Unlike our ancestors who were habituated to conflict, the contemporary world abhors strife. At different levels —locally, nationally and internationally — concerned citizens and Governments have established institutions and formulated laws to minimise, if not prevent, disagreements from degenerating into destruction and bloodshed. It is not for nothing that after the bitter experiences of two world wars in the previous century, mankind is more comfortable with cold wars rather than actual physical strife. And when warfare does indeed happen — as it does frequently in different parts of the globe — the endeavour is to ensure that they stay localised.
In the past 25 years, thanks to the work of a Harvard professor Samuel Huntington, the term “clash of civilisations” has entered the global lexicon. Although the idea was rubbished by the dominant cosmopolitan community that saw the future in globalisation and the blurring of national and other identities and the slow emergence of a global citizenry, the dread of primordial loyalties resurfacing is all too real. Nationalism, once the favourite point of reference for nearly a hundred years since the mid-19th century, has now become an object of dread for those who see it interfering with the aspirations of global capitalism. Along with it has occurred a revitalisation of religious identities — perhaps inevitable in a rapidly changing world on the lookout for certitudes and moral guidance — which, in turn, has become the basis for both conflict and enlarged identities.
To invoke larger global trends in the context of some stray killings and acts of terror in France may well be regarded as over-stretching an argument. In many ways that is so because the issue — already overwhelmed by the renewed lockdown in Europe over the never-ending Covid-19 pandemic — may well disappear in a few weeks or months. Yet, there is a nagging fear that the tensions generated in its wake may well spiral out of control.
Should we in India be concerned over the developments in France and beyond over the fallout of the murder of a schoolteacher by an illegal immigrant? In many ways No. A schoolteacher who felt that his students needed to be informed of the differences in cultural and religious perceptions should, ideally, be lauded. Yet, when the teacher chose to illustrate the phenomenon by showing his class a set of cartoons involving the Prophet Mohammed, there are mixed reactions. Surely, it could be said, there were equally good ways of illustrating the point than referring to a magazine cover of a satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo. The answer is an emphatic yes. However, there is an equally pertinent point: should the reality of conflicts over values be permanently buried under the surface? Until, of course, the fire next time.
Since Islam forbids any pictorial depiction of its Prophet, there was undeniably a violation of the tenets of that religion by a non-believer. For that purported “insult”, a believer took the law into his own hands and decapitated the schoolteacher. By the laws of France, the teaching methods of the schoolteacher did not violate the laws of the country, but the act of revenge by the self-anointed warrior of Islam undoubtedly did. Moreover, since the killing was exemplary and aimed at warning others — just as the murder of Charlie Hebdo staff a few years ago was — to desist from offending Islam, it became necessary for President Macron of France to intervene and tell the world in categorical terms what they may not have known.
First, Macron emphasised that offending someone else’s beliefs is not construed as an offence in France and that it was upheld by the traditions of the country dating back to the revolution of 1789. Secondly, by implication, Macron reminded everyone that Islamic laws — used by the killer as a sanction for the horrible murder — do not apply to France.
The fallout of the murder and the strong stand taken by Macron are well known and doesn’t merit repetition. One point, however, is significant.
The most important of this is the notion of national sovereignty. At one time, the right of each nation to conduct its own affairs was deemed inviolable — and this was the basis of the anti-imperialist movements. However, in recent times, the lines have become blurred. From China and the United States to the European Union (of which France is an integral part), there is emerging a desire for universal values. A parallel movement is that of radical Islamism which has its eye on a global Caliphate. The recent French experience necessitates a reconsideration. If France is so insistent on the primacy of its own values within its own national borders, it should ideally have little time for the EU’s ingrained policy of assessing the world through its own prism. Even within Europe where many member-states have domestic laws against variants of hate speech, there is no consensus over the right to offend the sacred. If France believes that Turkey and the rest of the Muslim world should refrain from charging it with Islamophobia, it should distance itself from the EU pipe dream of recasting the world in its own image.
There is a clash of civilisations. The point is to contain it to acceptable bounds.
