Why Disagreement is a Good Thing?

As a person who seeks out debates I feel rather cheated when they end with a weak appeal to relativism. It often happens after ideas are exchanged, wit applied, and vocal chords stretched that the convincee shams away by offering “We both are right. It’s my opinion so it’s true for me but may not be true for you, so there no point in challenging each other’s truth” or a variation of this relativistic blabber. And the mood plummets. This relativistic dung is uttered with firm conviction that by not challenging each other’s beliefs we aid the spread of tolerance in the world. They couldn’t be more wrong. 

Having an opinion is admirable. Acquiring knowledge to form an opinion is the very point of an education, some might argue of life, but –and here comes the obvious –just because I have one does not make it true. Faith and belief is no proof of infallibility and must not be excused from the inquisition of logic and reasoning. Radical Muslims share the opinion that infidels must be killed for the establishment of an Islamic world; must we, then, acknowledge the infallibility of this intellectual garbage just because it’s “true for them”?  Are people who believe in the antiquated ideas of female genital mutilation and Bal Bhiva as “right” as us who don’t? Should we not disagree with them?    

It is precisely because no belief should be left unchallenged that freedom to dissent must not be compromised.

 It was Rosa Luxemburg who pointed out “Freedom is always the freedom of the one who thinks differently”. There is no point (or fun) in only letting people who agree with each other speak; those who disagree must be free and protected to do so.  

Throughout the world, throughout the ages, dissenters have battled arrogance of conformity armed with a pen and powered by wit and they’ve suffered: books have been banned, thoughts censored, lives threatened and lost. This suffering of freedom is proof that disagreement is daunting for those who wish to impose a singular, unchallenged, truth on society. It’s that fear that forced Gyanendra Shah to censor the press, the Ayatollah to issue a fatwa against Rushdie; Galileo to write the pro forma renunciation; and the Spanish Inquisition to burn the Quran and the list goes on. 

When a bunch of Muslim thugs forced the (secular) Indian government to ban The Satanic Verses the cowardly excuse offered was that the book hurt minority sentiments and could incite violence. They offered the same excuse -unofficially of course -during last year’s Jaipur Literature Festival. When MF Hussein was banished from India by Hindu crazies for his depiction of a naked goddess the same lame excuses were given. Doesn’t that seem odd? Odd, because it wasn’t Rushdie or Hussein that incited violence; they were the victims of it. Yet, Rushdie and Hussein, who were expressing themselves, suffered the consequences and humiliation of having to live undercover lives.  

Many Muslim protested the distasteful cartoons mocking Muhammad and they had the right to do so (not with impunity if they broke laws), however for them to say that some non-Muslim cartoonist in Denmark should be stopped from drawing them is ridiculous. They don’t have to see or draw the cartoons if they so choose, but coercing the rest of us to accept their lead into the pits of self-censorship is intolerable. “Ban the cartoons and behead the cartoonist”, cried some in their silly radical voices, “or we’ll make life hell for people who had nothing to do with it.” And many governments politically pissed their pants. 

Closer to home our own (pending) constitution, it seems, will be a victim to this fake security. If the interim constitution or the ones before that are benchmarks than the possibility to a constricted freedom of expression is looming.  As of now, Article 12, section 3, subsection (a) provides every citizen with the freedom of opinion and expression.  Provided that, it goes on to say, nothing in sub-clause (a) shall be deemed to prevent the making of laws to impose reasonable restriction on any act which…may jeopardize the harmonious relations...or any act which may be contrary to public behavior or morality( emphasis added).  So, what this says is: you may say what you like and hear what you want, but we will ban and censor what we want if we feel it’s reasonable to do so. Tell me dear readers, what is this parameter of reasonableness? Which court, which judge, which minister, and under what circumstance, can tell you what they think is reasonable for you to hear? Who is capable of judging the standards of public morality and what appropriate behavior is? 

A conversation with a friend who owns a book shop helped illuminate the nature of censorship in Nepal. Our government is not too eager in “official” censorship, so in a perverse delegation of responsibility it relies on self-censorship by publishers who do not want to risk losses.  Another non-official way of banning books in Nepal is through India. For example: Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses and Taslima Nasrin’s Lajja are wholly or partially banned in India so by proxy it’s unavailable in Nepal. During the Panchayat days issues of Newsweek and Times magazine critical of the government were banned at customs, so too were Communist literature. It’s no coincidence that the once ubiquitous Free Tibet merchandise is no more to be found in book stores. 

Talking about the Taliban, the essayist and pugnacious defender of freedom of expression, Christopher Hichens wrote: “they allowed the existence of prose and poetry only to the extent of the enforced recitation of one book, but all music they forbade.” Imagine the claustrophobia. And now imagine yourself in the middle of it. This is what happens when “truth” is left unconfronted. A misplaced sense of tolerance breeds intellectual sloth and that, dear readers, is a dreadful sin.



A version of this article appeared in Wave magazines, May 2012 issue. Please click link.

I own none of the Videos or the image used. Please check the Youtube video source for more detail.