Charlie Hebdo: Dangers of becoming a republic of the offended

For nearly two decades, we have heard the adage, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It injected an element of restraint in our language, and especially for some of us in the media who look for easy, lazy and instant labels. 

But the dastardly attack on Charlie Hebdo's staff in Paris on Wednesday poses another awkward dilemma - what do we do when one man's satire becomes another man's bigotry?  

Is it time to start drawing lines around what we can safely say and what we must not? 

First a couple of disclaimers about myself. I am a practising Hindu. But I am a liberal at heart and my definition of secularism is to keep all talk of religion, religious leaders and gods and goddesses strictly out of politics and government. And of course, the violent attack on Charlie Hebdo can never be justified. 

Having declared my personal position, let us now try to calibrate how far we can stretch our freedom to satirize and lampoon those we disagree with. Must we become particularly restrained when it comes to religion - one's own and others'? And while we are at it, let us also debate whether the irreligious have any rights in our society to express their views.  

As soon as we heard the news, one friend - an agnostic at that -- asked the question: "Why did Charlie Hebdo attack Islam again and again?" 

I asked my friend: "Did you ask the same question when the artist MF Husain kept painting Hindu goddesses naked and offended some?" 

These are difficult questions. The answers are even more numbing.  

Must we censor ourselves when it comes to lampooning religion? Should we abandon all our freedom? Do we assume that all believers lack humour and artistic sensibility? 

Some have said that we must be responsible when it comes to religious sentiments. Others ask if it is too risky and even worthwhile to lampoon a religion again and again, especially when you know that some bad guys with guns can come and shoot you.  

My answer is yes, it is worthwhile.  

Should fear of violence stop us from speaking our mind? Not all of them have guns, you know. Some have hockey sticks, they can either beat you up, or smash your car. Will you stop yourself then? Others have acid in their hands too (I got acid attack threats for some of my stories).  

Most of the mainstream print newspapers published the offending French cartoons in India. Some people posted them on social media. I watched one English television channel show the images. But most kept them out. Why? Are we trying not to offend? Where do the atheists go if they can't access the mainstream media? Should they publish their own basement journals and circulate secretly among interest-groups?  

In India, we outrage against the movie PK because it hurt our sentiments. We outraged against Husain because he defiled our goddesses by painting them nude (something  we see in many of our temples without even blinking an eye). We also outraged when some social media posts lampooned the Prophet three years ago. 

But the danger in becoming a republic of the offended is where do we stop? Today it is gods and goddesses. But what about people who hold their political leaders so dear that they almost worship them? 

What about Modi-bhakts? For them Modi is like a demi-God. Same with Kejriwal-bhakts. Or Gandhi-family devotees. Or Ambedkarites. Must we stop short of lampooning them as well? Stretch this argument, shall we stop satirizing anything that which comes under the realm of "belief"? Perhaps it is our collective responsibility to protect all believers - whether in religion, or an ideology or a leader.   

After all, the UPA government came down heavily after some offending pictures of Sonia Gandhi and her family and colleagues were posted on social media three years ago. 

Shall we silence the irreverent disbelievers among us into submission? Even though we know that irreverence is the stuff of a liberal society. We must fight for the freedom to believe as well as the freedom to disbelieve - without fear of violence and punishment.  

I find myself in an awkward position of being a devout believer arguing for the rights of the atheist. But that is the liberal democracy that I aspire for. Their atheism may offend us. But our belief systems offend their sense of reason and logic.  

If all of us become a polite deferential society and stop short of satirizing, then we will be left with a chilling calm of a totalitarian state - the kind that has supreme leaders and midnight knocks.  

It is hard to draw a line. It is harder to define the line. And in a democracy, it is best if we don't attempt to draw it at all (except when it involves violence). Such issues of religious beliefs and freedom of expression must be up for daily debates and negotiations - that is how we sculpt a democracy, which is still a work-in-progress.