शार्ली एब्दो और अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता ! ( विमर्श )

          शार्ली आबदो का नया अंक प्रकाशित किया गया.है। अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता के लिए एक साहसिक और ऐतिहासिक कदम। यदि हमारी भावनाएँ आहत भी होती हैं तो भी हमें अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता के पक्ष में रहना चाहिए - रघुवंशमणि (मेरे मित्र )

मेरी प्रतिक्रिया-

           रघुवंशजी मैंने इसके पहले भी शार्ली आबदो मामले पर आपकी टिप्पणी पढ़ी थी। सोचा था थोड़ा फुर्सत में बैठकर उस पर प्रतिक्रिया व्यक्त करूँगा पर मुझे समय नहीं मिला और बात आई-गई हो गई। आज आपकी यह टिप्पणी पढ़कर आपकी वह टिप्पणी भी याद आ गईं। नि:संदेह अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता महत्वपूर्ण है तथा विरोध के आतंकवादी तरीके का किसी प्रकार से समर्थन नहीं किया जा सकता। पर यहीं यह भी प्रश्न उठता है कि अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता क्या उस सीमा तक हो सकती है कि धर्मविशेष के मूलभूत धार्मिक सिद्धांतों पर कुठाराघात किया जाए तथा उसके अनुयाई आहत अनुभव करें। इस्लाम मूर्तिपूजा की मनाही करता है तथा अपनी धार्मिक विभूतियों की मूर्ति ,प्रतिमा तथा चित्र को प्रतिबंधित करता हैं। ऐसी स्थिति में उनके कार्टून बनाकर मुस्लिम भावनाओं को आहत करना कहाँ तक जायज है? हिंसा और आतंक का विरोध करना एक बात है पर भावावेश में आकर पूरी दुनिया में यह कहा जाना कि हम भी वही कार्टून छापेंगे ,मुस्लिम धार्मिक भावनाओं के प्रति असंवेदनशीलता को दर्शाता हैं। पश्चिमी देश इस प्रकार की असंवेदनशीलता का परिचय देकर भी अप्रभावित रह सकते हैं क्योंकि उनके यहाँ मुस्लिम आबादी का प्रतिशत अल्प है। पर हम नहीं जहाँ आबादी का 1/5 भाग मुस्लिम आबादी है। लोगों की धार्मिक भावनाएँ भड़कने से सामाजिक सौहार्द्र प्रभावित होगा। अगर किसी को कार्टून के द्वारा ही अपनी बात कहना है तो वह आतंकवादी संगठनों, उनके आकाओं, धार्मिक कठमुल्लों, धर्म के नाम पर जनता को भड़काने वाले सत्ताधारियों और राजनीतिज्ञों का कार्टून बना सकता है । इस सबमें मुहम्मद साहब,राम,कृष्ण या नानक को लाने की क्या जरूरत है? जहाँ मैं पेरिस में घटी आतंकी घटनाओं की निंदा करता हूँ वहीं शार्ली आब्दो द्वारा मुहम्मद साहब का कार्टून छापने की भी निंदा करता हूँ।

रघुवंशमणिजी की प्रतिक्रिया-

          The freedom of expression is more important than any religious feeling or sentiment as it brings restrictions to thinking and artistic creation. the aim of any type of cartoon is to underline the incongruous. Nothing is more incongruous than religious sentiments. They should be criticized and ridiculed.

विद्याधर मिश्र ( रघुवंशमणिजी के मित्र ) - 

          Man is born free and freedom in all its forms is a fundamental human right. However, as Prof Laski rightly said,' your freedom ends where my rights begin',Voltaire a great thinker during the French Revolution said - ' I may not agree with what you say, but I am prepared to give my life for you to have the freedonm to say it'

रामप्रकाश त्रिपाठी ( रघुवंशमणिजी के मित्र ) -

          मतलब यह है कि कोई अपशब्द कहता रहे और चूँकि वो उसकी अभिव्यक्ति है इसलिए उसे ऐसा करने देना चाहिए। शार्ली एब्दो ने हिंदू देवी-देर्वताओं का जब मखौल बनाया तो कोई प्रतिक्रिया नहीं हुई। वो आग से खेल रहा था। अब आग लग गई। मेरा मानना है कि आतंकी घटना की निंदा हो, लेकिन शार्ली एब्दो  की भी हद तय हो।

रघुवंशमणि -

         भाई, there is a fundamental difference between apshabd and Freedom of artistic expression. There is no rule against Apshapd.

