The West's response to Paris attacks leaves a lot to be desired

Were I in Paris, I would have unhesitatingly joined the more than 1.5 million Parisians who marched from the Place de la Republique to Place de la Nation to show solidarity with the journalists of Charlie Hebdo gunned down by those I consider totally insane. There is no way one can justify the utterly barbaric act that should be condemned outright. I would have asked myself how many of the 40 governments represented there permitted freedom of expression and respected other human rights in their respective countries.

As rational human beings we have to go beyond condemnation and ask ourselves some basic questions: 1) Why is it that young French citizens brought up in France with its globally acclaimed liberal traditions and values have behaved in such an insane manner? Is the French State along with the French society somehow responsible, even partially, for their sense of alienation that led to insanity? 2) Is the freedom of expression absolute in the West? Is it the only value to be pursued? 3) Apart from exercising their freedom of expression, what was the intention of the cartoonists? Did they want to entertain their readers? Did they want to hurt the dignity of their Muslim fellow citizens? Did they focus attention only on entertainment and thereby ignore the possibility of hurting the dignity of their fellow citizens? 
It is well known that immigrant families live miserably in the suburbs of Paris without elementary facilities resulting in a sense of alienation among them, especially among the young. It is sad indeed that successive governments have not done much to address the root causes of alienation. They might be immigrants, but they are French citizens. Are they second class citizens?

As regards the freedom of expression, there are limitations in France, Germany, US, and elsewhere in the West. In Germany you cannot deny the Holocaust. In France, you cannot question the Nuremberg trials or wear a head scarf that expresses your pride of being a Moslem. In the US, there are clear laws against hate speech. Though the First Amendment (1791) stipulates that the Congress shall not make any laws “abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”, there are laws abridging the freedom of speech. As Justice Frank Murphy put it: "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libellous and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." 

The freedom of expression is only one of the many values. Promoting a harmonious society is also a value. To pursue one value without thinking of the consequences of such pursuit over our ability to pursue other values is always short-sighted and criminal at times.

As regards the intentions of the cartoonists, it is reasonably clear that they knew that their cartoons were offensive to their fellow Muslim citizens, but persisted despite the 2011 attack on their office when they carried a cartoon showing Mohammed as editor-in-chief. Did they derive malicious pleasure from the pain felt by some of their fellow Muslim citizens? May be.

Now comes the question of prudence. Are we not all bound to act prudently? We have to take into account the likely consequences of our action in terms of danger to human life and property. The State also has a duty to act prudently. France failed to arrange adequate protection to the cartoonists despite clear and repeated threats as pointed out by Jeannette Bougrab, the companion of the late editor Charbonnier. The Kouachi brothers who carried out the killings were on the radar of French security for previous offences. Why did the Central Directorate of Interior Intelligence lose track of them? Of course, one lesson to learn from all this is that no State can track all threats all the time. In other words, while security agencies have to be effective, there is a limit to what they can do.
The anti-immigration Right wing in France and elsewhere that promotes Islamophobia will derive electoral advantage from all that has happened. Pew Global poll shows that 27% in France hate Islam. The percentage is 33 and 64 for Italy and Germany, respectively.

At present Muslims account for 6% of the population in the European Union. Hungarian Prime Minister Orban who joined the rally in Paris has said that “foreigner incomers and their descendents who cannot adapt and follow the local norms should return home.” This sort of impractical proposal shows that the European political leadership is unwilling to think through and find workable solutions. Rallies organised by PEGIDA(Patriotic Europeans against the Islamisation of Europe) are attracting more and more people in Germany and a worried Chancellor Merkel herself is going to take part in a counter rally. The Turks in Germany are worried about their security.
Some pundits have said that Islam never had a Reformation or a Renaissance. Such statements betray a Euro-centric view of history. The Reformation was a revolt against the Pope. Islam never had a Pope. Of course, there is a serious problem faced by Muslims in adjusting to modernity. Inter-civilisational dialogues can help in this regard. The UN and some of the major foundations should take the initiative. Government of India also can contribute by arranging a series of dialogues.

In conclusion, there is no confrontation between freedom of expression and Islam. The terrorists killed the cartoonists as in their eyes their Prophet was humiliated. They do not know anything about freedom of expression. There is no clash between Islam and the West as the terrorists do not represent Islam. Showing respect for the sensitivities of another civilisation or culture is part of culture and good taste. By ridiculing the Prophet, the freedom of expression is not enhanced. France has to look into the root causes of the alienation of a good part of its young Muslim citizens and address the issues. It might not be politic to make any announcements about this matter right now, but good work can be done quietly. Above all, let the response be emotional, rational, and pragmatic, in equal measure.

The writer is a former diplomat