Limits to Right to Protest !
Two incidents, one local the other international, involving the Muslim community were in the news recently. The first one was regarding the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten publishing cartoons caricaturing Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist. The second was the desecration of the Holy Qur'an in Ladakh. Both incidents led to protests by the Muslim community against the disrespect shown to their Prophet and the holy book. Nothing wrong with it. In fact the protests were justified. However, what raises doubts is the manner in which these protests were conducted. Lets look at both these incidents separately and see where the demonstrations went off the track.
To begin with, it has to be acknowledged that the cartoons published by Jyllands-Posten were in bad taste and bound to provoke even the least devout Muslim. Arguments that the publication of these cartoons falls within the ambit of ‘freedom of expression’ or ‘right to freedom of press’ do not hold water. Caricaturing Muslims as terrorists and illiterate, camel-riding morons in films and cartoons is not new. This has been done in the past too, especially in the post-9/11 period. Such depictions never became a cause for demonstrations and street violence of the kind witnessed this time. So what got their goat? This time the cartoonist chose to use the image of Prophet Mohammed instead of the thawb wearing Arab. This depiction went against two very basic beliefs of Muslims across the world. First, Islam forbids any pictorial or facial depiction of the Prophet. Therefore, the cartoon showing the Prophet in human form was nothing but blasphemy for Muslims. Second, according to Islamic beliefs Prophet Mohammed is the ‘insaan-i-kaamil’ or the ‘Perfect Man’. Honesty, justness, gentlemanly conduct, and an impeccable moral make-up characterised the Prophet. He was a spiritual guide who led his followers by example. Today the faithful are exhorted to follow the Prophet’s ‘path’, the sunnah, and lead a life as shown by him. It is this revered figure that the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten depicted in a deprecating manner.
As news about the cartoons spread, Muslims throughout the world, especially in Islamic countries, voiced their protest against this affront to their belief. The expression of these protests took various forms. Several Arab and Islamic nations demanded an apology from the Danish government and some even closed down their embassies in Denmark. The situation turned ugly when the Danish and Norwegian missions in Syria and Beirut were burnt down and death threats issued to the creators of the cartoons. Violent street protests continue to this day in various parts of the world. However, the question that arises is whether the path taken by some of these demonstrators was acceptable or not? In my humble opinion, they were not. More on it a little later.
Ladakh, like most peripheral regions of India, isn’t ‘banner headline’ material. That’s why the news reports about communal clashes between Muslims and Buddhists would have come as a surprise to most of us. However, the fact remains that tension between Muslim and Buddhist communities of Ladakh has been a sad reality of the region for sometime now. Matters reached a flashpoint in 1989 when the Buddhist community under the leadership of the Ladakh Buddhist Association declared a social boycott of Muslims. Even the Dalai Lama failed to break the impasse. This boycott went on till 1992. Communal tensions have simmered ever since and minor incidents only aggravate the problem. The incident involving the “tearing of pages of the Holy Qur’an by unidentified people” was provocation enough to bring the Muslim protestors on the streets again. Quite clearly the act was a deliberate one intended to incite the Muslims and create unrest in the region by exploiting the underlying tensions between the two communities. Regrettably, the Muslims of Ladakh couldn’t see through it and fell right into the trap. The violence that followed is hard to defend. On what grounds did the Muslim groups attack Buddhist owned establishments and houses? Mere suspicion? Or if they had the proof that certain members of the Buddhist community were involved in the act of desecration of the Holy Qur’an, they should have reported the matter to the police and let the law takes it course.
In a civilised democracy, just as the right to freedom of expression is not absolute and unbridled, so is the right to protest. The moment a peaceful demonstration turns into a violent mob, the word protest loses meaning. Have the Muslim men indulging in violence ever thought as to how setting shops ablaze, damaging public and private property and inconveniencing fellow citizens in their respective countries, be a solution to their problem? In a world where Islam and its followers have been demonised as terrorists, the pictures of Muslim youth rampaging through streets, indulging in arson and violence only go on to strengthen such stereotypes.It is high time that the moderate voices from amongst the community make themselves heard and send out a clear message that violence in any form is unacceptable. Saner and more tolerant minds are the need of the hour.
Postscript: The Editor of Jyllands-Posten has apologised for publishing the offensive cartoons. That should effectively put this whole controversy to an end.
To begin with, it has to be acknowledged that the cartoons published by Jyllands-Posten were in bad taste and bound to provoke even the least devout Muslim. Arguments that the publication of these cartoons falls within the ambit of ‘freedom of expression’ or ‘right to freedom of press’ do not hold water. Caricaturing Muslims as terrorists and illiterate, camel-riding morons in films and cartoons is not new. This has been done in the past too, especially in the post-9/11 period. Such depictions never became a cause for demonstrations and street violence of the kind witnessed this time. So what got their goat? This time the cartoonist chose to use the image of Prophet Mohammed instead of the thawb wearing Arab. This depiction went against two very basic beliefs of Muslims across the world. First, Islam forbids any pictorial or facial depiction of the Prophet. Therefore, the cartoon showing the Prophet in human form was nothing but blasphemy for Muslims. Second, according to Islamic beliefs Prophet Mohammed is the ‘insaan-i-kaamil’ or the ‘Perfect Man’. Honesty, justness, gentlemanly conduct, and an impeccable moral make-up characterised the Prophet. He was a spiritual guide who led his followers by example. Today the faithful are exhorted to follow the Prophet’s ‘path’, the sunnah, and lead a life as shown by him. It is this revered figure that the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten depicted in a deprecating manner.
