From beheading over Prophet remarks to ‘Kaali’ FIRs, religious hypersensitivity is the latest threat to India
From beheading over Prophet remarks to ‘Kaali’ FIRs, religious hypersensitivity is the latest threat to India
With the documentary Kaali evoking sharp reactions and police complaints close on the heels of death threats to suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma, India faces the challenge of striking out a balance between freedom of expression and religious sensibilities.
The issue is now social more than legal, for hypersensitivities are set to lead to the piling up of FIRs, whether these lead to convictions or acquittals.
It is true that the Constitution itself talks about reasonable restrictions on the freedom of expression, granted in Article 19 (1) (a), under Article 19 (2). The courts decide the ideal balance that is democratically tenable. It is also true that there are penal provisions that can be evoked to book a person who spreads hatred between communities.
However, the purpose of this piece is to look at the social implications of the new wave of hypersensitivity more than looking at it purely from the legal lens. Questions of hurt religious sentiments had not really led to a social crisis over the decades, despite isolated instances of police complaints and even killings. Now, they seem to be on the verge of creating one.
The reason: People belonging to religious communities have developed a propensity to feel that their beliefs are under attack. Muslims believe that attacks on Muslims and Islam are increasing because Hindutva is in power. And an increasing section among Hindus now believe that while Hinduism was attacked for decades in the name of both academic enquiry and social reform, the same critical quest is not extended to Islam. So, ever-widening sections of Hindus are now unwilling to accept any artistic or academic criticism.
The Nupur Sharma episode — she made what were interpreted as disparaging remarks on the Prophet, attracted the ire of Islamic countries, got suspended from her own party and received threats — is the watershed moment in more ways than one. Some Hindus are now arguing that there should either be criticism of all religions or no criticism at all, as they feel Hinduism is more open to criticism than Islam. It is now a competitive game of who is least tolerant.
In Punjab, blasphemy incidents vis-à-vis the holy book of the Sikhs have been core political issues in recent years. Even the farm protests on the Singhu border of Delhi saw the lynching of a man for disrespecting the Sikh holy text. There have been cases across the globe where blasphemy towards Islam has led to threats of violence or actual violence, be it the threats received by Salman Rushdie for writing Satanic Verses, the assault on historian Mushir-ul-Hasan in his own university, Jamia Millia Islamia, for saying that banning Satanic Verses was no solution, the killings in France when the publication Charlie Hebdo was seen to use satire blasphemously, the recent beheading of a man in Udaipur, etc.
Despite widely-reported instances of lynching over purported cow protection in recent years, Hinduism has not really had a traditional notion of blasphemy. There have even been instances where people who went against traditional beliefs have been feted and celebrated as great saints. The most apt example — and one that isn’t too old — is of Swami Dayanand Saraswati, who preached that all knowledge apart from the Vedas was either false or inferior to the Vedas. He attacked Puranic Hinduism, which was practised in his times, the 19th century, and also broke idols publicly. However, despite opposition from the orthodoxy, Dayanand was vastly successful in offering his organisation, the Arya Samaj, a foothold in north-western India. Would Dayanand have been able to critique and reject extant Hindu beliefs, as also beliefs of other religions, in today’s context?
In India, criticism of Hindu religious beliefs has been linked to social reform too. BR Ambedkar launched attacks on Hinduism, going to the extent of saying that he was born a Hindu but would not die a Hindu. He also wrote a work Riddles in Hinduism, which would perhaps be an impossible text to write today. Not just Ambedkar but Jyoti Rao Phule, the Ad Dharm movement, the Adi Hindu movement, etc, were deeply critical of Hinduism.
***
Also Read
Dharma Files | Aisha and Sita: A case of reciprocal illumination
Off-centre | Mahua Moitra vs Nupur Sharma: No double standards, please
Judiciary, Nupur Sharma, and the right of being innocent till proven guilty
From ‘caged parrot’ to ‘amoeboid monster’, how remarks by honourable courts live beyond the case
A tale of two Supreme Courts: Best practices from the US and India need to be adopted
Top court crossed 'Laxman rekha': Former judges, bureaucrats slam SC's remarks against Nupur Sharma
***
However, the absence of anything like blasphemy meant that all these critiques were taken as part — even if a sometimes uncomfortable part — of the public sphere. Much academic activity also followed the same path. There may be millions of followers of Lord Ram, but a feminist critique of Ram could be undertaken publicly. DD Kosambi, India’s first Marxist historian, could write a book Myth and Reality, questioning many religious beliefs and arguing they were historically untenable. Yet, his book would stay on the reading lists of academic departments. Kanch Illaiah Shepherd could write and discuss his work Why I Am Not A Hindu.
These instances, which are illustrative rather than exhaustive, suggested that one could be critical of religion and yet be celebrated as an intellectual or a social reformer.
Things seem to be changing now. There have been complaints against people for mocking the Shiva-linga in the context of the Gyanvapi mosque controversy. The Nupur Sharma incident has deepened fault lines further, making many Hindus ask how Hinduism can be criticised if other religions cannot face similar criticism.
The polarization is deep. Complaints of hurting religious sentiments abound, the latest case being FIRs against Leena Manimekalai, a filmmaker whose depiction of Goddess Kali hurt many.
Do we as a society decide not to allow any criticism of our religion? That is one way out, but it comes with the rider that criticism for social reform, art and academic enquiry will also get blocked.
Or, do we as a society insist that all religions be open to criticism, as a celebration of freedom of thought, restricted only by reasonable restrictions where the courts are the final authority to take a call? This was the path Bhagat Singh traversed, criticising Hinduism as well as Islam, and also turning an atheist and ceasing to practise Sikhism. This was also the path of Kabir, who mocked both Hindu and Muslim religiosity, in times much before freedom of expression became a crucial modern right.
All evidence points to the fact that we were ready for this a century back or even earlier and later. But, the question is: Are we ready for it now? The answer to this will decide how tenable as a modern society we remain in future.
The author is a journalist and media educator. The views expressed are personal.
Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,
India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
What's Your Reaction?
