The ‘Roast’ of Free Expression

“We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and even if we
were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.”
- John Stuart Mill

The latest to walk the tightrope of freedom of speech and expression are a group of stand-up comedians called the All India Bakchod (AIB). Amidst raging controversies and the whopping 8 million views garnered by the infamous AIB roast video before it was taken down, the dichotomy between the right to free speech and the right to be offended stood exposed.

It holds true that the program contained language that was offensive and abusive but it also carried a disclaimer at the beginning about the nature of its content. The AIB’s argument that no one was forced to watch it also stands correct in its place. Thereafter, the filing of a criminal conspiracy case makes sense, of course, because a group of comedians would indeed resort to a conspiracy to crack admittedly offensive jokes with a warning!

Also, who decides what constitutes Indian values and culture? Seemingly, the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena. While the Maharashtra CM ordered a probe into the matter, ironically even the parliament seems to be in want for parliamentary language these days. Perhaps the question we SHOULD be asking is that when the usage of expletives and sexual innuendos is so common and even accepted in conversational language, why do we get so uncomfortable when it is broadcasted in on a supposedly free forum where all those who choose to witness it do it out of their free will? Perhaps the self-proclaimed sanitizers of the Indian value system should resort to washing the filth right out of the everyday Indian’s mouth in order to safeguard what they think constitutes the Indian culture.

Offense too has the right to be expressed, but should the fact that power lies with the offended party in this case be allowed to the extent where it starts dictating and defining what constitutes the correct thought for a nation AND the consenting adults for participating in a show? Maybe what tolerance has come down to in the Indian dictionary is what appeases to those who hold power and perhaps free thought is limited to what can be expressed in 140 characters.

Barren is beautiful: A journey to Gurudongmar lake, North Sikkim

It took me a moment to realize that it was not the world that had turned upside down because the sky, the clouds, and mountains were all staring up at me from the ground. It was just water.

The alarm rang and with much grumbling, we got out of bed. It was 3 AM after all, topped with deathly cold. It was the month of May and my aunt, uncle, cousin and I were at Lachen in North Sikkim. In the wee hours of the third day of our vacation, we were to travel to Gurudongmar Lake which is the second highest lake in India. By 3.30 AM, we were bundled in woolens, yawning and sitting in the car.

When road trips need to be taken in the wee hours, you would usually hope to sit in the car and catch some sleep before you arrive at your destination. We were no different. However, we ended up wobbling like fresh jelly in an unsteady hand, only much more violently, as the car climbed uphill. It was too dark to see anything outside for the next two hours, so we could neither sleep nor distract ourselves.

Around 5.30 AM, it was just beginning to get light and we made our first stop. There was a small space cleared for parking a car or two towards the side of the road; and there were three windswept looking tents alongside. Now, I had discovered two things that were consistent no matter how high up we went and how disconnected from the mainland the place was – Maggi and Cadbury Dairy Milk. Different varieties of Maggi – spicy, boiled, buttered, and with vegetables; and different prices of Cadbury which increased as we went higher up in altitude owing to the difficulty in getting them there. And of course, there was tea. We went inside a tent and sure enough, there was tea and watery vegetable Maggi waiting for us. We ate, thanked them and were on our way again.

It was light now and as we drove up, we could see how the topography had changed. The vegetation was sparse, with a few rugged shrubs with thick and knobbly branches here and there which slowly reduced to none in the three hours that we drove after that. It was as though we were in an extremely rocky, bumpy and infinite desert with no color in sight but shades of brown in the ground blending into the blue and white of the sky at the horizon.

Finally, after a back breaking five hour journey uphill, the car stopped. At 17,100 feet above sea level, our driver told us to walk slowly due to the lack of oxygen here. In a peculiar gesture, he handed us a packet of popcorn each. Looking at our befuddled expressions at receiving popcorns at 17,000 feet, he explained that we should keep chewing on them to prevent our ears from popping. We had half an hour to explore the place after which it is unadvisable to stay there for people not used to the altitude.

We learnt that the Gurudongmar Lake never freezes completely. Legend has it that Guru Nanak visited this place during his third udasi (journey) and was approached by the locals who told him that they had difficulty in accessing the water from the lake since it was frozen for most part of the year. The Guru is said to have touched one part of the lake after which the lake has never been completely frozen. The lake and the place have since become a place of much reverence for the Sikhs.

To be honest, at that point I was thinking that we had made this five hour journey to a place where we could not even stay for more than twenty minutes, in all practicality. However, I tried putting that thought out of my head as we made our way ahead.

What lay before us was a landscape completely barren, save for a small temple called ‘Sarv Dharm Sthal’ (the place for all religions) with triangular flags in all colors tied along its walls. It was the only splash of colour to the otherwise brown monochromatic scenery. From inside, it seemed more like a Gurudwara, with the Guru Granth Sahib (The Sikh holy book) shrined and a box kept for offerings.

We walked ahead of Sarv Dharm Sthal. There was something about the emptiness in the place, something about the lack of the greenery and civilization we are so accustomed to seeing. It was strange that in my mind when someone mentioned the phrase “beautiful landscape,” I thought of one of those open fields in Switzerland right out of a Yash Chopra film; either that or a moonlit seaside. And yet, here I was, taking in this emptiness, this haunting quiet, this lack of colour, lined by mountains with sparse snow capping their peaks and thinking to myself that I had never seen something more hauntingly beautiful.

