VOLTAIRE AT THE GUILLETINE

 

24. VOLTAIRE AT THE GUILLETINE

The hurricane passed, leaving a trail of destruction and devastation. Human casualty was heavy. The conscience of the nation was roused. And prominent people came together and collected a huge amount to provide relief to the unfortunate victims. They handed over the money to the finance minister and he promptly deposited it in the treasury. Those who collected the money were furious. We collected the money to provide relief to the poor and not to get if deposited in the treasury. And the minister told them with a smile. During the last two weeks I have been giving money to the affected from the treasury without waiting for anyone’s sanction. I knew I would be able to recoup the money as I had faith in the goodness of the people.

This happened in Paris. To be precise, in October 1788. When this message of goodness went around, a revolution was averted.

In the beginning of the new century there was racial unrest in Paris. This went on for about a fortnight. The authorities had to work hard to quell the fire of unrest. It was but natural that world came to worry that equality and fraternity were departing from the land of Voltaire.

France is a country which had spiritedly engaged in wars and invasions and annexations over the centuries. But France was known as, and is still known as, the cultural capital of Europe. It is not without reason. It was based on the values which were reflected in its social vision and administrative outlook. Even before becoming the slogans of the French revolution, the concepts of equality, fraternity and liberty had created ripples in the social life of France. It may not be wrong to conclude that the deficiencies inherent in the contradictions of this concept centering round man and humanity formed the influencing force behind the Paris revolt.

Henry IV was ruling France. The threat of Spanish invasion was looming large. On one side were the formidable moves to weaken the ruling setup by unifying the dissenting forces in Paris. Pressure was mounting on Henry IV to take Paris by open aggression. But his response was different. I am father to my people, he said. And drawing analogy to the decision taken by King Solomon to settle a dispute between two women over an infant, he said he would take the stand of the real mother in the story, who was willing to forgo the child rather than halve it. I am father to my people, he said. I am not willing to sacrifice humanity to regain Paris. He brought Paris to terms not by the use of brutal force. Only three Counts got killed in the process. Henry who became remorseful said: I am prepared to pay any price to get their lives back. I can tell coming generations that I took back Paris without bloodshed.

There was only humaneness to equal humaneness. It is this reckoning that bestows on civilizations the lustre of greatness. Alexander had conquered the world. Once he saw a man leading a mule through the mountains. The mule was carrying sacks filled with gold and jewels for Alexander’s palace. When he saw the mule was about to collapse because of the weight of the burden, the man unloaded the sacks and carried them himself. Alexander was watching this with curiosity. Unable the carry the weight, the man also started to stagger. Alexander told him. You try to reach this load to your house somehow. I gift them to you. This was a moment when authority succumbed to humanity.

Though the French Emperor Napoleon was a ferocious warrior, as an administrator he was kind. There was a Count who was elevated by him to a high position. But this Count got involved in a conspiracy against Napoleon and was arrested. The Countess met Napoleon to air her grievance. She implored him to save her husband. Napoleon thought for a while and asked her: Can you recognize his signature? She replied in the affirmative. He gave her a letter to read. Once she read it, she fell unconscious. When she came to her senses Napoleon gave the letter to her. Pointing to a lighted candle he said: Do as you wish. The Countess burnt the letter. With great relief Napoleon said: You have just destroyed the only evidence against your husband.

Once I had occasion to visit Paris in connection with an international conference while the French Presidential elections were going on. The candidate who contested against Jacques Chirac had entered the fray with his strong stand against the immigrants and in favour of sons of the soil slogan. It was the time when the western world and the French people had started wondering if tolerance which was the hallmark of French culture was vanishing. But the political philosophy of intolerance could not take roots in France. Chirac got re-elected as President. Now the observers are watching if the winds would change direction in the event of another election. Things are moving in such a way that there is scope for the apprehension that the embers of racial hatred and intolerance can flare up into a huge conflagration. It is a matter of great concern that its repercussions will not be confined to France alone.

The neighbouring country Belgium had racial conflicts at least at a few places. Its echoes were heard in some universities in Britain. The apprehension as to whether conflict of cultures may become a terrible reality is not totally misplaced. Are we going back to the distorted culture which would honour negativism? Are retrogression and progress becoming cyclic realities in the descending and ascending stages of human civilization? It is unfortunate that though summits are regularly held on war and economic development, no serious efforts are made for cultural coordination. Is not a vision of the whole world as one big family the only way before us rather than nurturing the feeling that sons of the soil are the real inheritors of the world?

There is another side to this. The fate of one who gave shelter should not be like the Arab who gave shelter to the camel. When civilized societies try to imbibe other cultures and to assimilate them into their mainstream they should take care to ensure that it is not to their own detriment. The immigrants also should consciously try to imbibe the culture and the lifestyle of the societies they have chosen. It cannot be that they have left their old home but not yet reached the new one. When cultures coalesce, we can find solace in the thought that the wail of racial conflicts in European countries is nothing but the birth pangs of a new global culture of convergence.

Immigrants may be superfluous. But can one consider immigrants, who for generations are born and brought up in a country, as outsiders? Are they not also sons of the soil since they are born in that country? They too should feel that way. It is the responsibility of cultural leaders and those in power to see that there is no feeling of alienation.

To know how one should behave towards a person seeking asylum, all the French have to do is to look at their own tradition. Once a Spanish slave escaped to France on a stolen stallion. The King of Spain demanded that both the slave and the war horse he had stolen should be returned to Spain. The French ruler sent back the horse but not the slave. His explanation was that a man who had sought asylum on the soil of France could not be sent back to slavery. He became a citizen of France and a free man.

The spokesmen of racism who are eager to drive away the refugees are taking Voltaire to the guillotine in the land of the French Revolution itself. No doubt, a sad sight.