The cartoon of the prophet has raised a lot of hue and cry besides all the tempers. Alas, in all these discussions, very few sane voices have emerged from places where decisions are being made.

However, this problem is not regarding the Danish government versus the global Islamic communities. It is not even Europe or the Western world versus Islamic people. It is perhaps a question of how institutions and people in a multi-religious nation need to interact with each other. What protocols will they follow?

That the state – of Denmark, or any other nation – would not place sanctions on freedom of expression is quite justified. Despite the pressure, it did well to back what it considered a basic human value. After all, as one quote posited, you do not need to ensure freedom of expression when expressing popular ideas. It is only when an idea is unpopular you need to ensure that the freedom remains, even if you disagree with it.

There is much that a number of countries – including ALL the South Asian nations – would learn from this stance.

However, the presentation of the newspaper itself was irresponsible. There is no question that the cartoons were meant to ridicule, to hurt sentiments. They were not meant to provoke thought among the muslim communities – they could not have. With freedom comes responsibility and while responsibility cannot be legislated, one can ascertain – sometimes – whether an action is responsible. This was not.

However, Muslim leadership (religious and political) cannot point a finger of irresponsibility at the Danish or at Europe. Leader after self-righteously outraged leader pointed out the blasphemy of this, inciting their own people to violence. Embassies in Indonesia, Palestine, Lebanon were damaged. And stereotypes were reinforced – that the muslim people cannot talk, that they are prone to violence, that they are fanatics. Unfortunately, these are the very stereotypes that need to be dismantled.

These leaders could have reacted differently, saying that they were hurt by the disrespect to their sentiments. They could have said that they were angry with these papers and with companies that advertised in them and they would start a boycott against these companies. That would have hurt these newspapers much more. That could have forced them to be more responsible. That could have been more classy, even.

But this is not just about Muslims. In India, these scenes have repeated themselves ad infinitum – from Salman Rushdie’s book, to VHP goons and Congress thugs beating up everyone who presents a critique even without hearing it. Most ironically, activists went and rampaged theaters in Calcutta (it was called Calcutta then, I believe) because they did not like Kamal Hasan’s rendition of Gandhi. For heaven’s sake!

But this hue and cry will achieve little unless we recognize that at the crux of this lies the question – how will people from different belief systems interact with each other?

The state itself needs to be secular – not supporting any one religious belief. For if it actively supports one belief and works to ‘spread’ it or marginalize others, we will see the riots of Gujarat repeat itself. So while the state has taken a neutral stand, and rightfully so, the answer to how people will interact is still not obvious.

Consider this case – while the state has rightfully said that it cannot sanction freedom of expression, it cannot legislate between two parties, one who claims the right to freedom of expression and the other who argues that it is hurt.

Such examples abound in places where widely different belief systems have attempted to co-exist. In India, one group claims the right to eat beef and the other argues that such behavior hurts its sentiments.

The west has not seen much of these differences till this point – primarily because the differences in belief systems were more nuanced. Culturally, these communities were similar and religiously, their differences were not differences in worldviews but differences in certain details in their beliefs. In a few cases where these conflicts did present themselves, one community – such as the gypsies – were so powerless that it did not matter.

Now these countries are faced with this issue and they must find ways to deal with it. The expression of the cartoons was not the first. The ongoing controversy about the Hijab in France was another example. As one European analyst presented, it is unfortunate that a young muslim woman has to choose between a patriarchal mullah and (perhaps even well meaning) government bureaucrat regarding her social status and way of life and the result of the choice thrusts her into greater patriarchy.

It is not easy. Despite years of experiences in South Asia that have spanned over two centuries, we do not have answers all the time either.

But when we do have the answers, when protocols have worked, they have worked not by political or legal interventions but based on social, economic and cultural interdependence. They have worked through a sense of respect, of understanding, that these worldviews – while different – are not meant to harm the other. They have worked through building of relationships where the party that experiences hurt can express it individually or institutionally through civic society. They have worked where groups have been respectful of differing world views and been willing to compromise or embrace in order that the other can also coexist.

In these situations, the answers will not come from political leaders waiting like vultures to gain another constituency. It might perhaps come from numerous small community groups, working quietly to connect these communities, through trust and respect. Unfortunately, these are few and far in between. The growing number in our world today may consist of groups that are more focused on increased polarization.
- Sanat Mohanty

Related Links
What Happened in Mau?
Who Opposes Textbook Edits?
Who is Afraid of Religious Fundamentalism?
Madrassa Reforms in India