The Editor of The Statesman, Calcutta, was arrested yesterday. The reason: he carried an article, "Why should I respect these oppressive religions?" by Johann Hari initially published by the Independent UK.
In his article Hari criticized religious fundamentalists of all hues and also-- rightly in my view -- criticized a concession made by the UN. That concession involves the successful campaign by a group of religious states to expand the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights to not just report on violations of freedom of expression but also "defamation of religions and prophets." As Hari's argument suggests, the implication of this change was that religious fundamentalists had now managed to get their right to intimidate, assault, attack and threaten others enshrined as a right in itself and that too one protected by the UN!
A few thousand Muslim fundamentalists rioted and misbehaved in the streets of Calcutta, rioting, threatening the editor, and the like. In keeping with ridiculous Indian laws, the editor of The Statesman was arrested for "outraging" the sentiments of Muslims.
Hari courageously stands by his article, as he writes in a follow-up piece,"Despite these riots, I stand by what I wrote"
Let us hope the West Bengal Government, Left intellectuals in India, and Muslim leaders (a) support Johann Hari, and the editor of The Statesman, and (b) actively campaign and call for the prosecution of the rioters, fanatics and criminals who threatened either of them verbally or physically.
This event should also put paid to the illusion that certain parts of the country, like West Bengal, with a "secular", "Left", "communist" or "Marxist" heritage are more "enlightened" than UP, Bihar, Rajasthan etc.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Was not Taslima Nasreen forced to leave Calcutta?
I'm afraid my view is somewhat different. I had seen the Hari article before it had been carried in The Statesman. I have read several articles by Hari carried in Statesman, and liked some too. But even as I read the one in question, I could see it would only cause trouble here. I labelled it "secular fundamentalist". It did not strike me that Statesman might carry it. For I would then have warned them of the consequences. That was transparent to me, and I cannot understand how they were so foolish as not to know what the consequences would be. Its also especially sad, since The Statesman had carried an article referring to the Prophet in 1968 (I think) which resulted in a demonstration and police firing, in which several people were killed. Again some years ago, an article (on phone booths overcharging customers) led to some unpleasant consequences. Those incidents should have forewarned The Statesman. Sadly, The Statesman is the only readable paper in Calcutta today, caring news and critical perspectives, in contrast to the bilge that the rest of the media is full of. Statesman has written about the plight of Muslims, more so than other papers. And of course, the editor is a fine person. I am not condoning the violent protesters or the arrest of the editor. But I am advocating common sense, which once again, seems to be not so common at all, sadly. When you coexist, some common sense is needed. For instance, if you walk around a Muslim neighbourhood carrying a dead pig - well, even before you talk about freedom of expression, you're likely to be a dead pig yourself. Of course, we have "platform pimps", who are simply waiting for stupid acts like The Statesman's, to come out, rabble-rousing etc. Most of the protesters would not have read the article, or even know how to read English. They would have been told, "the paper has insulted the Prophet". And so... Fulminating against the idiocy or ignorance of the mob is not going to achieve anything. The "platform pimps" have to be confronted and tackled, from within and with the community / constituency they are mobilising. And that community / constituency has to be educated in protests, against the real, substantive issues affecting their lives, livelihoods and futures, which the platform pimps are silent about. But our secular heroes of free speech are not doing this. Of course that's hard work, and who likes to do that. Exclaiming and fulminating in the air is so much easier...
Post a Comment