'Nothing worth saying is inoffensive to everyone'
Meant to link to this earlier. Read this superb response by Johann Hari to the furore created around his earlier article “Stand up for the right to criticise religion” in Calcutta after it was published in The Statesman. Among other things, the piece addresses the frightening notion that religious beliefs deserve automatic respect, that they mustn’t be criticised or even questioned, and that violence is a fitting response to those who dare to do these things.
Whenever I have reported on immoral acts by religious fanatics – Catholic, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim – I am accused of "prejudice", and I am not alone. But my only "prejudice" is in favour of individuals being able to choose to live their lives, their way, without intimidation. That means choosing religion, or rejecting it, as they wish, after hearing an honest, open argument.
A religious idea is just an idea somebody had a long time ago, and claimed to have received from God. It does not have a different status to other ideas; it is not surrounded by an electric fence none of us can pass.
...The protestors said I deliberately set out to "offend" them, and I am supposed to say that, no, no offence was intended. But the honest truth is more complicated. Offending fundamentalists isn't my goal – but if it is an inevitable side-effect of defending human rights, so be it. If fanatics who believe Muslim women should be imprisoned in their homes and gay people should be killed are insulted by my arguments, I don't resile from it. Nothing worth saying is inoffensive to everyone.
Read the full piece. It quotes one of the Islamic fundamentalists who called for the arrest of the newspaper’s editor and publisher as saying he was willing “to lay down his life, if necessary, to protect the honour of the Prophet” and that no one has “the liberty to blaspheme any religion or its icons on grounds of freedom of speech”. The whole mess makes me think of passages in Aatish Taseer’s book Stranger to History: A Son’s Journey Through Islamic Lands, which I finished recently. More on that in a bit.
Loved Hari's rubuttal.
ReplyDeleteBtw, do check this out too.
Superb (and quite a witty)take on the whole thing by a Muslim from Kolkata.
Dawkins made exactly same remark at BBC HARDTALK . its true that you can criticize someone's taste in MUSIC ,Poetry,Literature food etc and people usually accept it as just a robust opinion however when it comes to religion any discussion about validity or religion draws strong reaction. inwords of dawkins " people give a "He-don't-Love-the children" look ".
ReplyDeleteI guess one explanation is that most of the time people derive their sense of morality ,their moral framework from religion . Ethics for most people is religion (I believe Ethics should be derived from a its actually should be philosophical or epistemological method of inquiry ) . since You can check the validity of a premise without moving out of the premise . so discussing religion is tiptoeing in minefield . and unfortunately it will continue to be same until we have some breakthrough Darwinian or Quantum Physic explanation.which allow us to transcend this premise . I have heard that Upanishads presents a sound explanation of that but i never get a chance to study them.would love to know your view on Upanishads if you have studied them.
The most remarkable thing about this whole incident is the 'deafening silence' from the media. Hardly any newspapers reported on the Statesman editor's arrest or the morchas outside their office. Hindu had a story and Indian Express carried a column. That's it. What does that saya bout our supposedly free media, of which I am of course a part?
ReplyDeleteShrabonti: there was a deafening silence in the first few days, but I think that's changed of late. Salil Tripathi mentioned the incident in a fine column in Mint (see this) and Vir Sanghvi had a Counterpoint about it last Sunday too.
ReplyDeleteYes, but what I think that's even more damning. Now there are editorials and columns everywhere, obviously much after the brouhaha in Calcutta is safely over. There were no news stories when the whole drama was on. Columns are safe because only the intellectual types read columns and they are not going to take to the streets. Tchah.
ReplyDelete"'Nothing worth saying is inoffensive to everyone"'
ReplyDeleteThis argument is reductionist.I think its intellectually lazy to not try to make a distinction between offensive and critical.There is stuff which should be called out on being offensive and should be discouraged.Example is Mohammeds cartoons and the Hussain paiting of Hanuman and Sita.
Rahul: And who gets to make the decisions about what "should be called out on being offensive and should be discouraged"? What are the parameters for these things? Is there a particular number of "offended people" that has to be crossed before the "offending thing" is "called out"? Can I, for instance, start a community of Sachin Tendulkar fans who are entitled to physical violence if a newspaper column or statistical study writes something we deem "offensive" to our hero?
ReplyDeleteFact: practically anything that is remotely critical of religion (no matter how balanced it is, like Hari's two articles) is likely to "offend" a huge number of people. So are we to pander to all these hurt sentiments by encouraging physical action against the "offender"? Isn't it bad enough that Section 295(A) exists?