मेरी प्रतिक्रिया-

          Hinduism is an undefined religion. So always it is open to internal discussions, criticism and reformation. Christianity has also evolved with time . But Islam has Muhammad as its prophet, monotheism  and opposition to idol worship in any form including pictures as basic principles as well as kalma, namaj, roja, haj, jakat as basic tenets. Similarly Sikhism has Ten Gurus, Five Kakars- kada, kesh, kangha, kachh, kripan as basic tenets and Guru Granth Sahib as religious scripture . These religions which have defined basic tenets, don't allow questions or discussions about these. Let them evolve with time. If you raise a question about their basic tenets or do something like caricaturing their prophet, you are bound to attract wrath of the believers. Although violence can't be justified and any sort of protest should be expressed in non-violent form, yet the fact is that a Gandhi is not sitting there in every nook and corner of the world and you can't restrain each and every person of this world. Discretion is always better part of valor. Why you don't care while hurting sentiments of Crores of people and aggravating their sense of grievance, putting the world to fire for your freedom of expression. You allow the defined religions to evolve. Pressure of modernity would do it. Let it come from within, from inside. Each and every thing related to religion is also not incongruous. You find out a way of criticizing and ridiculing the incongruous in such a way that people don't feel offended. As quoted today in T O I, Pope Francis said yesterday that there are limits to freedom of expression, especially when it insults or ridicules someone's faith. Peace in this world is more important. So playing with fire should be avoided. I again denounce violence and terrorist activity against Charlie Abdo and at the same time I denounce caricature of Muhammad Sahab by Charlie Abdo too. 

          I'm quoting a few quotations by Voltaire which I found relevant   : ( 1) - OPINION HAS CAUSED MORE TROUBLE ON THIS LITTLE EARTH THAN PLAGUES OR EARTHQUAKES. (2)-  FAITH CONSISTS IN BELIEVING WHEN IT IS BEYOND THE POWER OF REASON TO BELIEVE and at last (3)-  IT IS DIFFICULT TO FREE FOOLS FROM THE CHAINS THEY REVERE. 

रघुवंशमणिजी-
          It is strange that the people opposing THE CARTOON with great fervour never opposed terrorism with same enthusiasm. Do they think religion and faith to be more important than human lives.

मेरी प्रतिक्रिया-           Seed of terrorism lies in intolerance. Therefore we have to be tolerant towards others.We may believe in God or not; we may be atheist, agnostic, monotheist or heinotheist but striking below the belt should be avoided. Healthy criticism is different from rancorous. I don't worship but I don't object if my mother,wife or anybody else worships. I never say anything which may offend the worshipper. I don't pay attention to the way of worshipping and I don't find my friend Ayub's family and their ways different from that of mine. One of my relatives has married an American Jew and they follow their respective religions with tolerance towards one another within four walls of their house and there is no problem. If somebody queries, I politely tell him about my convictions about religion. My father was surprised when I told him I prefer Upanishadik philosophy to heinotheism. But I'm not surprised if my son quotes Stephen Hawking on religious beliefs.I respect and become happy that he is developing independent thoughts. If atheism is pursued with almost religious fervour just like followers of other religions, with no scope for tolerance,it may become another form of religion and after fifty or hundred years atheists may be seen roaming with swords and attacking religious institutions.It is best if religion is left to personal domain. But until that time comes, it is better to be tolerant towards others.Even Gandhiji stopped non-cooperation movement after Chaurichaura incidence. Terms like 'should be expressed' should be preferred over terms like ' should be attacked'. Tolerance is the essence for the humanity to prevail. Even your words or drawing may hurt someone not physically but mentally and if you still persist with, that is akin to tyranny. Therefore I say don't strike below the belt and let harmony prevail.