India has a long legal history of religious tolerance
Pakistan is often in the news for its blasphemy laws and the arrest and persecution of people under it. How different is the case in India and why? Let’s have a look.
On 27 May 1953, the Tamil reformer EV Ramaswami Naicker smashed an idol of Lord Ganesha in public at the Town Hall maidan in Tiruchirapalli.
Naicker, who was angered by Hinduism’s caste system, made a speech announcing his intention to do this before breaking the idol.
Veerabadran Chettiar, an offended Hindu, filed a case under two laws.
Section 295: Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years.
Section 295-A: 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.
The Tiruchirapalli magistrate dismissed the petition. On the first charge he said that simply because the mud figure resembled Lord Ganesha it cannot become an object held sacred.
He accepted an offence was made out on the second charge (295-A), but that law required government sanction for the case to be registered, which had not come. He dismissed that also.
The petitioner appealed. The sessions judge dismissed the appeal. He agreed with the magistrate, saying the idol was the private property of those who broke it.
The matter went to high court. The judge said the idol broken did not come within the scope of “any object held sacred by any class of persons.” An idol in a temple or one in a religious procession would, he clarified, but not any object resembling a diety. Even a toy in such a shape would otherwise qualify as being sacred. No offence was made out, the judge said, and dismissed the appeal.
On to the Supreme Court. On 25 August 1958 Justice BP Sinha said the high court was wrong to have imported meaning into the words “held sacred”. It was not necessary for the object to have been worshipped for it to be sacred. For instance, the Bible, Quran and the Guru Granth were also objects held sacred. Sinha asked the judiciary to be circumspect in such matters and consider the feelings and religious emotions, irrespective of whether or not they share those beliefs, or whether they are rational or otherwise, in the opinion of the court.
However, after making these observations, Sinha then dismissed the appeal saying the matter had become “stale” since five years had passed. What his observations did was not to set a precedent, which would have happened had the case been dismissed on merit.
Two aspects are important here. First, a tolerance for offences against god shown by India’s lower judiciary. Second, and this is from Sinha, a reminder that such offences are likely to have consequences and therefore should not be encouraged.
On 20 April 1960, Allahabad High Court fined a man, Khalil Ahmad, for costs of Rs 1200 after he sued for getting his books released. He had written texts praising Yazid, the man accused of killing the Shia leader Hussain at Karbala. Ahmad said Yazid had a place in heaven, meaning that the act had religious sanction. The state then seized his books. The judges cited justice Sinha’s observation in ruling against him.
There are not many cases reported of blasphemy in India. In my years as a sessions court reporter in the 1990s, I came across none, and most of the case studies in legal volumes refer to events 50 years or more ago. I would attribute this to a generally high tolerance in the population for the other’s faith, and a pragmatic and alert police force and judiciary. What is different in Pakistan? We’ll see that tomorrow.
Incidentally, Naicker, the idol-smasher was also the founder of the Dravidian movement that produced both of Tamil Nadu’s main political parties, DMK (Karunanidhi) and ADMK (Jayalalitha). Naicker’s successors converted an anti-Brahmin movement into a powerful political force that now does not seek to offend. The ADMK chief Jayalaitha is a Brahmin, and both parties are inclusive. Naicker’s act is all but forgotten today, and seen as political not religious.
Imran Khan says Pakistan’s blasphemy law is necessary. He says it is a British law and thinks in its absence people would be lynched and there would be anarchy, because it is an emotional issue. The stern law therefore also helps those accused of blasphemy.
Is he right? Let us consider the law.
Only seven cases of blasphemy were registered in undivided India and Pakistan from 1927 to 1986, according to a group of Pakistani Christians. The National Commission for Justice and Peace says that in the last 25 years, 1058 cases of blasphemy were registered. Of the accused 456 were Ahmadis, 449 were Muslims, 132 were Christians and 21 were Hindus.
Non-Muslims, who are four percent of Pakistan’s population, are 57 percent of those charged with blasphemy. The other aspect is that by far the majority of cases are filed in Punjab.
India and Pakistan share their penal code, which was given to us by Macaulay in the 1860s. Pakistan’s primary law on blasphemy is the same as India’s law.
Pakistan’s section 295-A reads: “Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of the citizens of Pakistan, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations insults the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both.”
Both in India and Pakistan, this law is secular and applies to all faiths. The only significant difference in Pakistan’s law is the punishment, which in India is only three years.
Will Imran Khan try to narrate that till when he was Pakistan’s cricket team captain what was his attitude with Hindu player(s) especially when the match is between India and Pakistan. How much had you insulted a Hindu player on just dropping the catch? Do you remember or forget?
