It was the year 1927, when a book called Rangila Rasul was published by Mahashe Rajpal in Lahore, British India. This book detailed the sex life of Islam’s Prophet Mohammad, and after a few attempts, the publisher was murdered by a young man called Ilm-ud-din. Ilm-ud-din was sentenced to death, and the muslim community erupted in anger since their prophet was insulted. Several leaders of the muslim community participated in the murderer’s final procession and gave rousing speeches. The attendees included Mohammad Iqbal (the man who wrote sare jahan se accha, and was one of the founding fathers of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan) and Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Iqbal proclaimed in his speech, "Asi wekhde reh gaye, aye Tarkhaana da munda baazi le gaya (We kept sitting idle while this carpenter’s son took the lead)", lamenting the fact that the murder did not take place earlier [1]. Till this point in time, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) did not have law against insulting religious feelings. But the collective outrage of muslims made the British government pass Section 295(A) of IPC.
“Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.— Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
But one might wonder--the British left India in 1947! Why is the act still relevant? It is still relevant since we faithfully inherited colonial era laws and continued to apply them even after 1947. I remember very well of being proud of the fact that India has the longest written constitution in the world--talk about misplaced pride. The Indian constitution is a hodge-podge of mainly British era laws, which is why we are still stuck with legislative masterpieces like the “Hindu marriage act”, “Hindu undivided family”, Article 377, and many more. In practice, section 295(A) is a blasphemy law which has been used to silence free speech in India for decades on end.
Ok, but we have a fundamental right to free expression. What about that? Article 19 of the Constitution of India:
“Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc
(1) All citizens shall have the right
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) ….
(2) Nothing … shall … prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”
x
Now, every freedom in clause 1 is subject to the “reasonable restrictions” in clause 2, thereby rendering the first clause totally powerless and open to wide ranging interpretations. This clause allows restrictions to free speech based on public order, decency and morality which is really the kick in the balls that Article 19 did not deserve. So any group which says, and more importantly demonstrates, that a particular instance of speech has driven them into a sufficient tizzy to affect public order, can curtail the free speech of the speaker. Again, the aggrieved group has to demonstrate that a particular instance of free speech is a threat to public order for the speech to be curtailed. The quotation has been truncated to 2 clauses since the article rambles on and on with tedious drivel consisting of 6 clauses. Let us contrast this with the US constitution’s First amendment rights on free expression.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
That is it. Over. 45 words clear words and done. Please read it again for its marvelous brevity and power. These 45 words really protect free speech. As a result, biting satire, both political and religious, is very commonplace and protected in the US. In India also it is safe, until a mob decides that they are sufficiently offended to blackmail the state into invoking Article 19(2) of the constitution or IPC 295(A).
Why is there a difference in these laws? At the risk of hastily generalizing, modern USA was founded by people with a great amount of mistrust in the government, always concerned about government tyranny and very protective of their right to free expression and their right to bear arms. Modern India on the other hand was led by a very different set of people. None other than MK Gandhi wrote letters supporting the introduction of a law like IPC 295(A). Secondly, even today I find people saying “government should take care of farmers”, “government is not functioning well”, “government should provide free healthcare”, etc. I also think a majority of Indians would agree with the idea that free speech should be allowed until it offends someone's religious sensibilities, without dispassionately analyzing what a disastrous idea this is. A deeper sense of personal responsibility should be instilled in us during our formative years.
A Hindu perspective: As mentioned earlier, IPC Article 295(A) curtails free expression and criticism of religion, and effectively serves as a blasphemy law in India. Blasphemy is a concept alien to India and its faith systems, and there has always been a tradition of debate and civil disagreement. So this law primarily protects religions that abhor blasphemy. The majority of Indians do not care about blasphemy, and should realize that it is to their advantage if this law is repealed and clauses restricting free speech in Article 19 of the constitution are also repealed. Hinduism is not based on one dogma. Even if someone conclusively proves that Krishna never existed, or Rama never existed, the knowledge and skeptical inquiry of the vedas and upanishads would still be valid. Indeed the strongest criticism of the vedas is present in the Bhagavad Gita (chapter 2, shlokas 42 and 43).
But rather than demanding that the restrictions be removed, concerned sections of the hindu society has increasingly started to copy their abrahamic counterparts and demanding that other speech be silenced. People who publicly express opinions are aware that inviting one community’s wrath is more dangerous than inviting the Hindu community’s wrath. People running the government and law enforcement are also aware of this. This has led to double standards in their behavior, and the way society reacts to instances of curbing free speech. Unless a majority of the Hindu community realizes that free expression would be in their favor and challenges the constitution and the IPC, we will continue to see more conflict. We will remain short-sighted and draw wrong conclusions about why these conflicts happen, without providing any lasting solutions.
[1] http://nation.com.pk/10-Oct-2015/until-we-start-denouncing-ilm-ud-din-s-legacy-mumtaz-qadris-will-keep-sprouting-up-in-pakistan
No comments:
Post a Comment