HOW MUCH LIBERTY?

So the latest is Goddess Durga, riding a tiger and tippling Comfort Whiskey, made in America. (Fortunately TOI has conscientiously refrained from publishing the images, to avoid inflaming religious passions). Before that it was MF Hussain’s nude painting of Bharat Mata, and the Danish cartoons denigrating the Prophet Mohammed and Islam in general.

Though the TOI has shown exemplary journalistic ethics in not publishing the offensive caricatures, its regular column “Swaminomics”, airs a contrarian view. I usually enjoy reading Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar’s views in the STOI, but his column “A Liberal Atheist Demands Respect” (STOI 12/2/06), is not worthy of such respect. It is a horrific case of pseudo liberalism, which exceeds the boundaries of decency and mutual respect.

Aiyar is welcome to define his religion of “Liberal Atheism”, based on the French Revolutionary cry of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. Does liberty not militate against fraternity, when the former is used to abuse the latter, Mr Aiyar? How can an otherwise balanced Aiyar go overboard in congratulating the Danish Govt for standing firm and supporting the publication of inflammatory and defamatory cartoons, in the “sacred” name of freedom of expression? Can we forget the old adage that “Your freedom ends where my nose begins”? A licence to drive a car is not a licence to kill people by speeding on the road. We have to follow traffic rules, and maintain law and order. Imagine Salman Khan flaunting his driving licence in court, and saying, “So what if I ran over some guy sleeping on the payment?” He could also flaunt his gun licence, and claim that it gave him the licence to kill prohibited black buck! Come on Aiyar, licence is not licentiousness! It militates against fraternity, which Aiyar claims to be the third tenet of his religion of Liberal Atheism. I wonder how Aiyar would react if MF Hussain painted a nude picture of Aiyar’s mother?

Aiyar may be an expert in economics, but he airs his ignorance about the teachings of various religions. He makes a sweeping statement that any one religion is an insult to some one else’s religion, and proceeds to pontificate on the same. Since I am a Christian, and fairly familiar with the Bible and the teachings of the Catholic Church, I cannot let Aiyar get away with his sweeping statements about Christianity, which would only lend grist to communal bigotry.

He states that the “Bible is an insult to Jews, who from the start were appalled by Christ’s claim to be a Messiah.” This is rank rubbish. Jesus was a Jew, all his 12 apostles were Jews, and so were all the disciples. It is only after his death and resurrection that non-Jews accepted Jesus. Jesus was rejected not for his Messianic claim, but because he challenged the religious hypocrisy of his time. I could write reams on this point, but that is not my purpose here.

Aiyar’s next proclamation is that Mohammed’s claim to be a Prophet was similarly insulting to Christians. This is a new one. Should we call it the Holy Gospel according to St. Aiyar? There are many points of similarity in Christian worship and belief, and Islam. St. Aiyar’s gospel also claims that Christians call Hindus heathens. Such statements are not to be found in the Bible. There is no reference to Hindus. The word “Hindu” did not exist when the Bible was written, as it is of very recent vintage. Personal opinions and historical prejudices cannot be given religious sanction. There is only one reference to India in the Bible, and it is a passing one in the Old Testament, that predates Jesus. India is mentioned in the first line of the Book of Esther, saying that the boundaries of King Ahasuerus’ Persian kingdom extended from India to Ethiopia, and consisted of 127 provinces. For academic interest let me mention that Ahasuerus ruled Persia from 485 to 465 BC. In Hebrew (in which the Old Testament, including the Book of Esther, is written) the name is spelt as Hashwerosh. In the original Persian it is pronounced as Khshayarsha, and in Greek as Xerxes, a common name today among Parsees (Pharsis – Persians).

The most important contemporary document of the Catholic Church is the “The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church”, formulated during the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). This unequivocally accepts that Jews, Muslims, polytheists, agnostics and even atheists like Aiyar, who live a good life and follow the dictates of their consciences, can experience and attain eternal salvation. The same Council also graciously accepted that there is truth and goodness in all religions. There is no use of demeaning words like heathen and pagan.

In the past most people knew precious little of their own religion, and even less about other religions. This often led to misunderstandings, bloodshed and bigotry. In today’s globalised village, and knowledge explosion, we should seize the opportunity to know and respect other religions, and collaborate with people of all religions in fraternal service. Every religion is in need of constant reform, to weed out those elements that are dated, infructuous, discriminatory or offensive.

I do, however, agree with St. Aiyar on the effectiveness of cartoons, provided they don’t exceed their brief. I recall a recent cartoon by Priya Gold Butter biscuits, depicting Sri Krishna robbing butter. I would empathise with any Hindu who felt that cartoon was derogatory. I also remember a cartoon in the Illustrated Weekly of India in 1975. It was during a meeting of the World Council of Churches in Nairobi. The cartoon depicted several Christians blah-blahing in the conference hall, and Jesus was praying outside saying, “Father forgive them, they know not what they do”. I felt the cartoon was expressive, creative, and in no way insulting. I recall another incident in the TOI. Readers were asked the meaning of the letters INRI on Jesus’ cross. One reader retorted in lighter vein that it stood for “I’m Not Resting Idiot”. Some Christian readers objected to this trivialisation, and the TOI apologised. Chapter closed.

We all make mistakes, especially if we are ignorant of other people’s religions, as St. Aiyar seems to be. The gracious thing is to make an honest and humble apology. That is the spirit of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. As a lay leader in the heavily clericalised and pyramidical Catholic Church, I am a great supporter of the Bastille battle cry of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. As in the French Revolution, I have often opposed an obstinate and obdurate clergy. Perhaps I am an Indian Catholic Liberal, but not an atheist. While countering St. Aiyar’s sweeping statements, I nevertheless respect his religion of Liberal Atheism – minus his licentiousness against offending cartoons; and his advocacy of giving condoms to his school going son.

*The writer is the former National President of the All India Catholic Union, and Founder Secretary of the Manav Sadbhav Abhiyan, Kanpur.