A POLARISED WORLD: THE PEN OR THE GUN?
Is the pen mightier than the sword – or the gun for that matter? Or is the gun powerful enough to freeze the pen?
To keep the gun at bay, after the massacre of Second World War we got together to form the United Nations as an intergovernmental organisation to promote international cooperation. To further the peace-keeping efforts, we picked up the pen as our chosen weapon to counter conflict-ridden situations and promote international peace and security, and to safeguard human rights.
Regular glitches leading to violent attacks, however, seem to have become the norm over the decades. The most recent being the unfortunate attack on Charlie Hebdo cartoonists in Paris, which left a dozen dead, including two National Police officers. In this instance, the gun apparently silenced the pen.
But each time we have successfully pulled out the pen to silence the gun. This time, too, the Charlie Hebdo team have decided not to get intimidated by this act of violence and give in. Instead they are going ahead with their forthcoming magazine cover depicting a prophet holding a “Je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie) sign – a hashtag that has been trending in social media platforms since the incident.
Polarised world:
The Charlie Hebdo incident has polarised the world – between a faction that says the gunmen have committed an act of terrorism by killing innocent cartoonists; and another who feels that the humour of the cartoonists verge on insult and making fun of the beliefs and values held dearly by a certain community. This is, in fact, a provocation to the community to emit a reaction. Given the nature of the provocation, the resultant reaction is thus.
Whoever we choose to side with, the fact remains that both the pen and the gun can be misused. When weapons are used by one person or a group to suppress the ‘others’, we term it an act of terrorism. For example, the gunmen who open fired at the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists.
But when the same weapon is used by a super power like the US to blow up cities in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region, we term it America’s war against terrorism. The millions of innocent civilians, who are wiped out in the process, are killed without any provocation. Yet we don’t call America a ‘terrorist’.
The pen is said to have conferred on us the freedom of expression – our liberty was never as profound as it is now. With a pen in hand, we can conquer the world. Add humour and a generous dose of creativity to this feeling of freedom and its impact is more potent than any gunpowder ammunition.
Yes, we are referring to the Charlie Hebdo journalists who created a priceless bunch of cartoons every week that overflowed with sarcasm and political satire. And yes, they did target one of the timeless factors to fragment the world: religion. It would only be fair to mention that the weekly magazine picked on every religious belief, including Christianity.
So, the question arises, why did only one community go up in arms while the others did not? Pundits assign it to the fact that certain super powers, through their war on terror, have socially and economically marginalised an entire community. So much so that acquiring a visa for any member of this community to travel outside of their own country is a nightmare, irrespective of their social standing. Not to mention the security checks at airports that has been reduced to a glorified striptease. Such is the phobia of the ‘other’ community.
If an ally of the same super power dishes out a tease at another level – via the pen, the affected community’s reaction is understandable. But, this in no way justifies their act: just because you find a cartoon offensive, you cannot, ever, pull out your AK-47 and shoot at the perpetrator.
Interestingly, one of the police officers killed in the debacle is Ahmed Merabet, thus proving that the gunmen did not represent the views of the entire community, but only of the fundamentalist fraction.
Now the question arises: which is the right path to choose? More importantly, who is right: the cartoonists exercising their freedom of expression or the offended gunmen who shot them down?
The bottom-line:
Western liberalism believes in complete exercise of freedom of expression. If it offends you, well then, it’s your problem. If you wish, find a witty way to counter the liberal claims. In no way, does it recommend an armed reaction leading to bloodshed and death.
We have rationalised MF Husain’s depiction of Hindu goddesses as well as the Danish cartoonist’s creativity. There was a fair amount of protest against both incidences, but it did not result in shooting down the artists.
However, the fact remains that with freedom and liberalism, come responsibility. Whether you choose to protest with your pen or pick up the gun to protect the national borders, be responsible and show respect towards the people you target.
The right path lies in choosing your target conscientiously and responsibly. Only then you hit the bull’s eye.
Is the pen mightier than the sword – or the gun for that matter? Or is the gun powerful enough to freeze the pen?
