The moral position of criticism of those in power is not independent of one’s geographical and ideological position.
14 February 1989 And 11 September 2001 My contemporary writings on contemporary politics stand out like books because it deals with Muslims. A rite of passage, a personal education. But here the individual American, more generally Western, reflects something wider in public life.
important undertaking
When fatwa On the first of those dates the statement was made against Salman Rushdie, I wrote critically of the autocratic stand taken by some Muslims after its publication. The Satanic Verses And in support of commitments to free expression in all the societies (India, England, America) to which I am accustomed. Not long after the atrocities on September 11, I found myself withdrawing from these important undertakings—not by any foul smell, but in the sense that it was the only thing self-respecting. My reason was simply this: no one criticizes on demand. And there was an expectation, sometimes explicitly voiced to me, that a Muslim living in a society that was subjected to such atrocities should declare his anti-jihadi credentials. It soon became clear, in fact, that critique of extremist Islamist politics had become a career-path for Muslims in this part of the world and was not a path I was willing to walk, albeit a certain one. Enthusiastic type – Some of my friends thought my reaction was too rare to investigate this.
tell the truth
It raises a wide variety of issues about truth, speech and place.
There is a hint in the cliché ‘Speak truth to power’. It would be a pointless instruction if it was intended to convey what it is directly saying, as Chomsky pointed out, those in power already know the truth and often withhold or deny it. So that others are more distant from power – but on whose power in a democracy depends – it is not known. Still, as a directive, I think, it is worth maintaining, because it is actually saying something more indirect: ‘Speak the truth, criticizing those in power.’ The question of location arises in connection with this instruction.
What should we give it? Should giving it a much wider scope, speak only the truth that is critical of anyone who is in power anywhere and abuses it? Or should one speak of this and about the power of one’s own space, the power under which he is living? Such a restriction has sometimes been proposed in the spirit of another instructional cliché, ‘choose your fight’. The point here is about the consequences of telling the truth. Since our breath is limited, we must focus the important truths on those in power in our political environment as it is likely to have some good consequences. Telling the truth, which addresses those in power sternly, is unlikely to have much effect.
mistakes
This is largely true, but not long after September 11 – during which American power attacked and indiscriminately bombed cities in Afghanistan and Iraq, imposed deadly sanctions and renewed violence of sectarian conflict across the Middle East. created an endless cycle, and instilled and spread fear of Islam among its own people (while, as a power, it lay in bed with the most unfavorable Islamic regime in history) – on the grounds of sanctions itself proposed which were not really consequential in this sense. Perhaps the way of saying it, if there really are such things as moral sentiments, the restriction, to me, is due to something more sentimental. To put it in its simplest form, I felt a ban was needed because it was at greater risk to itself. I think it is not necessarily more sound, but far more respectable, that someone living in America should criticize the mistakes of the United States government, not the mistakes committed by Muslim terrorists who are known to be from distant countries. Said to be supported by those in power in the U.S., whether Iran or Pakistan or Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia… Of course, were he to be invited to speak in Tehran or Peshawar or Kabul or Riyadh, the honor is reversed.
Many accused Sartre of hypocrisy for not criticizing the Soviet Union, while repeatedly rebuking European imperialism with great eloquence. But why do he do anything different while sitting in Paris (not Moscow) during the long Cold War? What respect does it show to join the relentless chorus of anti-communists around them – as demanded of them? It is said that the Soviet government will reprimand Sakharov for his sharp criticism of his atrocities, without saying a word about the deep racism in the American South. I hope that all of us, living and writing and speaking here in the United States, can show the warped and rare form of courage shown by these local oddities in Sartre and Sakharov.
Akil Bilgrami is the Sidney Morgenbesser Professor of Philosophy and Professor, Committee on Global Thought, Columbia University, New York.
.