Sins of the Ruler
I’ve had plenty
of discussions with my parents that involve the Western approach towards
individual freedom and rights. I always felt that they considered US and Europe
only marginally different on these topics; and no matter how much I tried, I
don’t think I could convince them that the differences were much deeper and not
just in the details.
So let me take
another stab at it. Judah
Grunstein wrote this article recently:
“Both France and America make the
sanctity of free speech a core principle. But at various times over the past 14
years that I have lived here in France, I have been called on by my American
friends to “translate” just what the French mean by “free speech.” In
particular, they have been perplexed by the willingness to place limits on
speech and, relatedly, religious expression here.”
He elaborates on
that:
“Put simply, in France, racist and
anti-Semitic speech, as well as historical revisionism regarding the Holocaust,
is illegal, as is all speech that can be considered an incitement to hate. That
is something that very few Americans understand—or approve of.”
The
French/European approach is closer to India’s: freedom of speech is mostly
supported, but with certain constraints. As a result, in France, a comedian, Dieudonné,
has been convicted in the past for anti-Semitic slurs. Whereas, when Muslim
groups sued Charlie Hebdo in the
past, they lost. This contradiction is taken by some as:
“Proof that when it comes to offensive
humor, Muslims are fair game, but Jews are off-limits.”
Note this is not
to justify the terrorist attacks against the Charlie Hebdo staff. Rather, it is to show the contradictions
created when you try and apply different rules for different groups in the same
country.
Of course, the
sensitivity to anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial in Europe is understandable:
After centuries of persecution of Jews culminating in what Hitler did, the
European pendulum has swung to the other extreme.
In India, I
never understand why our pendulum swings so much in excess of what is warranted
when it comes to minorities. After all, Hindus have never persecuted/slaughtered
minorities in our history on the scale of the Europeans or, hell, even an
Aurungzeb.
Sure, we’re not
perfect in India when it comes to minorities. But shouldn’t we be taking more
of an America-like stand on minorities than a Europe-like stand that is based
on a guilt-ridden, massacres-done-and-winked-at history? That is Europe’s
history, not ours. It doesn’t make sense that the sins of the ruler (Europe) be
laid upon the ruled (India).
You started the blog with, "I’ve had plenty of discussions with my parents that involve the Western approach towards individual freedom and rights. I always felt that they considered US and Europe only marginally different on these topics; and no matter how much I tried, I don’t think I could convince them that the differences were much deeper and not just in the details". After going through the details it is time for us to admit to our ignorance about the approaches (between Europe and USA) being not marginal but substantial.
ReplyDeleteAs to India's choice, it cannot be like the Europe or the USA either. Europe's approach is shaped by the Hellenic attitude coming down the line for centuries. USA, on the other hand, took pragmatically to nation-building knowing the assorted groups needing an identity, which they formulated and implemented successfully.
India has a checkered past of many denominations of many religions working out some kind of "somehow getting along". It worked to some extent before the Semitic religions entered the arena. Semetic religions did not go by "you live your life, we ours" ideas in the past. In broad terms, they still believe in edging out all other religions. On the whole, the confusion caused by all the religions in India is a crippling headache today because everyone is into increasingly aggressive postures.
We had failed to set our ways towards a unified national identity soon after the independence and it looks pretty late now. The point I am making is that the USA model cannot work here. Nevertheless, even if late, we should still work towards a national integration process pragmatically, like the USA did once. But, with most of our netas thriving on the opposite ideology (divide and take the spoils), our confusion will persist until generations pass, clearing the mess we have acquired.
In the mean time, we may hope that the hatred the world feels towards the Muslims would compel that society to relinquish their continuous leaning towards terrorism and aggression. Who knows, the younger generation Muslims may actually find the Islamic extremism disgusting - we need not imagine that indoctrination towards anti-humanitarian ideology will go on and on. (I firmly believe that human nature has an inherent component that can sense 'value', which makes me consider that evil religious indoctrination methods will not survive endlessly.) Then, even the percentage of Muslims, who today are unable to feel positive towards the nations that support their very lives, Muslims who resist integration with other social and religious groups, may come around to sensibility. (For the Hindus, the caste-divide is the persistent gulf, which also may become a thing of past.)
We have no option but to wait and find out what our future holds for us.