In 1982, President Ziaul Haq introduced an ordinance that added a section to this law.
Section 295-B reads: “Whoever willfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Qur’an or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life.”
It is difficult to see what new element this added which was not covered by 295-A, except that it is specifically a law that protects Muslim sensibility, and the punishment is increased.
Under prime minister Muhammad Khan Junejo another addition to the blasphemy law was legislated in 1986.
Section 295-C reads: “Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
This also was already covered by the original secular law. And again, here the punishment was increased, this time delivering death.
Till this change came, the number of blasphemy cases, to remind the reader, was only seven in 60 years. Therefore Imran Khan is wrong to say the anti-blasphemy law is helpful in keeping peace.
The truth is the opposite: Pakistanis have registered so many cases since 1986 because the Islam-specific laws 295-B and 295-C are being deployed.
It is often said that property disputes or personal enmity are the reasons for many of these cases, because people can be charged on the basis of hearsay. If this were the case, the law would be misused in India also, which it is not. My view is that it is strong religious sentiment that is the reason why so many Pakistanis are accused of being blasphemers.
President Musharraf said he would look into softening the law, but couldn’t. Sherry Rehman tried to introduce a change in the law and failed. Why?
I would say that it is not possible for the state to bring change over an unwilling population.
Punjab’s Muslims have defied the state on religion before. Emperor Bahadur Shah I (Aurangzeb’s son) was unable to get the Lahore Jama Masjid to recite the khutba because the word “wasi” was added by him to the name of the fourth caliph, Ali. Wasi means heir, and Shias use the word to suggest that Ali was the only rightful heir to prophet Muhammad, not the first three caliphs whom the Sunnis regard as legitimate. The khutba, which is a formal sermon delivered on Friday, proclaimed the emperor as head of state and was therefore important as a sign of his sovereignty. The emperor had an angry showdown with four sullen clerics in his tent, demanding they comply. In Bahadur Shah’s view the additional word was not against any specific Sunni practice. The clerics did not back down and, supported by the Afghans in Punjab, threatened civil war. A crowd of 100,000 civilians gathered to fight the state. In all the rest of India the khutba continued to be read in the prescribed form except Lahore. The emperor had to back down and finally the khutba was read on 2 October, 1711 without the word wasi.
There is no chance that the state will be able to undo the two changes in Pakistan’s blasphemy law.
Pakistan is often in the news for its blasphemy laws and the arrest and persecution of people under it. How different is the case in India and why? Let’s have a look.
On 27 May 1953, the Tamil reformer EV Ramaswami Naicker smashed an idol of Lord Ganesha in public at the Town Hall maidan in Tiruchirapalli.
Naicker, who was angered by Hinduism’s caste system, made a speech announcing his intention to do this before breaking the idol.
Veerabadran Chettiar, an offended Hindu, filed a case under two laws.
Section 295: Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years.
Section 295-A: 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.
The Tiruchirapalli magistrate dismissed the petition. On the first charge he said that simply because the mud figure resembled Lord Ganesha it cannot become an object held sacred.
He accepted an offence was made out on the second charge (295-A), but that law required government sanction for the case to be registered, which had not come. He dismissed that also.
The petitioner appealed. The sessions judge dismissed the appeal. He agreed with the magistrate, saying the idol was the private property of those who broke it.
The matter went to high court. The judge said the idol broken did not come within the scope of “any object held sacred by any class of persons.” An idol in a temple or one in a religious procession would, he clarified, but not any object resembling a diety. Even a toy in such a shape would otherwise qualify as being sacred. No offence was made out, the judge said, and dismissed the appeal.
On to the Supreme Court. On 25 August 1958 Justice BP Sinha said the high court was wrong to have imported meaning into the words “held sacred”. It was not necessary for the object to have been worshipped for it to be sacred. For instance, the Bible, Quran and the Guru Granth were also objects held sacred. Sinha asked the judiciary to be circumspect in such matters and consider the feelings and religious emotions, irrespective of whether or not they share those beliefs, or whether they are rational or otherwise, in the opinion of the court.
However, after making these observations, Sinha then dismissed the appeal saying the matter had become “stale” since five years had passed. What his observations did was not to set a precedent, which would have happened had the case been dismissed on merit.
Two aspects are important here. First, a tolerance for offences against god shown by India’s lower judiciary. Second, and this is from Sinha, a reminder that such offences are likely to have consequences and therefore should not be encouraged.
On 20 April 1960, Allahabad High Court fined a man, Khalil Ahmad, for costs of Rs 1200 after he sued for getting his books released. He had written texts praising Yazid, the man accused of killing the Shia leader Hussain at Karbala. Ahmad said Yazid had a place in heaven, meaning that the act had religious sanction. The state then seized his books. The judges cited justice Sinha’s observation in ruling against him.
