Mainstream WeeklyThe author writes about the January 2015 terror attack on the Paris satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo and its gross misinterpretation by people of Left liberal sensibilities in India and much of the world.
by Harsh Kapoor
We recently witnessed a devastating terror assault by fanatics who gunned down close to 200 children in a school in Peshawar. Was this a desperate cry of the dispossessed in Pakistan? I am glad that the various tiny fractions of the Left in Pakistan stood up and condemned it openly, some in India also stood up for the first time. It provoked widespread shock and disdain.
But the terrorist assassination of 12 cartoo-nists, journalists and workers at Charlie Hebdo in Paris on January 7, 2015 has provoked very different reactions. Geographical location of the murder seems to drive this.
I am utterly astounded and shocked at the manner in which many in the Left-leaning and liberal circles in India have reacted to the devastating terror attack in Paris. Has a section of the Left gone mad? Why do they have to deflect a straight-forward issue and start providing rationalisation for terror attacks from the Muslim fundamentalists. We are being given an endless spiel on French colonisation, the war for decolonisation in Algeria, the exclusion of the so-called Muslim ‘community’ in France, the blowback for France’s foolish involvement in the recent wars in Libya and Syria and so on. The role of the poor and dispossessed is being invoked.
Commentators from the Anglo-Saxon world and even our desi Left intelligenstsia who are waxing eloquent on the Charlie Hebdo massacre are making the most absurd amalgam between the French establishment and a truly radical far Left-wing magazine which shared absolutely nothing in common.
Charlie Hebdo is presented as the centre of all evil that existed ever and that it had it coming, that their cartoons were racist and hurt sentiments. All this reminds me of 1989 and the Rushdie affair when this hurt sentiment industry made it big and has since become globalised. India’s Picasso, M.F. Hussain, was forced to leave his country by the wrath of the Hindu Far Right, all in the name of hurt sentiments. Many of the same radicals who stood by M.F. Hussain are now shamelessly standing up with free rationalisation for the Charlie Hebdo killers. Why such different treatment for different religio-fundamentalist strands? Were the poor and dispossessed involved in going after M.F. Hussain or in the assassination of M.K. Gandhi? What about the assassination of Salman Tasseer? Poor and oppressed, any takers?
Charlie Hebdo was born in rebellious times of May1968 in France. It had been preceded by other radical magazines like Hara Kiri and Enragé and many others. But they are in many ways part of a lineage of a very long historical tradition dating back to the French revolution and Jacobins of radical caricature-making and mocking the powers that be—religious or other —in every sphere of life. The French revolution was the time of incredibly powerful irreverence and it gave birth to a very incisive form of satire and lampooning. Many magazines, with satirical drawing accompanying the text emerged during this time and have continued since. Later a much softer version of this developed in Britain and elsewhere.
The 1968 generation Charlie Hebdo has had an even more militant libertarian non-conformist view of the world, groomed by a radical antipathy to the political power of the religious authority, and a deep identification with ideas of the broad Left. Pungent depictions the magazine runs are devastatingly funny that poke fun at everything, just everything that makes for daily life. This vitriolic humour has come to be a vital part of French intellectual and popular culture and there is a social acceptance for it. Millions read satirical comics, satirical newspapers, and magazines. Its anti-religious politics takes apart the clergy, most of all the nuns, bishops, popes, rabbis, all who represent the high and mighty and, more recently, the Dalai Lama, the new cults, and also in the recent times imams, mullahs as the gate-keepers of religion.
Charile Hebdo has a bawdy, burlesque-style of black humour. Not for the weak-hearted. In 1970 Charlie Hebdo made fun of Charles de Gaulle, the President and leader of the Resistance, on the day of his death, provoking demands from the Right for its ban.The publication ceased in 1981 and was revived in 1991. Charlie Hebdo and its cartoonists have faced hundred of court cases since its creation. But it has continued to strike against powerful capitalists, bureaucratic and religious elites. The many targets of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons and journalism have been the Far Right extremists, police repression, war- mongering, the big corporate media, anti- immigrant policies, capitalist and employer wrongdoing, the big banks and stock markets, cuts in public spending and the military industrial complex, nuclear industry, homo-phobia, conservative social values, denial of climate change, food industry, the big pharma etc. etc.
In the English-speaking world, there is practically no tradition of satirical magazines like Charlie Hebdo or, say, a newspaper like Le Canard Enchainé (A Duck in Chains — Canard/Duck is a French slang for newspaper) that deploy sardonic cartoons with investigative journalism and opinion pieces as standard fare. The kind of fiercely brutal cartoons that appear in Charlie Hebdo and the like in France have no chance of appearing in Britain, in the United States, Canada, Australia and most of the world. This would pass as obscene bad taste. It is a matter of culture as to what is obscene or distasteful. In a country like India, the Charlie-style cartoons would be unacceptable to both the Left and Right and the non-ideological and unthinking.
Thanks to the French revolution, there are no blasphemy laws in France (except for Alsace and Moselleregions which joined France after the revolution). However, France has strict laws on hate speech, anti-Semitism, holocaust denial, and so hateful activity is under the scanner.
Blasphemy or “religious insult