Personally I think that the Mohammad cartoons and the Hussain paintings are absolutely vital components of a world where (non-violent) freedom of expression and speech are to mean anything.
"Rahul: And who gets to make the decisions about what "should be called out on being offensive and should be discouraged"?"
ReplyDeleteJai,I can speak for myself.I will rely on my common sense.Showing Mohammad as terrorist was in bad taste and so was Hussein's painting.
Please try not to be binary about it.I will also support the right to offend and I will agree with you that freedom of expression is absolutely vital.
P.S. do you know that some of those countries who were publishing Mohammed's cartoons have criminal laws against holocaust deniers?
ReplyDelete"Only religious people are touchy" is just a liberal canard.
Rahul: I'm not the one being binary here. Also, I haven't ever said "only religious people are touchy" (in my previous comment I volunteered an example of a non-religious subject that I'm very touchy about - just one of many) so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up.
ReplyDeleteShowing Mohammad as terrorist was in bad taste and so was Hussein's painting.
In your view. But even so, something being in bad taste (or being considered to be in bad taste by a large number of people) is one thing. Of course people have the right to be offended. I vigorously exercise that right myself every day. But it's quite another thing for verbal/written "offence" to draw violent reactions that interfere with people's basic rights, and for the authorities to condone/turn a blind eye to those reactions.
Are you really suggesting that there's any kind of equivalence between what Johann Hari wrote and the reactions (including death threats) that it drew? Seriously? Because that's what your comments on this particular post seem to imply.
Prashant: missed your comment. Yes, that "he-don't-Love-the children" look is very familiar, and always makes me cringe slightly.
ReplyDeleteNo, haven't read the Upanishads in any detail.
Clearly, the bashing of a particular group of a billion-plus is the "in" thing for many in the West and their acolytes in India. Johann Hari thinks it is equally a question of free speech to call a long dead respected person a sexual being or mass murderer. There is a huge difference, you must acknowledge. One humanises the person in question, the other portrayal dehumanises. The more such incidents occur and people like you jump to the defence of the libellous, the more one begins to see why Section 153A exists, and why shouting "fire" in a crowded hall does not get an okay from free speech principles. Character assassination on false/fabricated grounds is an old form of sick politics practised by the religiously insecure who seek to portray minorities (or "the other") as subhuman and undeserving of any human sympathy whatsoever. There has already been a master practitioner of it, who ran such propaganda as a precursor to the final agenda (was it 'solution'? words matter, you should admit, as do related portrayals and perceptions of good and evil, especially in a world of such horrific violence driven by such thinking). Do you really want to be in the same company as the fuhrer?
ReplyDeleteAnon: you're right. We should all just shut up and never say or write anything about anything, because there's always the danger or offending some fanatic who believes that violence is a reasonable reaction to hurt feelings. THAT'S the right way to make sure the world doesn't go the way of Nazi Germany! Yes, yes, of course, I see.
ReplyDeleteJohann Hari thinks it is equally a question of free speech to call a long dead respected person a sexual being or mass murderer.
Just pointing out (not that I think this is hugely relevant) that Hari didn't make up those things about the long-dead respected person. They exist in various "long-ago respected texts". And if those things are used to justify/sanctify similar actions in the modern world, they need to be questioned and criticised.
But in general I must thank you for your comment. After years of getting furious comments from angry Hindus who rhetorically ask "You make fun of Hindu scriptures but would you ever dare say negative things about other religions?", it comes as a relief to FINALLY be accused of being anti-minority.
(Trawl the archives if you have the time/inclination. You'll find some of the posts I'm talking about.)
If you believe the person in question here was given to burning down huts of people with other religious persuasions, a grave allegation if there ever was one, the burden of establishing guilt for this crime (beyond reasonable doubt) is on YOU, Mr Free Hate Speech.
ReplyDeleteWhat "texts" are these you talk of? Who wrote them? Are these authentic? How will you establish that in a court of law trying you and Hari under section 153A? Are these fabricated/deliberately misread texts REALLY not part of the vicious propaganda being mounted against this person by those with an agenda of mass demonization?
Just being accused of malafide intent by two sides of a division does not make your views "fair". This is the childish defence used by nincompoops who do not base anything they say or write on any evidence that can withstand the scrutiny of the process of jurisprudence, which presumably you claim to abide by.