There are not many cases reported of blasphemy in India. In my years as a sessions court reporter in the 1990s, I came across none, and most of the case studies in legal volumes refer to events 50 years or more ago. I would attribute this to a generally high tolerance in the population for the other’s faith, and a pragmatic and alert police force and judiciary. What is different in Pakistan? We’ll see that tomorrow.
Incidentally, Naicker, the idol-smasher was also the founder of the Dravidian movement that produced both of Tamil Nadu’s main political parties, DMK (Karunanidhi) and ADMK (Jayalalitha). Naicker’s successors converted an anti-Brahmin movement into a powerful political force that now does not seek to offend. The ADMK chief Jayalaitha is a Brahmin, and both parties are inclusive. Naicker’s act is all but forgotten today, and seen as political not religious.
Imran Khan says Pakistan’s blasphemy law is necessary. He says it is a British law and thinks in its absence people would be lynched and there would be anarchy, because it is an emotional issue. The stern law therefore also helps those accused of blasphemy.
Is he right? Let us consider the law.
Only seven cases of blasphemy were registered in undivided India and Pakistan from 1927 to 1986, according to a group of Pakistani Christians. The National Commission for Justice and Peace says that in the last 25 years, 1058 cases of blasphemy were registered. Of the accused 456 were Ahmadis, 449 were Muslims, 132 were Christians and 21 were Hindus.
Non-Muslims, who are four percent of Pakistan’s population, are 57 percent of those charged with blasphemy. The other aspect is that by far the majority of cases are filed in Punjab.
India and Pakistan share their penal code, which was given to us by Macaulay in the 1860s. Pakistan’s primary law on blasphemy is the same as India’s law.
Pakistan’s section 295-A reads: “Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of the citizens of Pakistan, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations insults the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both.”
Both in India and Pakistan, this law is secular and applies to all faiths. The only significant difference in Pakistan’s law is the punishment, which in India is only three years.
Will Imran Khan try to narrate that till when he was Pakistan’s cricket team captain what was his attitude with Hindu player(s) especially when the match is between India and Pakistan. How much had you insulted a Hindu player on just dropping the catch? Do you remember or forget?
In 1982, President Ziaul Haq introduced an ordinance that added a section to this law.
Section 295-B reads: “Whoever willfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Qur’an or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life.”
It is difficult to see what new element this added which was not covered by 295-A, except that it is specifically a law that protects Muslim sensibility, and the punishment is increased.
Under prime minister Muhammad Khan Junejo another addition to the blasphemy law was legislated in 1986.
Section 295-C reads: “Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
This also was already covered by the original secular law. And again, here the punishment was increased, this time delivering death.
Till this change came, the number of blasphemy cases, to remind the reader, was only seven in 60 years. Therefore Imran Khan is wrong to say the anti-blasphemy law is helpful in keeping peace.
The truth is the opposite: Pakistanis have registered so many cases since 1986 because the Islam-specific laws 295-B and 295-C are being deployed.
It is often said that property disputes or personal enmity are the reasons for many of these cases, because people can be charged on the basis of hearsay. If this were the case, the law would be misused in India also, which it is not. My view is that it is strong religious sentiment that is the reason why so many Pakistanis are accused of being blasphemers.
President Musharraf said he would look into softening the law, but couldn’t. Sherry Rehman tried to introduce a change in the law and failed. Why?
I would say that it is not possible for the state to bring change over an unwilling population.
Punjab’s Muslims have defied the state on religion before. Emperor Bahadur Shah I (Aurangzeb’s son) was unable to get the Lahore Jama Masjid to recite the khutba because the word “wasi” was added by him to the name of the fourth caliph, Ali. Wasi means heir, and Shias use the word to suggest that Ali was the only rightful heir to prophet Muhammad, not the first three caliphs whom the Sunnis regard as legitimate. The khutba, which is a formal sermon delivered on Friday, proclaimed the emperor as head of state and was therefore important as a sign of his sovereignty. The emperor had an angry showdown with four sullen clerics in his tent, demanding they comply. In Bahadur Shah’s view the additional word was not against any specific Sunni practice. The clerics did not back down and, supported by the Afghans in Punjab, threatened civil war. A crowd of 100,000 civilians gathered to fight the state. In all the rest of India the khutba continued to be read in the prescribed form except Lahore. The emperor had to back down and finally the khutba was read on 2 October, 1711 without the word wasi.
There is no chance that the state will be able to undo the two changes in Pakistan’s blasphemy law.
Comments