Bloggers are victims of the new war of two fanatic groups

"Freedom" has become one of the most contested words today. Supporting "freedom" is no longer just about chasing an ideal, but also an idea or "strategy" around which several wars have been or are being fought. They are also about unresolved problems of history and uneven development. It's an uneasy thought that while most proponents of "freedom without borders" come from the Western world or are loyal to Western ideas, those in opposition to such an idea are from the poorer one.  Is "freedom" therefore a concept in disguise, but in reality a proxy word around which old conflicts in new shapes are being grappled with?

Freedom as a major tool of change emerged after the European renaissance. While it liberated Europe from the chains of the Church, the same word brought with it a search for new captured markets, demonising of other cultures, placing European values at the top of the world order, and ultimately the successful wave of Western colonisation that still holds sway.

"Freedom" was at stake when the Vietnam War began, was thought to be at stake during the Second World War against the Nazis, and many more other subsequent wars of the West. George Bush argued that the Iraq War was about protecting freedom, and Clinton said the same when bombing Afghanistan to preserve global freedom. But things changed when the traditional cold war enemy – the socialist sphere – stopped fighting the US directly, and a new enemy, once funded by the West in its fight against the socialists, emerged: The Islamic extremists.

The West has again argued that war against the Islamics is about freedom, but the Islamics are not contesting that. They are not offering a secular panacea like freedom, economic or political, like the socialists, but instead are saying their war is a holy war of "salvation". Its supporters are also not made but born, making it an army with an endless supply of the faithful as opposed to the ideological. It also comes at a time when after many years there is a three-way fight for global economic supremacy instead of the usual bi-polar one.

While the West led by the US is involved in the war against Islamic extremism has major threats and concerns, the other two players, Russia and China, now free of socialist shackles, have no such Islamic worry. The West has to fight it alone while the battle for economic supremacy also goes on.

The West is now it seems a prisoner of its own solutions. It went to war based on the theology of "freedom" and as Bush said, to defend what the enemy hated most, the West's freedom. While at an ideological/political level it mattered, at the practical level it didn't. The Middle East wars simply never solved any problem because none of it appears to have had much to do with freedom.

Iraq, Syria, Egypt et cetera are all in flames and in every case the West finds it has a fight on its hand that has no end. Meanwhile, the stigma of being part of Al-Qaeda, Taliban, or the Islamic state is much weaker now. And that is where the problem begins. Just as colonialism was justified in the name of modernity, the Islamic wave is being justified in the name of God. It's not about logic, it's about faith.

But blind adherence to freedom can also become a matter of faith if its pursuit ignores the value structure of others. Pursuing an ideal no matter how much it hurts another is the hallmark of fanaticism, and what we are seeing today is a conflict of two fanaticisms, one in the name of total freedom, and the other in the name of total faith. Beyond a point they become irrational and cause violence. This was illustrated in the case of Charlie Hebdo when the cartoonists insisted on their right to make fun of the Prophet as a matter of principle of freedom of expression, despite it hurting the feelings of millions and contributing to their marginalisation. The Islamic militants on the other hand insisted on their right to kill the cartoonists as a matter of principle.

Unfortunately, Bangladesh has not been spared the heat of the global crisis. This is particularly so in case of bloggers in Bangladesh. Article 19 and other groups have sought the protection of the government for them so that freedom of expression can be upheld, and asked that they must be treated separately from journalists. But these demands seem like indulgence in a trying time.

The government is fighting a war with the Islamic terrorists but they know that supporting a group which is viewed negatively by the ordinary voters of Bangladesh is counter-productive. It may alienate the overwhelming majority of the Bangladeshi populace to whom religion is the main socio-psychological pillar. So given a choice, the government would rather stay in power than align themselves with a group that is unpopular due to the success of Islamic propagandists.

The bloggers argue that they are not atheists but want to look at religion scientifically. Plus only a small percentage of them are critical of religion. That stage of calculation is over as they have been branded as a whole, and to expect support from the government is unrealistic.

There was a time when the pen was strong but the sword that protected that pen was strong too. That has changed and another sword has emerged. The sword that protected the pen is now contested by an irrational and violence force of faith. And the pen-wielders are vulnerable everywhere. Seeking protection for the pen may not be useful in Bangladesh because the government, which is fighting Islamic extremists, see the bloggers as a problem, not an ally.

It's only by drawing boundaries that didn't exist before, that we can start shaping a more peaceful world based on respect for the ideas of others. Everyone needs to respect moderation as the ultimate pursuit of freedom, not freedom in itself, which has often taken violent shapes throughout history. With the rise of Islamic extremism battling Western extremism, this may not be easy.

Afsan Chowdhury is a bdnews24.com columnist.