As news about the cartoons spread, Muslims throughout the world, especially in Islamic countries, voiced their protest against this affront to their belief. The expression of these protests took various forms. Several Arab and Islamic nations demanded an apology from the Danish government and some even closed down their embassies in Denmark. The situation turned ugly when the Danish and Norwegian missions in Syria and Beirut were burnt down and death threats issued to the creators of the cartoons. Violent street protests continue to this day in various parts of the world. However, the question that arises is whether the path taken by some of these demonstrators was acceptable or not? In my humble opinion, they were not. More on it a little later.
Ladakh, like most peripheral regions of India, isn’t ‘banner headline’ material. That’s why the news reports about communal clashes between Muslims and Buddhists would have come as a surprise to most of us. However, the fact remains that tension between Muslim and Buddhist communities of Ladakh has been a sad reality of the region for sometime now. Matters reached a flashpoint in 1989 when the Buddhist community under the leadership of the Ladakh Buddhist Association declared a social boycott of Muslims. Even the Dalai Lama failed to break the impasse. This boycott went on till 1992. Communal tensions have simmered ever since and minor incidents only aggravate the problem. The incident involving the “tearing of pages of the Holy Qur’an by unidentified people” was provocation enough to bring the Muslim protestors on the streets again. Quite clearly the act was a deliberate one intended to incite the Muslims and create unrest in the region by exploiting the underlying tensions between the two communities. Regrettably, the Muslims of Ladakh couldn’t see through it and fell right into the trap. The violence that followed is hard to defend. On what grounds did the Muslim groups attack Buddhist owned establishments and houses? Mere suspicion? Or if they had the proof that certain members of the Buddhist community were involved in the act of desecration of the Holy Qur’an, they should have reported the matter to the police and let the law takes it course.
In a civilised democracy, just as the right to freedom of expression is not absolute and unbridled, so is the right to protest. The moment a peaceful demonstration turns into a violent mob, the word protest loses meaning. Have the Muslim men indulging in violence ever thought as to how setting shops ablaze, damaging public and private property and inconveniencing fellow citizens in their respective countries, be a solution to their problem? In a world where Islam and its followers have been demonised as terrorists, the pictures of Muslim youth rampaging through streets, indulging in arson and violence only go on to strengthen such stereotypes.It is high time that the moderate voices from amongst the community make themselves heard and send out a clear message that violence in any form is unacceptable. Saner and more tolerant minds are the need of the hour.
Postscript: The Editor of Jyllands-Posten has apologised for publishing the offensive cartoons. That should effectively put this whole controversy to an end.
Comments
It's not the first time the medium of film has been used to spread fear and to malign an entire population. Birth of a Nation was just one such example, used to demonize Black Americans at the turn of the last century. Similarly, the Nazis used films to spread fear about Jews and others they deemed undesirables. Also, Jack Shaheen's book and documentary Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Villifies a People have shown how the American film industry has, for the better part of a century, developed a pattern of negatively portraying Arabs and Muslims. So Fitna is part of a long and sad tradition."
The means are varied and ingenious - what is not is the intent! If one were to separate oneself from the bombardment of the current discourse - hard as it can be - it will be but obvious that what the world has expereinced since the birth of religion (you tell me when), such motives are bound to exist. This has happened in every society where one philosophy has had to contend with a competing other. They have employed various means to engage in this - some violent and some not. And good for them!
What has evidently happened in this case could probably be traced back to the crusades and there exists little doubt in my mind that hard-liners in both religions continue that even today. Have no doubt, the Holy Quran does have texts that engage with violent rhetoric (USED IN A PARTICULAR CONTEXT easily forgotten) and Wilder's no doubt, has spotted these and cleverly matched them to his visuals. But i have no doubt that I could find SIMILAR such provocations in the Old Testament too! The war of supremacy spares none - not even Holy texts. It is but natural if one goes by my contention that competing philosophies have used various means to stem the growth ( the number of faithful) of another. Much like the world arena of international politics - trade, diplomacy, war only being instruments to that superior end.
The question now is whether, an enlightened citizenry should be a part of the fray and engage. My answer is yes. One has to if one wants to disprove the evil intent of another. Much like many of this great country's (im referring to India my foreign freinds :) ) social reformers.
Therein lies the dilemma of Public Vs. Private as SN has lucidly argued in his email. It has been my style, for want of a better word, to engage and disprove (either myself or the other) in a battle that has no easy answers, for the mind is still a very queer scoundrel. It is a very personal choice - and how i deal with it is probably my way of accepting (or rejecting) god!
There are no easy answers to this i know. But i may disengage from this subject taking heart that so many of you have expressed a fairly similar reaction to the film and by extension, to any form of fundamentalism.
In the meantime, i am off to hunt for Huntington!