And these threats need not be only physical threats, they can be emotional, spiritual.
It is often said about immigrants that they should alter themselves into the culture of host country, even to the extent of losing identity. This assumes that host country is doing kind of favour to immigrants. (This may be the case of illegal immigration or when immigrants are taken in to save them from violence in their own countries). But otherwise its a give-and0take, a trade. One is seeking to get a job and the other is seeking to offer a job. What would USA been if they hadn't accepted immigrants? Probably China would have risen much earlier and would have been much more powerful. So the inclusion of immigrant cultures into host country should happen with mutual respect. As much as immigrants need to change in tune with host culture, hosts too need to change to resonate more with immigrant cultures. So once again the path is necessarily through respect and inclusion
