President Macron has been hogging the limelight ever since he vowed that France “would not give up on its cartoons’ . An earlier article by BBC Paris correspondent Lucy Williamson also credits President Macron promising that "fear will change sides".

This makes me wonder what the connection between cartoons and fear is and which side will now onwards live in fear. Perhaps it is the “Islamists”. If so, one wonders if they are not already living in fear with the entire strength of the French Republic leaving no stone unturned to make them change their ways, most of which are viewed, whether correctly or not, as contrary to French values.

Perhaps the President is not referring to Frenchmen at all but to the IS operatives in Syria and Iraq who, with alarming frequency, seem to manage in remotely brainwashing gullible young Frenchmen into committing unspeakable acts of horror. If so, is there anything more to be done to make them feel fear - since they are already being bombed to smithereens on a daily basis.

Perhaps he is referring to the French Muslim population in general since they are seemingly not doing enough to rein in the ‘lone wolves’ who keep emerging from amongst them. If so, is he so certain that they are also not already living in fear seeing the way they face discrimination in all matters of faith in spite of their total disconnect to the actions of a few?

And if his intention is that fear has to switch sides, does it imply that so far fear was the exclusive preserve of those who were targeted because of their belief in freedom of speech?

Or was fear restricted to those who felt that blasphemy against the Prophet of another religion is a true expression of the French values and hence worth defending as President Macron is so evidently doing?

So will he not henceforth provide protection to the latter since they no longer will need to live in fear since fear has changed sides?

I think that these are just empty words since those living in fear today will continue to live in fear tomorrow. And those who are emboldened to commit horrific acts based on certain instigations will continue to commit horrific acts on the same instigations. However, the witch hunt which now appears to be underway in France will definitely result in increasing the numbers living in fear. Perhaps, this is the actual intention. To find new ways to generalise the attitudes of a community and legitimize state action against them.

Whichever way I look at it, the President’s statement leaves me confused. I am from the Orient and have been lucky to have spent a year in the most beautiful city of the Occident, Paris. I have a great love for the French people and a large number of excellent friends amongst them. But no matter my deep understanding of the French and their culture, the logic and the rationale of the statesmen of the French Republic eludes me.

So I thought of examining with an open mind the French Republic’s values which are oft quoted, namely the concepts of "liberty, equality and fraternity". To any person who holds democratic principles in high esteem and has a love of humankind, these are outstanding values. I am personally a great admirer of these values and always try, in my own small way, to imbibe it into everything I do. So theoretically, these values should be making France the most wonderful place for universal brotherhood. But, on the contrary, the situation on ground appears to be totally different and brotherhood, even between French citizens, is not being achieved.

With such lofty values to guide them, why are the French people getting it wrong? The answer I get is that, unfortunately when it comes to practice in France, there is a clear dichotomy between the spirit and the interpretation of these values as I will try and explain.

To my mind, this dichotomy has to do with the literal interpretation of ‘liberty, equality, fraternity’ on the one hand, and with historical baggage on the other.

First of all, the French seem to have confused ‘liberty’ with ‘taking liberties’. The World has taken centuries to streamline sets of rules for society. As an example, by taking liberties with the term ‘freedom of speech’, all the rules set so painstakingly by our ancestors are being thrown out of the window.

In her article Lucy Williamson quotes the State as saying ‘Curbing freedom of expression to protect the feelings of one particular community undermines the country's unity’. What a travesty of logic and justice that the feelings of an entire community are not as important as the ill-conceived and devilishly inspired desire of a few to abuse a religion. And how on Earth can unity be assured when an entire community’s feelings are deliberately disregarded.

To add insult to injury, any normal objection to such a practice is met with a virulent defence of what is claimed to be ‘laïcité’. How can freedom of expression for a few which encourages reprehensible comments against a religion be more important that the feelings of an entire community which is a part and parcel of the same nation. When one compares the stern official action against someone, using the same ‘freedom of speech’, to deny the holocaust, one is even more confused.