Anon: There is never any justification for using physical violence against authors/artists/sculptors, etc. That is all that everybody is saying. You are free to be as offended as you want but you have absolutely no right to use fists, knives, bombs or whatever just because your *feelings* are hurt. You mean a billion people can't come up with - WORDS or IMAGES - to counter WORDS and IMAGES? I didn't see Catholics in the USA rushing to PHYSICALLY obliterate the bizarre art exhibit of a cross in urine. It was deeply offensive and yet they demonstrated peacefully and worked to mobilize mass opinion. Ditto with the musical Jesus Christ Superstar. Nowhere were there angry mobs burning down the theatres. I think that in the west they have learned (painfully through history) that violence in the name of hurt religious feelings doesn't help the cause one bit.
ReplyDeleteSharmishtha
"Are you really suggesting that there's any kind of equivalence between what Johann Hari wrote and the reactions (including death threats) that it drew? Seriously? Because that's what your comments on this particular post seem to imply."
ReplyDeleteI don't know where you got that.Everyone should be free to say whatever they want without any danger.All I am saying is that we can't hide behind the reductionist cheer leading of free speech,at least,thats not where I think my responsibility ends.We should always call free speech for bad taste as and when the case may be.
Everyone should be free to say whatever they want without any danger.
ReplyDeleteRahul: this is exactly my point as well. So where's the disagreement? Of course you're free to criticise something for being in bad taste. The problem is that when the religious sentiments of fundamentalists are hurt, they aren't content with simply criticising or hitting back with words. (See Sharmishtha's comment above.) They want to take physical action, and that's where the question of equivalence comes in.
There is no disagreement.I want everyone to take a deeper view of this issue.Its not enough to just make it a free speech thing.
ReplyDeleteThe leap that I want everyone to make from the binary positions that
comes so naturally to us is to realize that both sides can be wrong in a conflict.
The underlying issue is that groups with completely different value systems have to live with one another.Free speech is absolutely important but also important is to respect other groups.People like us,while raising our voices vociferously in defense of free speech,should also make it a point to make a judgment about the nature of free speech.
If you really think that I am making an equivalence I want to repeat again.
1.Violence is criminal and is not permissible in any circumstance.
2.The act of free speech is vital and should be condoned in all circumstances.
3.The content of free speech if in bad taste should be discouraged.
Rahul: as you know, I completely agree about the first and second point. My problem with the third point is a) Who gets to decide what is in "bad taste" and what isn't? There are no objective standards for these things. I find that my own threshold of appreciation for "tastelessness" is bizarrely high, and this is the case for many other people I know. And if you're suggesting (for example) that special allowance be made for religious sentiments, then is it okay for parody religions like the Invisible Pink Unicorn cult to stake the same claims? b) What form does this "discouraging" take exactly? And what if the speech-offender listens to the discouraging but decides not to act upon it? Is the next step then for the law to step in and shut him up? (Again, a reminder: Section 295-A already exists in any case.) Lots of murky questions here.
ReplyDeleteJai,
ReplyDelete"Who gets to decide what is in "bad taste" and what isn't?"
No one has to DECIDE, you just have to OPINE and it is by definition SUBJECTIVE.This is not for the purpose of any legal action as we have already decided that we are supporting freedom of speech in ALL conditions.
Sometimes even a sympathetic opinion or two is enough for a person who is offended.
Rahul: understood. Just for the record, though I'm a free-speech fundamentalist in principle, I completely understand that things aren't so cut and dried in the real world, and that practically speaking one has to exercise self-restraint at times. Not necessarily to avoid being in "bad taste" - it can simply be a matter of self-preservation. (If I were to find myself defenceless in the presence of a few Hindutva/Islamic fundamentalists, there's no way I would exercise my free speech to mock their beliefs, knowing that it could be dangerous for me. On other occasions, even when there's no physical threat involved, I'd hold my tongue because I wouldn't want to be unnecessarily confrontational.)
ReplyDeleteCalling one of world history's most effective revolutionary and respected human being a terrorist, without offering evidence to back the charge, is NOT "needlessly confrontational"? Please suggest what you think IS.
ReplyDeleteAnon: when I said "unnecessarily confrontational", I was talking about myself, at an individual level, in a hypothetical situation where (for example) I find myself having dinner with a group of people who are blabbering on about their religious beliefs. In this situation, unless I'm in a serious pot-stirring mood, it wouldn't make much sense for me to start arguing with them - I'd much rather discuss general matters, maintain cordiality and finish my meal in peace.
ReplyDelete(Note: the "non-confrontational" stance isn't based on any "respect" I have for these people's beliefs, it's purely a matter of convenience and because I don't have an urgent point to make in this context and setting.)
