R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Ravi Mundoli -
Sunday, August 23, 2009 11:34 AM
Much like its American counterpart, the unraveling of the Indian equivalent of the Republican Party continues apace. Jaswant Singh was expelled on August 19, because he wrote a book in which he allegedly says that Jinnah was demonized by India, while it was Nehru, Patel et al who were actually responsible for partition.
Taking a cue from their national leadership, the powers that be in the Gujarat state government have seen it fit to ban the book in that state because "...it contains defamatory references regarding Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel who is considered the architect of the (sic) modern India..." Thus, a hoary tradition has been kept alive in this Mother of Traditional Societies with Age Old Cultural Values. A tradition that started perhaps with the ban on Midnight's Children (have there been earlier instances?), and continued with actual bans on books about the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, about Shivaji and by Taslima Nareen (to list a few). The number of mainstream demands for bans of "offensive" publications is large enough that the assistance of a comma or two are needed to express the number. Throw in the demands on movies, documentaries, paintings, songs and suchlike, we enter the realm of scientific notation!
What is it with us and this almost reflexive demand to ban the expression of thoughts and ideas that we don't like the sound of? Are our identities so fragile that they risk shattering at the slightest sign of contrasting "offensive" ideologies or viewpoints? In a liberal democracy, the freedom of expression is a right that is non-negotiable(1), and the freedom for you to express your opinions comes at a price, namely that others symmetrically free to air their views. Without this reciprocal arrangement, it becomes impossible for old ideas to be questioned and new ways of thinking and doing things to be brought about.
One of the standard responses to this position is that no matter what, one should "give respect" to other people's strongly held opinions and deeply cherished beliefs, and that if something one says or writes could "cause offense", that something is a valid candidate for legal proscription. Somehow, this "respecting" everyone and everything theme has fused into our "value system", whatever that is.
Testicles.
It is one thing to respect someone's right to have an opinion and to express it (hello Francois, even if you didn't utter one of your most oft-quoted sayings), and quite another thing to actually respect them or the opinion itself. There are tons of people around us who cling onto ideas and opinions that range from the sad and mildly harmful (believers in astrology, for example) to the despicable (caste, gender, what have you...). These are friends and family, people who we love, admire, and are essential parts of our lives. We ought to respect them for that which is worthy of respect ("I wish I could sing like him.", "I wish I could do partial differential equations in my head like her."), and have the freedom to say without fear or coercion what we don't agree with ("WTBleep! You won't shake hands with XYZ because he is a Dalit?! Shame on you." etc.)
Perhaps the problem is with the word "respect" itself, which is overloaded with layer after layer of meaning. The philosopher Simon Blackburn wrote a longish piece (25 odd pages, PDF) in which he rather nicely addresses this point. It started off with him being asked to join in a small religious observance (something many of us have been subject to before, surely) before a meal, and when he refused, the dinner atmosphere became markedly strained. This started off a train of thought that culminated in the paper at hand.
'Respect', of course is a tricky term. I may respect your gardening by just letting you get on with it. Or, I may respect it by admiring it and regarding it as a superior way to garden. The word seems to span a spectrum from simply not interfering, passing by on the other side, through admiration, right up to reverence and deference. This makes it uniquely well-placed for ideological purposes. People may start out by insisting on respect in the minimal sense, and in a generally liberal world they may not find it too difficult to obtain it. But then what we might call respect creep sets in, where the request for minimal toleration turns into a demand for more substantial respect, such as fellowfeeling, or esteem, and finally deference and reverence. In the limit, unless you let me take over your mind and your life, you are not showing proper respect for my religious or ideological convictions.
We can respect, in the minimal sense of tolerating, those who hold false beliefs. We can pass by on the other side. We need not be concerned to change them, and in a liberal society we do not seek to suppress them or silence them. But once we are convinced that a belief is false, or even just that it is irrational, we cannot respect in any thicker sense those who hold it—not on account of their holding it. We may respect them for all sorts of other qualities, but not that one. We would prefer them to change their minds. Or, if it is to our advantage that they have false beliefs, as in a game of poker, and we am poised to profit from them, we may be wickedly pleased that they are taken in...I shall not in this essay dwell on the infirmity of 'anything goes' postmodernism.
So take a chill pill (or modakam as the case may be, Happy Vinayaka Chaturthi), people. Please don't kill yourself (or others) 'respecting' everything under the sun, or for 'disrespecting' ditto. Let's not be such small-minded, insecure, twits that someone with a differing opinion has our collective knickers in collective twists. Respect the right things (i.e. things I respect, of course. A manifesto will be supplied on request (and a fee).), and let's hope that in a few generations our great-(repeat n times, n>3)-grandchildren will live in a place where the mind is without fear, where the head is held high (2), and where they won't feel the utterly irrational need to ask a non-existent Parent to facilitate and expedite things for them.
(1) Note that I am referring mostly to the freedom to express opinions, please don't throw Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. at me!
(2) Please save all jokes about plate tectonics and continental drifts for the after party.