First of all, in my view, each and every one has got a right to freedom of speech. And nonetheless they have full freedom of faith and expression of their belief and thus to practice and preach his religion.
However, all of this has to be conditional. Which means, that you can do whatever you may like, believe, worship. But at the same time, you must know the boundaries and you should be rational in your perspective of approaching things and conveying your own idea of religious faith, along with being secular and tolerant. That was about atheists. What about the other facet of the coin. Yes, I am referring to the believers of exactly opposite to what we believe in. I am here referring to the atheists. Yes they are honest part of the society and they also are humans like us, at the same time, being as social and inclusive as any one amongst the believer population might be. So, why do we say that they have no right to comment? In a way that we discuss debate and preach about our own beliefs, they got an equal right to express what they feel about anything "for God's sake" and that could be even entirely opposite to what you believe in. I mean, they got an absolute freedom to express their view, whatever it may be, and they got a full right to counter and disagree with you. If a person simply disagrees with your faith, will just move out with your guns and revolvers and shoot out at those who dared to disagree. This is a Big questions at present…
Now debated the most amongst big media houses, the religious leaders and political corridors of economies across the globe, would be one topic, where there should be an Absolute freedom of expression of thought about religious views, including freedom of expression of criticism in unrestricted and unguided manner of speech. Or on the contrary, A Conditional freedom of expression where you have to care about the religious sentiments of those who might get affected after they learn about your feed about their religion. In my view, yes, there can be counter arguments to your beliefs as I personally understand that the idea which might have existed several thousand years ago might not be the apt and perfect idea of today. A person of the present age might logically agree or disagree to what he/she may think is redundant ideology in the present day scenario. And the lawful nations have pledged to safeguard the interests of their citizens by providing them with a set of fundamental rights, which further enable to access the freedom of expression of their beliefs and thoughts.
Now, if we talk about the particular situation the Charlie Hebdo cartoons , we know that what they were doing was -
making objectionable caricatures at the same time they were exercising their fundamental right to freedom of expression.
Criticizing the faiths of millions, yet being able to justify their actions by saying that they are atheists who do not believe in any religion but in the French law.
1 person against millions of believers on almost every controversial cartoon they published.
Now the question arises whether they should be allowed to do so or not. I understand that yes there should be a guided freedom of expression where you do no go to limits wherein you end up hurting sentiments of millions or for that matter even one person alone.
We know that this magazine runs particularly on the idea of sarcasm and they make fun of almost every high ranked person in the society. Whatever a person does, no matter even if he /she abuses you directly, you have no right to attack them and take their lives away.
And it’s not about killing 1 or 2 jihadists; it is about killing the idea of jihad.
First of all gentlemen, I would like all of you to know that Jihad is an invitation to die and not to Kill.
Let me narrate to you a weird observation of mine from last evening. …..
Taslima nasreen bravely emphasizes that these terrorists are Islamic and they fight in the name of religion which they should not. She is trying to be rational in my view. She also said that India is a much better place in terms of freedom to speech and expression as compared to the Bangladesh or Pakistan because of her own experiences and others' as she may have notice in past. Now Barkha advised her to go and live on Mars… I mean I know Barkha Dutt where you come from but in a way that Barkha Dutt does it all the time , shouldn't Charlie Hebdo be given the benefit of doubt. I am sure there might be readers who certainly won't be familiar with my view on Barkha Dutt who is a senior journalist in India for NDTV and you will need to give it a little online research to know what I exactly mean about her stand on issues like this.
I certainly believe that there is a law which is supreme to all of us and all of us whether like or dislike, must abide by the law and also respect each others’ faith and live with dignity and grace. But no circumstance anyone can kill the other person. And there is no point debating about Charlie Hebdo attack and Islamic terrorists as these jokers have been attacking people from all walk of life and innocent people. So, I believe that this is no way as topic of debate. And the people who justify this act of butchery , by saying that it is just a reaction to the actions of Charlie Hebdo should be taught the secular code of conduct before any other person.
No comments:
Post a Comment