..in a multicultural society
When Dan Brown wrote the fiction ‘Da Vinci Code’ depicting a more human version of Christ, Christians all over the world, protested very strongly and boycotted its film version. Even in India complaints from leaders of Christian religion led to a temporary hold on the film.
Hindus and Shivsena were greatly annoyed at M F Hussain’s controversial painting ‘Bharatmata (Mother India) a woman in nude across the map of India’, so much so that he had to seek asylum in Dubai.
When George Floyd, an unarmed African American, was killed in USA by a white cop Derek Chauvin by kneeling on his neck there was outburst of public wrath and the cop had to be taken into custody.
In above cases state was prompt in acting against such communally sensitive use of public space.
But mark the difference.
Muslims were highly agitated when Salman Rushdie, a British citizen, wrote ‘Satanic Verses’ on the life of Prophet Mohammad. A fatwa was issued by Ayatollah Khomeini supreme leader of Iran calling upon Muslims to kill him for the blasphemous book. But Margaret Thatcher’s government gave him all security to protect his right to life. In India, the book was banned in response to protests from Muslims. But I believe there was no ban in his visit to India. He visited my place in Vadodara with Lord Bhikhu Parekh.
Now, let us look at what is happening in France.
A magazine published cartoons of prophet Mohammad. Muslim fanatics firebombed its offices and killed 12 journalists. Later a Christian teacher who showed this cartoon in the regular class for teaching was assassinated by Muslim fanatics. When French president Macron condemned the murder and defended the teacher’s absolute right to freedom of expression, three Christians were killed by Muslim fanatics in a church in Nice. Malaysian and Turkish presidents declared that Muslims had a right to kill millions of French people. These are outrageous acts of terror and cannot be tolerated in any civilized society.
These are three pictures. First, States which recognize blasphemy as a criminal offence as a state policy and have provided for death penalty in their law. This extreme approach informs the Muslims all over the world. Second, Countries which have right to freedom of expression in their constitution. But considering the cultural diversity in their countries, they discourage hurting the religious sentiments of minorities. Third, countries which recognize absolute freedom of expression which, according to Swaminathan Anklesaria Aiyar, includes freedom to offend.
Most of the liberal democracies like Britain, Germany, Portugal, France, Canada, Australia, India, and USA are multicultural. They comprise, amongst others, citizens having origins in countries which recognize blasphemy with death penalty in their law. Some of these countries owe their cultural mix to their colonial past and some to a controlled policy of immigration. India’s cultural diversity is the result of its history of invasions and conversions. Invaders came to India in search of wealth and left behind them several minorities. Most of these minorities have their roots in India.
Modern democracies, except perhaps France, have realized this predicament and follow a policy of smoothening the sharp edges of extreme cultures by putting reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression, such that religious or ethnic sensitivities are not deeply hurt causing violent eruptions and loss of innocent lives.
Today, entire countries, workplaces, and schools are increasingly made up of various cultural, racial, and ethnic groups. By recognizing and learning about these various groups, communities build trust, respect, and understanding across all cultures. Communities and organizations in all settings benefit from the different backgrounds, skills, experiences, and new ways of thinking that come with cultural diversity.
As globalization becomes the order of the day, more and more countries will become multicultural and a wise pragmatic approach is imperative to have a peaceful and harmonious society.
We the People 