Before
even going into the what-a-bad-act-of-violence sentimental outpour I want to
focus first on the meaning of Secularism as interpreted and enshrined by the Constitutional Council of
France. The idea of this article is not to analyse whether it was a bad and
horrific action or a good and justified reaction. Certainly there are causes
responsible for an action. In fact Mr. Devdutt Patnaik goes so far, although
not very impressively, to give a philosophical bend to the recent attacks by
talking about maya: we live in our constructed realities smothered by
the maya which makes us the killer and the killed both. One can always throw in
more constructed jargons like Justice by arguing that 12 people lampooning
prophet get killed in cold blood in France by two isolated militants and 3.7
million people come out in their support but 2000 plus innocent people
including children and pregnant women are captured in their own homes in
Nigeria and butchered for committing no crime by an army of organised militants
and still only a handful of news agencies talk about the incident. Call it the
ridiculousness or mishandling to deal with global terror outfits or the
absurdity of modern day realpolitik one cannot but be compelled to frown at
these incidents. These are matters of grave concern which make us rethink our
basis concepts of justice, freedom, peace, tolerance, security and allegiance
to basic humanism and simply commenting that it was good or bad would be gross
oversimplification.
The
text-book definition of Indian secularism is that the government shall remain
neutral to all religion by not meddling itself into the affairs of any single
one of them. Free practice, profession, propagation (of) your religion
(conversion although is not a right as said by SC in one verdict and de facto
conversion by force is infringement of freedom of conscience), freedom from
taxation (on religious institutions), freedom to give religious instructions
(to autonomous private education institutions), freedom to manage language and
culture (religious minority) are some provisions mentioned under part-3 of
Indian Constitution also called as ‘Fundamental Rights’. Pretty impressive
isn’t it? In theory, yes. But this is not the case in France.
In
France, Secularism simply means concerning with the affairs of natural and not
the supernatural. The French state does not recognize religion and recent past
incidents would also show that there’s a certain element of hostility against
religion in their secularism. The French accepted the concept of Laïcité – the separation of church and state way
back in 1905. However the more severe version of secularism was defined by the
French courts recently in 2004. Increasing amount of immigration in the past
decade gave way to the emergence of multiple identities. To prevent the
practice of appeasement politics, which destroys social fabric – India being a
fantastic example, the decision was taken to identify secularism as a strict
non-recognition of any religion. This essentially means that the people of
France have the right to offend religion just as they can other sensitive
matters like public figures. In 2011 they passed a law for mandatory revelation
of face at places of work, officially banning Hijabs and Naqabs. This came into
implementation since 2014.
Charlie
Hebdo was practicing this legal and political facility to express its
disagreement of institutionalised religion, specifically Islam as per the
context. Certainly the fact that they didn’t express why they disagreed with
Islam but straight away lampooned it as a joke is questionable. Charlie’s
belief is that rather than pouring in over the top militarised troops into the
middle-east, they should instead create such an atmosphere of liberal thought
that Islam like Christianity is reduced to a banality. Despite several threats
and some previous attacks, Charlie did not succumb. Theirs was a provocative,
thoughtful, funny, obscene and an anarchist method.
Most
important now is to understand the socio-political implications of these
attacks on Charlie Hebdo. Anti-immigration sentiments are high in European
nations. Whether they are anti-Islam marches in Germany or the rising
Islamophobia in France, one must clearly understand the backlash that Charlie
Hebdo will create.
Clearly
there were reported attacks on Mosques and other Islamic centres which only
corroborate the rising fear of Islam in European countries. These are not
isolated incidents. The growing immigration compounded by an anti-Islam
sentiment has been further responsible for alienating the Muslim communities in
European countries. This has caused ghettoization and marginalisation. I even
heard Mr. Bobby Jindal recently talked about certain no-non Muslim zones in
England where a more severe form of Islam is strictly followed. The idea is
that if one reads the profile of majority of Muslim people living in these
areas, one would find that these are 2nd and 3rd
generation immigrants from marginalized working classes living in grim high
rise suburbs at the outskirts of large cities where unemployment, drug
exploitation and other crimes plague day in and day out. Such marginalisation
and unemployment brings along dejection and stigma with it, which if can be
solved by joining a radical Islam then the latter is considered a viable
option. Such reasons which provide a meaning to these despondent men and women
then become an explanation to incidents of young people flocking in groups to
join radical forces in Middle-East like IS.
Charlie
Hebdo and its aftermath must be treated very sensitively. The government and
law enforcement agencies must work hard to keep all the sections of people in
confidence and ensure their ideal of secularism in practice.
