How does someone react when religious fanatics gun down cartoonists, who they feel offended their religious sentiments? Should a line be drawn and must satirists and cartoonists follow some rules to not offend people? Must xenophobia and covert racism be defended in the battle for free speech? These were some of the many questions the world at large has been pondering and debating about since the horrific attacks in Paris on the Charlie Hebdo newspaper office and a supermarket, that in the course of three days left 17 people dead and many others injured.
The attacks received universal condemnation, and a slew of world leaders joined a peaceful march in Paris on Sunday. Le Juis Charlie, roughly translated to I am Charlie trended globally on Twitter and Facebook. The debate on the right to offend and freedom of expression is also relevant in the Indian context, where books and movies face bans, movie shows are disrupted and people take offence at a multitude of issues. From the works of Salman Rushdie to Wendy Doniger, Anand Patwardhan to Tasleema Nasreen and MF Hussain, many authors, filmmakers and artists have found their works being subject to attack by religious fanatics
While condemning the attack, many felt that a certain amount of caution helps in such situations. Media professional Jayadevan PK says, “You can't prescribe limits to freedom of expression. It is fundamental to democracy. Although sometimes people need to be sensible and think of the underlying issues before doing something. Sometimes you get offended, but violence is never the answer.”
Pratik Bhandari agrees with the viewpoint. “You can find a cartoon or a movie in bad taste and are at liberty to protest against it peacefully. The moment someone uses guns, the debate about freedom of expression ends.”
He adds, “I think India is not yet prepared for freedom of expression, without any restrictions. We are a country that loves to outrage. We tend to go overboard at times. Some amount of restraint would not be a bad idea. But again, who decides what is offensive and what is not.”
Talking about the impact of the Paris attack on stand up comedy, comedian Papa CJ quips, “Do I know comedians who don't do religious jokes for fear of personal repercussions? Yes. Do I know comedians who will do religious jokes regardless of attacks like these? Yes. Will this attack impact the state of my industry? No. Because while some comedians will hesitate from doing religious content due to this attack, some others will use this attack as a basis for their material and to further express their right to free expression. Personally I don't mock religion but I feel it is for each comedian to draw their own lines based on their own values. I am always conscious of the sensitivities of my audience and while I do occasionally like to provoke thought and introspection, I consider myself to be in the happiness business and therefore my main focus is to entertain and have people feeling happy when they leave. However that is my choice as a comedian and I respect other comedians' and cartoonists' right and decision to make a different choice.”
Policy expert Nitin Pai has a different take. “There is no case of abridgement of free speech because it offends religious sentiment or political ideology. The fact that our constitution, court judgements and segments of public opinion think so is unfortunate. Once we say it's okay to protect some people from being offended by free speech, we open the floodgates for everyone to claim being offended. We are in a situation of competitive intolerance and we must reverse it if we are to be a free society.”
