Doused in acid

If the media is frequently in apology mode it means either that it is careless and insenstive in what it publishes, or that it is not getting the protection it merits from the state, and support from civil society.  Carelessness was not an issue in the four cases that have taken place this year, where editors were either arrested, or had to face a mob at their newspaper¿s door.  And sensitivity is selective: as an editor pointed out recently, public opinion is hardly homogenous in matters of religion. Should we then be governed by the dictates of those who take offence  with alacrity?

Because in all four cases, offending religious sentiment has allegedly been the issue. Let¿s do a quick, chronological run through. The January incident comes from Karnataka, where the chairman of a Mangalore-based  newspaper publishing house who has been arrested and charged with offending religious sentiment before, was arrested yet again in  a two year defamation case, this time in handcuffs.  B V Seetharam has taken on Jain monks, among others, in his newspaper campaigns, and frequently publishes criticism of what he sees as religion-based communalism on India¿s West coast.

Following this, the High Court called his arrest and detention illegal and directed the home ministry to pay Rs 10,000 to him as compensation. Seetharam is a particularly vocal critic of Karnataka¿s home minister V S Acharya, who, according to him, belongs to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in the state. 

It is difficult to judge the merits of this case because the Internet has many reports describing Seetharam as a blackmailer, and  apart from journalists in his own state and elsewhere, no-one else in Karnataka has spoken up in his defence.

Then in February there were three incidents, the protestors in all three cases being Muslims. One, again, involved a Kannada daily in Raichur, Suddimoola, which printed a short story for children and illustrated it with drawings of the Prophet Mohammed. The second was the arrest of the editor and publisher of the Statesman in Kolkata because of printing a syndicated article that provoked Muslim mobs. And the third, was a report that a Muslim leader, Majlish Bachao Tahreek¿s Amjed Ullah Khan,  had demonstrated with his people in front of the Deccan Chronicle office in Hyderabad because it printed the headline, ¿Rahman, Top Dog.¿ Rahman is one of the names of the Prophet, and therefore calling him a dog offends religious sentiment, even if the reference is actually to musician A R Rahman.  In all three cases the publications tendered apologies.

In the first case, we have a photocopy of  the offending drawing at hand. It is the sort of illustration you get in childrens¿ books, showing a bearded man in Arab head gear, helping an old woman.  If Islam says Mohammed should not be picturised in any form, do those who do not belong to the religion have to be bound by this injunction? And consequently have stones rained upon their office premises for not abiding by it?

Among all the above cases, the one that is a real  test of society¿s capacity to debate issues rationally is the article by Johann Hari which triggered the Statesman incident. It was titled "Why should I respect these oppressive religions" and was reprinted from The Independent. It is a tough, eloquent piece of writing, taking on squarely the way the international community has yielded ground in recent years to Islamic fundamentalism.

 It begins thus: "The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism – giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds – are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion."

The peg for his article was the fact that the  the UN Rappoteur for Human Rights, whose job was to protect the basic tenets of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, recently had to see a change in the job description thanks to pressure from some Islamic countries. From defending freedom of expression, the job is now supposed to be to "stop abuses of  freedom of expression", and particularly "defamation of religion and prophets." Says Hari, the  Universal Declaration and its guarantees are being overturned. Secularism is being attacked by religious fundamentalists and the UN at least, is giving in.

He wrote, "Yet this idea – at the heart of the Universal Declaration – is being lost. To the right, it thwacks into apologists for religious censorship; to the left, it dissolves in multiculturalism. The hijacking of the UN Special Rapporteur by religious fanatics should jolt us into rescuing the simple, battered idea disintegrating in the middle: the equal, indivisible human right to speak freely.

To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women¿s, those children¿s, this blogger¿s – or their oppressors?"

Hari¿s piece included unflattering yet factually correct references to both Christianity and Islam. Given that, most Indian publishers would have balked at using it. But the Statesman editor said he did so several days  after it was published in the UK, guided by the fact that there was no protest there, even though London has a 14 per cent Muslim population.

What are the issues that arise from the cases that India has seen in the first two months of the year? A free society needs a free press. But should religion be exempt from being reported on by that press? Excesses and injustices in the name of religion can no longer be exposed thanks to demands for religious sensitivity.  And religious wrong doing cannot be discussed freely either. Secularism has little meaning when the government  bows to fundamentalists.  In Karnataka as well as in West Bengal.

In a discussion organised in Delhi in the first week of March on this issue the Indian law which  makes provocation in print an offence, was discussed.  Section 295A  of  the Indian Penal  Code is India¿s blasphemy law. It makes "insulting a  religion with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feeling", an offence. Conviction means three years imprisonment. To date, there have been no convictions in India under this law, which in itself shows that it has been far easier to harrass the media with it than prove that they have been a genuine offender.

Organised by the Foundation for Media Professionals, the discussion boiled down to the following question: should  media eschew  reporting  and commentary on religious subjects because somebody somewhere will be offended in a volatile society, or should it persist with being a space where religion in all its manifestations can be discussed?  Should M F Hussain¿s paintings continue to be denied public exhibition because they offend Hindu sensibilities or should civil society defend an artist¿s right of expression? And above all, should the administrative and legal system uphold free speech and free expression that is within the law, or should it capitulate to the mob by pacifying them with arrests?

The simplest and most eloquent defence came from actress Nandita Das who pointed out that the last ten years have seen a steady decline in tolerance and a steady rise in fear. Surely, she said, there should be some scope for nuanced conversation in a democratic society?

What we in the media  really need to fear is that we will lose our freedom to think and express clearly and rationally if we do not constantly show up ¿sensitivities¿ all round for what they really are: creeping fundamentalism. And for that, the rest of civil society also needs to stand up and be counted.