Did you actually read Johann Hari's articles all the way through? Did you try to understand the context of those articles and the larger points they make, as well as his regard for basic humanity over and above unquestioning adherence to diktats that were laid down thousands of years ago? If you didn't understand this, well, we're barking at each other from two different universes and there's nothing more to discuss here.
You may be right. It is pointless discussing the issue further. Your opinion of the person at the centre of the controversy is quite hardened, as it has become clear (is this hatred of the man not a religiously ordained belief, as irrational as the kind you seek to oppose?). Let us agree on this, then. Once extrajudicial terminations of life finally end in India, let us have more space for freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteAnon: I have no hatred of the man at the centre of the controversy, but I don't really expect you to believe that, so again, discussion is pointless etc.
ReplyDelete(Btw, I don't even agree that any one person is at the "centre of the controversy" - this whole thing is about other, more nuanced issues. And since you seem to have gone down the road of imputing motives to me, perhaps you should take a look at earlier posts I've written about Hindu mythology - and the hate-comments that those posts draw. There are no hidden agendas here.)
Fine, discussion over. Read carefully, you will find no allegation of any crime minor or major has been levelled at you. Certainly not anything of the scale of the horrendous colours chosen for the character of the man at the centre of the controversy. This is what raked up the entire issue in the first place, and what you and Mr Hari and etc etc think is "worth saying".
ReplyDelete"Certainly not anything of the scale of the horrendous colours chosen for the character of the man at the centre of the controversy." Yes, yes, fine, fine, Anon, whatever. Similar things and worse have been said about Mahatma Gandhi, the greatest revolutionary in living memory. We don't see Nirmala Deshpande and other Gandhians taking an axe (physically) to his critics. Which is why Gandhism as an ideology is still respected. And Gandhi's critics look like silly publicity-seekers, not fit to polish the Mahatma's shoes, er, slippers. When mud is being slung at your heroes - religious or political - you have to take the high road, not lower yourself to the level of street thugs and murderers. It's about time we ended this toleration of all kinds of goondaism whether it's in the name of hurt religious feelings or hurt cultural sentiments (like Mangalore) or hurt whatever. Fight words with words, otherwise it just speaks volumes about your self-confidence. And, Jai, sorry for having taken up so much space in your comments section. That's it for my part of the discussion.
ReplyDeleteSharmishtha
Sharmishta, no axe has been brought to this blog, so it is hard to understand your accusation. Gandhi was a great man. No one denies this. His Gandhigiri involved concern for people who threw rotting rubbish on him. If the rubbish stopped, he knocked to ask if the rubbish-thrower was medically alright, as shown in the film Munnabhai. For more on Gandhi's inspirations, do read his very first political speech made to a group of Indians in South Africa, and tell me who gave him his heart and willpower to counter racial and other forms of injustice. You and other rubbish throwers (even if the charges levelled are worse than rubbish) will be surprised. With luck, you will unbrainwash yourselves from the ill effects of agenda-based propaganda. (Sorry for this comment. Had already declared the discussion over)
ReplyDeleteSharmishtha,
ReplyDeleteI hope you do realize that Gandhi was an admirer of Hindu religion, drew inspiration from Geeta and wanted the caste system preserved.
While it's true that Gandhi's philosophy survives, do you really think that even 1% of people - including you - even understand where he was coming from, or have knowledge of Hinduism, or try to live their lives according to Gandhi's principles? Today, it's fashionable to pour scorn over anything religious instead of making an effort to understand it. This is one prejudice that most "liberals" indulge in and are blind to, while they claim to fight prejudices.
Sorry again to intervene, Kaffir, Sharmishta, Jabberwock. Gandhi drew inspiration from the Geeta as well, it is on verifiable record, but "wanted to preserve the caste system" (a charge made mostly by Ambedkar followers) is not consistent with his humane persona. Possibly, he equivocated on some occasion under pressure, which is a legitimate matter for academic enquiry (as is the shaitan verse issue with respect to the other great revolutionary under discussion, where again the question of logical inconsistency arises and may be dismissed on similar grounds). As for Gandhi, on the basis of all that is historically known, it can be said safely that Gandhi did not support any inequitous form of social structure. Chapter 14 of the Geeta can be interpreted many ways, like all olden texts. He was too enlightened for that. He had a wide range of inspirations.
ReplyDeleteA blogger arrested on vague charges has died in custody in Iran, reports CNN. The world's bloggers should initative a movement against custodial abuse of human rights. Justice is at stake here
ReplyDeleteHeavens! South Africa?
ReplyDelete