Free speech is an idea barely understood, let alone practiced. Rajiv GV explains why Taslima Nasreen’s persecution stems from deep roots
(Cartoons of Prophet Mohammad published in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 under the headline ‘Face of Muhammad’)
In December of 1978, Robert Faurisson, a Professor of literature at the University of Lyon, wrote a short article titled ‘The Problem of the Gas Chambers’ or ‘The Rumor of Auschwitz’, in France’s respected daily Le Monde. In the article Faurisson argued that the much written about gas chambers in Germany were never used and also denied the existence of the systematic murder of Jews. The article, predictably, stirred France out of its torpor and caused considerable outrage among intellectual circles worldwide. Later, in the face of continuous threats, Faurisson was removed from his academic position at the French university.
Subsequently, in the fall of 1979, American linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky signed a petition over the Faurisson affair. The petition strongly condemned the campaign to silence Faurisson and urged the concerned authorities in Fance to protect Faurisson’s right to freedom of expression and speech.
The petition infuriated many French intellectuals who felt that the petition never raised the question of whether what Faurisson is saying is true or false and slammed Chomsky for signing it.
Chomsky, in response to the criticism, later wrote an essay titled ‘Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression’, in which he attacked his critics for failing to respect the principle of freedom of speech.
Chomsky wrote:
“…Even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and fanatic pro-Nazi — such charges have been presented to me in private correspondence that it would be improper to cite in detail here — this would have no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the defense of his civil rights. On the contrary, it would make it all the more imperative to defend them since, once again, it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense.”
Chomsky’s second provocation, this time in the form of an essay, invited more vicious invective from the French intelligentsia. But Chomsky, a man who practiced what he preached, remained unfazed and stood his ground.
The Faurission affair was an old wound, an old outrage. A fuming democracy and its myopic intellectuals in their collective rage had seriously undercut the democratic culture by denying an elementary right.
It’s been more than 20 years since the Faurisson affair, but new battles involving the right to free speech continue to erupt across the world.
(Sita sitting on Ravana’s thigh in a painting by MF Husain)
The provocateur who happens to be caught up in the latest tussle involving freedom of expression and respecting sentiments is Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen. The writer was shunted out of Kolkata by the CPI(M) after street riots erupted over her writings on November 21 last year. The Indian government has since then kept Nasreen in a ’safe house’ in New Delhi.
While the sickening drama involving Taslima, the CPI(M) and the UPA government played out in the media last year, a section of the Muslim lunatic fringe took to streets and invaded television studious to denounce her writings and asked the Centre to throw her out of the country. The UPA government, after shifting the blame on CPI(M) for a while, finally succumbed and asked Taslima to refrain from hurting the sentiments.
External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee promised to ’shelter’ Nasreen, but urged her to ‘refrain from activities and expressions’ that may hurt the sentiments of Indian people.
Union Information and Broadcasting Minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi went a step further. He asked Nasreen to apologise to the Muslims with folded hands for her writings.
Farooq Abdullah of the National Conference, invited to participate in a debate on the issue by a TV channel, bluntly asked Taslima to desist writing such inflammatory prose as it would lead to law and order problems.
On November 30, 2007, when in the face of unrelenting mental trauma, Taslima Nasreen finally crumbled and agreed to expunge controversial portions from her biography Dwikhandita, a victory was claimed.
As in the case of the Faurisson affair, this sordid saga once again demonstrated an unacknowledged fact that the concept of freedom of expression is barely understood, let alone practiced.
Speaking in an interview to Karan Thapar over the Taslima issue, Arundhati Roy raised some significant points which are worth reproducing here. On being asked whether freedom of speech was an absolute freedom, ‘without any limitations’, Roy said that personally she held the view that freedom of expression is something ‘that should have no caveats, for the simple reason that in a place where there are so many contending beliefs, so many conflicting things, only the powerful will then decide what those caveats should be…’
Later in the interview, When asked to comment on the view that Taslima had offended beliefs held sacred by many Indians, Roy said she didn’t believe that ‘a writer like Taslima Nasreen can undermine the dignity of ten million people.’ ‘Who is she?’ Roy went on, ’she is not a scholar of Islam’.
‘Dwikhandito has not been translated into English but let’s just assume that what she said was stupid and insulting to Islam. But you have to be prepared to be insulted by something that insignificant,’ observed Roy.
Leaving no room for ambiguity, Roy said that without the ‘right to offend’, the right to freedom of expression has no meaning.
In subscribing to the ‘right to offend’ view, Roy was echoing what Noam Chomsky had forcefully asserted in an interview with the journalist John Pilger. That ‘if we don’t believe in free expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.’
Indeed it is abhorring to witness the continuous and unabashed selective-use of such a precious right.
The editor of the UK media watchdog, MediaLens, which won the Gandhi Foundation International Peace Award for 2007, when requested to comment on freedom of speech, wrote that, ‘A heavy burden of proof is always on the people arguing against free speech in any given instance because the consequences of suppressing that freedom may well be extremely grave (it’s a very slippery slope, obviously). So if an argument was merely provocative and puerile, then it would be very difficult to argue that it should be suppressed. After all, one can argue that it’s not really the words that are doing the harm, but the uncontrolled, angry reaction of the people allowing themselves to be provoked.’
Clearly, insult to ’sentiments’, one’s ‘tastes’ are not sufficient grounds on which right to free speech can be curtailed. The real test, the extraordinary reason, that might necessitate a surrenering of the right might be irrefutable proof of criminal violence. Barring such a powerful reason, any other complaint might prove to be insufficient to call for curtailment of the right.
It would be appropriate to conclude by recalling another famous, but old, rumble which had a famous philosopher in the eye of a major storm in the US.
In 1940, British philosopher Bertrand Russell’s appointment to teach at the College of the City of New York(CCNY) was contested and the complainant took the matter to court to stall the move.
An enraged NY court viciously attacked Russell for his views on morality and education and issued a stinging rebuke to the CCNY’s board for trying to appoint a controversial figure like Russell. Worried by the unhealthy impact Russell and his views might have over the students, the court voided his appointment.
The issue found echo in the US media and a New York Times editorial disapproved of Russell’s actions and criticised him for not retiring after the row had erupted. Russell, replying to the NY Times editorial, bitterly wrote to the paper that he had not backed off as it would mean surrendering to the will of powerful groups.
“In a democracy it is necessary that people learn to endure having their sentiments outraged,” wrote Russell.
It would be invaluable to remember Russell’s dictum the next time somebody’s sentiments are outraged.
Tags: free speech, Taslima Nasreen