To keep the gun at bay, after the massacre of Second World War we got together to form the United Nations as an intergovernmental organisation to promote international cooperation. To...
Is the pen mightier than the sword – or the gun for that matter? Or is the gun powerful enough to freeze the pen?
To keep the gun at bay, after the massacre of Second World War we got together to form the United Nations as an intergovernmental organisation to promote international cooperation. To further the peace-keeping efforts, we picked up the pen as our chosen weapon to counter conflict-ridden situations and promote international peace and security, and to safeguard human rights.
Regular glitches leading to violent attacks, however, seem to have become the norm over the decades. The most recent being the unfortunate attack on Charlie Hebdo cartoonists in Paris, which left a dozen dead, including two National Police officers. In this instance, the gun apparently silenced the pen.
But each time we have successfully pulled out the pen to silence the gun. This time, too, the Charlie Hebdo team have decided not to get intimidated by this act of violence and give in. Instead they are going ahead with their forthcoming magazine cover depicting a prophet holding a “Je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie) sign – a hashtag that has been trending in social media platforms since the incident.
Polarised world:
The Charlie Hebdo incident has polarised the world – between a faction that says the gunmen have committed an act of terrorism by killing innocent cartoonists; and another who feels that the humour of the cartoonists verge on insult and making fun of the beliefs and values held dearly by a certain community. This is, in fact, a provocation to the community to emit a reaction. Given the nature of the provocation, the resultant reaction is thus.
Whoever we choose to side with, the fact remains that both the pen and the gun can be misused. When weapons are used by one person or a group to suppress the ‘others’, we term it an act of terrorism. For example, the gunmen who open fired at the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists.
But when the same weapon is used by a super power like the US to blow up cities in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region, we term it America’s war against terrorism. The millions of innocent civilians, who are wiped out in the process, are killed without any provocation. Yet we don’t call America a ‘terrorist’.
The pen is said to have conferred on us the freedom of expression – our liberty was never as profound as it is now. With a pen in hand, we can conquer the world. Add humour and a generous dose of creativity to this feeling of freedom and its impact is more potent than any gunpowder ammunition.
Yes, we are referring to the Charlie Hebdo journalists who created a priceless bunch of cartoons every week that overflowed with sarcasm and political satire. And yes, they did target one of the timeless factors to fragment the world: religion. It would only be fair to mention that the weekly magazine picked on every religious belief, including Christianity.
So, the question arises, why did only one community go up in arms while the others did not? Pundits assign it to the fact that certain super powers, through their war on terror, have socially and economically marginalised an entire community. So much so that acquiring a visa for any member of this community to travel outside of their own country is a nightmare, irrespective of their social standing. Not to mention the security checks at airports that has been reduced to a glorified striptease. Such is the phobia of the ‘other’ community.
If an ally of the same super power dishes out a tease at another level – via the pen, the affected community’s reaction is understandable. But, this in no way justifies their act: just because you find a cartoon offensive, you cannot, ever, pull out your AK-47 and shoot at the perpetrator.
Interestingly, one of the police officers killed in the debacle is Ahmed Merabet, thus proving that the gunmen did not represent the views of the entire community, but only of the fundamentalist fraction.
Now the question arises: which is the right path to choose? More importantly, who is right: the cartoonists exercising their freedom of expression or the offended gunmen who shot them down?
The bottom-line:
Western liberalism believes in complete exercise of freedom of expression. If it offends you, well then, it’s your problem. If you wish, find a witty way to counter the liberal claims. In no way, does it recommend an armed reaction leading to bloodshed and death.
We have rationalised MF Husain’s depiction of Hindu goddesses as well as the Danish cartoonist’s creativity. There was a fair amount of protest against both incidences, but it did not result in shooting down the artists.
However, the fact remains that with freedom and liberalism, come responsibility. Whether you choose to protest with your pen or pick up the gun to protect the national borders, be responsible and show respect towards the people you target.
The right path lies in choosing your target conscientiously and responsibly. Only then you hit the bull’s eye.
Leave a Comment