A little way ahead, the landscape dipped downward to form a large crater. My eyes followed the slope as ground melted into a window from which the sky and the mountains stared back at me – clear, still and silent as they could be. It took me a moment to digest this. The lake reflected its surroundings like it was made mirror, not water. Though it was still as ice, the water seemed to make everything reflected shimmer and breathe.

Winds pick up at Gurudongmar after 10 AM and are considered detrimental for people who are not used to the extreme conditions. With our half an hour up, we bade goodbye to the armymen and made our way back to the car at 9 AM.

As I sat back in the car and the engine revved up to make the rattling journey back downhill, I looked outside the window to this desolate, remote landscape. I remember thinking to myself, “These twenty minutes were worth it.”

“Defending” the “offensive”: how far would you go?

Instances of Islamic extremism with instances like Muslims from France joining the rebels in the Syrian war and becoming radicalized have also been on the rise. In one example, two boys as young as 15 escaped to Syria on 6^th January 2014 to join the fighters from Al Qaeda in Syria and in a phone call to one of the boys’ disraught father, referred to the fellow rebels as their “brothers”. There are many more parents like him.

The attack on premises of Charlie Hebdo which left four prominent cartoonists dead (including its editor) was carried out by three gunmen who claimed to have associations with the Islamic State. After the attack, solidarity with the survivors and the magazine has echoed over the world with “Je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie) trending all over social media, the internet and in the demonstrations held. The tabloid has become a symbol of defiance against those who attack the freedom of expression. Despite the attack, it came out with a special “survivor’s issue” on 14^th January 2015 which carried a cartoon of the tearful Prophet holding the sign “I am Charlie” and a title reading “All is forgiven” in the backdrop of the color green, often used to signify Islam.

While some have interpreted this cartoon as conciliatory, others have attached a defiant meaning to it. However, behind the entire furor against the carnage, Charlie Hebdo has always been known for its provocative digs at Islam and cartoons of the Prophet which some would call offensive and provocative rather than satirical. While one may argue that the magazine has all the “creative liberty” in the world to take digs in whichever way it wants, but where do we draw the line between tolerance and acceptability for a community that forms 10 percent of the French population and the right to free speech?

Times are turbulent for a pan world Islamic diaspora, with the religious fundamentalism causing even “moderate” and “modern” Muslims to be looked at with suspicion. In such a situation should a state allow under the freedom of expression, acts that attempt to provoke to the point of offending a community that is already facing isolation and an identity crisis?

When a state says that tolerate and allow all faiths and religions to practice as equal, how can it take away the choice of dressing as one wishes to? It implies that women who wear a burqa are more likely to be dangerous to the national security than those who don’t. Even if the possibility of them concealing a weapon in the burqa is considered valid, what happens to the psyche of a woman who is forced to not wear what she is comfortable with because she belongs to a certain religion?

While Charlie Hebdo’s new cartoon may stand for its freedom even in the face of the terror attack, it has stirred fresh controversy from the Muslim nations in the Middle East. The Egyptian President for example, issued a decree which would allow the prime minister to ban foreign texts that would be considered offensive to religion. A local court in Turkey, which is also a major Islamic country, also called for blocking four major websites as they had published the most recent cartoon of the magazine. Other Muslim organizations have decried Charlie Hebdo for continually publishing cartoons that attempt to provoke Muslim sentiments. 

While much of the international media has been prudent in showing support for Charlie Hebdo, the New York Times decision to not to publish the cartoon of the weeping Mohammad drew criticism. However, was it really such a bad idea? The editor of the Times defended the decision saying that they had indeed published Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons previously but would refrain from printing something that “deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities”. The fact that the New York Times took an individual call on what it considered offensive is also after all, a matter justified under free expression.

The point remains that what is considered offensive and satirical is an extremely subjective matter. 

Although the French state grants freedom of expression, its constitution also includes anti-hate laws. In fact, the French comedian M’bala M’bala was convicted for violating these laws in 2014 as his acts contained jokes that were interpreted to be anti-Semitic in nature. However, the French state seems to have decided that Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons do not violate the same anti-hate laws even though they may be considered hateful and marginalizing by a substantial chuck of the French Muslim citizenry.

The dichotomy between free speech, what can be excused under it and what extent is one that has always existed and will continue to. In the context of Charlie Hebdo, where does one draw the line between what is considered satirical and what is considered offensive? Not to imply that the murders were justified or “asked for”, but this just goes on to say that extremities on any side do not bode well to all those involved in the equation. Charlie Hebdo’s caricatures of the Prophet can be considered as one form of extremity and the reaction of the Islamic fundamentalists who carried out the attack is another.

On a basic level, maybe a little consideration towards a community and their sentiments would not be such a bad idea. If that consideration allows a little less room for provocative creativity, it does not always have to be interpreted as a curb on the free speech and expression. The function of humour should not be limited to make only the majority laugh. Tolerance, being an internal part of free speech, is not just a matter of inclusion of criticism, humour and commentary on anything and everything. It is a matter of respecting what the other group stands for as well; and whichever side one is on, this a fact that cannot be forgotten.