Secondly, their primary take-away from the concept of equality is ‘if I’m okay with disrespecting my religion, you should be okay with disrespecting yours – and since we’re equal, if you won’t disrespect your religion, I’ll do it for you’. It is not possible that disrespect to any religion will not hurt its adherents. This is being done with a pompous disregard to any finer feelings which need to be shown.

But it is the concept of fraternity which is the hardest hit, paid only lip service, and is not visible anywhere. Here instead of asking those of a different faith to follow the societal laws and customs which make a community vibrant and which have been set keeping the well-being of all citizens in mind, the stress is on trying to break the bond with their faith. What does faith have to do with obeying the bonafide laws meant to maintain harmony and peace in a society?

One expects the society to follow logical customs and laws which provide for respect of all equally. These customs can be free of religious dogma but how can these be made mandatory over those requirements of religion which are not harming peace and harmony in any manner? For instance, why should wearing a ‘Burkini’ be seen as offensive and since when has wearing a bikini or going topless to a beach become a mandatory societal law and custom?

Let alone the Islamic values which the latter is totally contrary to, it is also contrary to Christian values as well as values of every religion on Earth. If this is the kind of requirements new societal laws and customs impose, the essence of which is malafide, then how can there be fraternity?

Now I must dwell on the ‘historical baggage’ I referred to earlier. There appears to be a continuation of the 1000 year old crusades in France. Naturally so since a large percentage of crusaders of old were from France. In fact the crusaders were all called ‘Franks’ in the Holy Lands less because of the initial meaning of the word but more because a large number came from present day France.

The most apt example of the continuation of the crusader mindset is that of the behaviour of a triumphant French General at a victory in World War 1 over the Turks. General Henri Gouroud is remembered in the Levant primarily for an attributed anecdote which portrays him as the epitome of Western triumphalism in the Middle East. Gouraud reportedly went to the tomb of Saladin, kicked it, and said: "Awake, Saladin. We have returned. My presence here consecrates the victory of the Cross over the Crescent".

Perhaps he was not aware of the large number of Muslim soldiers from all corners of the Globe who fought for the Allies without whom this victory would never have been possible. So if a French general who undoubtedly commanded a large contingent of Muslim troops in battle can publicly feel this way after centuries had passed, what hope for the common Frenchman to be free from this historical baggage?

The French have been quick to blame ‘Radical Islam’ for all ills and have wasted no time to conclude that Abdoullakh Anzorov, the 18 year old responsible for the horrific beheading of Samuel Paty, has been ‘radicalised’ by the ‘Islamists’.

But can we be sure that he was not ‘radicalised’ by the constant disrespect to his faith that he has been seeing in a progressive nation like France throughout his growing up years?

Is it the ‘Islamists’ who succeeded in ‘radicalising’ him or is it the warped interpretation of ‘freedom of speech’, amongst other indignities heaped on him by ‘French values’, that has, in fact, ‘radicalised’ him?

Can one be absolutely certain that Abdoullakh Anzorov would not have grown up to be a fine upstanding French citizen had he not been exposed to the latter and in spite of being exposed to the former?

These are questions which we need to dwell on and especially in those nations which consider themselves to be far advanced in human values, yet heap indignities on their minorities while justifying their actions with warped logic.

If not addressed, I wonder if we will not see, in our lifetimes, a decline in human brotherhood and worse, such as in the case of France, the start of a ‘French Inquisition’. If by some far-fetched probability we are destined to see this unfortunate turn of events, who knows how it will end, especially an inquisition, as we are no longer living in the Middle Ages.

What, therefore, does the future hold? To my mind, we are but transient beings in a transient world. There has been no state in history that has survived decline caused by decline in values. What the French seem to cherish as ‘values’ today are actually proving to be a decline of the original values of ‘Liberty’, ‘Equality’ and ‘Fraternity’.

Will France be able to return to these values in their true form? If it does not, then France, as her statesmen claim, is under threat, not from the ‘Islamists’ as is the popular belief, but from the new generation of ‘Franks’ who appear to have definitely not learnt anything from history.

Brigadier Ali Adil Mahmood, VSM is retired from the Indian Army.

Latest News

ALI ADIL