The elusive one correct answer

The indefensible act of violence on the staff of the French magazine, Charlie Hebdo, has once again brought to the limelight some uncomfortable, yet unavoidable, questions that are gaining in urgency with every passing day.

What is society? Is a peaceful and harmonious existence possible for the society? If yes, is it essential to have certain common, even if minimal, ground rules for the peaceful and harmonious existence of society? If yes, who should form those rules and can their implementation be ensured uniformly across the world? If the right to free speech and expression is a part of these ground rules, does it also include the right to offend? If yes, does it also, by corollary, not include the right to be offended? If both of these rights co-exist, to what extent can an individual or a group be allowed to exercise them? Is it possible for rights to be absolute or should they be accompanied by certain restrictions? If restrictions are necessary, what should be a test of their reasonableness? If rights are enforceable in a court of law, should duties not be so?

There are numerous such thought provoking questions with no one right answer. The realm of mind is occupied by thoughts, which leads to the development of an individual’s worldview. These thoughts are neither static nor do they exist in isolation. They effect and are in turn affected by the surroundings, as also the life experiences of an individual. They are also in a continuous state of flux. The environments as well as the life experiences of no two individuals are the same. Further, the reaction of no two individuals, even to the same action, is the same. So, in this world of myriad thoughts and worldviews, how do we arrive at a least common denominator which permits all of us to co-exist in harmony with each-other and our surroundings? Sounds emphatic, doesn’t it?

Another thing which we have got to understand here is that our quest for the answers to above questions can end only in an optimum solution and not the best possible one. So, if any one of us is dreaming of an ideal state of existence, it would be better to nip that thought in the bud itself, as utopia can-not be real. Utopias serve an indispensable functions in our life, of enabling us to visualize idealism, even if just in the world of imagination, but alas! They can-not co-exist with reality. And the reality is that we are living in an imperfect world, which is the sum total of many imperfect individuals.

So, where does all this leave us with our set of questions? Let us try to answer these questions in the context of the above incident. Umpteen voices have risen in the condemnation of the killings as also in favour of an unbridled right to free speech and expression and an embedded right to offend. I will probably be committing blasphemy if I even attempt to deviate from this point of view. But my attempt here is to just put things in perspective.

I am an unalloyed supporter of the right to free speech and expression and all the other plethora of rights that flow from it. But I am not the sole constituent of this society. The world society consists of billions of other people, each with his/her own thoughts, beliefs, values and viewpoints. The only way we all can live together is by following the “middle path” as Buddha said (at least in our interactions with the society). What defines this middle path? Unfortunately, I don’t have a single fitting definition for it. But, it would not be impossible to arrive at some minimum common definition broadly acceptable to most, if we set out to work towards it.

Violence in any manner, to the utmost of provocations, is nothing but contemptible. There is no justification whatsoever for this gruesome act. But violence is not only physical; it also can take other forms. For some individuals, spoken or written word may constitute violence, if they feel it hurts their sensibilities. Again, ideally, the hurt caused to their sensibilities is no reason to gag me. And even if I am gagged, it is no guarantee that they will not find another reason to get hurt. So, what is achieved by placing restrictions on my freedoms and rights? May be not meaning a lot to many, but at least one small thing is achieved. What is achieved is the denial of a reason to such deviated minds, to even try to justify themselves. Let them come out, unaided and unassisted, in stark nakedness for what they are.

What if we give it a try? What if we refrain ourselves from going to extremes? And the yardstick here has to be of our own making. No external individual, group, government or society should be given the right to tell us what to do, what to say or how to act. But let us be our own guides.

This will, not in the least guarantee that Charlie Hebdo will not be repeated, but will at least reduce one reason out of the plethora that are served to us for such dastardly and cowardly acts.

Yes, it is true that the same mayhem may be repeated for some other, equally unjustifiable reason, but then how to build a world where only sanity prevails and insanity is completely vanquished? What is it that can be done so that a Charlie Hebdo, or a WTC, or a Peshawar, or a Mumbai Taj, or a Godhra, or for that matter, a Vietnam, an Iraq or an Afghanistan war, or even the holocaust, or more recently a Guantanamo Bay, is not repeated? Do you have that one correct answer?