Blow to Free Speech in India

The Free Library of Philadelphia (PA) has three copies.
I reserved one. The other two are both "in transit" to borrowers who recently reserved one each,
but have not yet picked it up.
Coincidence, or what?

Dancelover

A FALSE NEUTRALITY
Written by Amit J. Thursday, 20 February 2014 14:32

Although India has a time honoured tradition of censorship, Penguin’s recent decision to withdraw Wendy Doniger’s bookThe Hindus: An Alternate History has been particularly shocking, considering that only a lawsuit had been filed. Usually, accusations of offence to sentiments have to be accompanied by violence (or at least threats of violence) before a measurable impact can be made. Be that as it may, The Hindus has joined a distinguished list of officially and unofficially censored books, populated by titles such as Rangeela Rasool, The Satanic Verses, Three Hundred Ramayans and Shivaji.

To say that the incident demonstrates the right wing’s rising hold over public discourse is stating the obvious. In many ways, this instance highlights the state’s role as a meek spectator or even its tacit acceptance of ‘discourse hooliganism’ of the offence industry. Even more importantly, it gives us a clue to understanding the impact of the ambiguous definition secularism in India on state and society. Censorship of books on grounds of offence to religious sensibilities has its provenance in colonial times. Section 295A of the Indian Penal code that criminalizes deliberate acts of insulting/outraging religious sentiments was enacted by the colonial government in response to the controversy and violence triggered by the publication of Rangeela Rasool in the 1920s, where the book’s publisher Rajpal was subsequently killed by one Ghazi Ilmuddin. To prevent misuse, the law included two important safeguards: first, the inclusion of the word ‘deliberate’ afforded some measure of legal protection to the accused; second, only the state, and not a private individual could press charges under this section. This was in accordance with the colonial policy of neutrality in religious affairs, whereby it sought to maintain distance from the religious affairs of Indians whilst reserving final say in matters of arbitration.

Subsequent innovations to this section have included Pakistan’s (in)famous blasphemy laws that not only increased the scope of what constitutes outrage/insult to religious sentiments, but also gave individuals the right to press charges against the accused, leading to the golden age of tolerance that we see today. Similarly, the post-colonial state in India inherited the religious anxiety of the British [partially due to the horrors of religious violence before and after 1947], and thus placed several constraints on freedom of speech and expression. However, it wasn’t so much the legislations, but rather changing notions secularism in Indian state and society that have gradually permeated and shaped public discourse. It is worth noting here that the word secular was only added to the preamble of the Indian constitution in 1976, and prior to that, the state used the framework of ‘freedom of religious belief’ to assert its secular, or more correctly, its neutral/ non-theocratic identity. This lack of a clear definition gave considerable latitude to people and groups to define secularism/religious freedom as they wished.

Secularism in India is often defined asdharm nishpekshta, which denotes the state’s neutrality in matters of faith, or according to some interpretations, the state’s equidistance from all religions. This interpretation of secularism is quite different from the concept of laicite, or the complete separation of the church and state. Considering the diversity of beliefs in India, this acceptance of plurality is almost necessary in the Indian context. However, there are contradictions inherent in this definition that potentially undermine the very notion of secularism. On a semantic level, the emphasis on the term dharm (which technically translates into ‘righteousness’ but is used to denote religious beliefs in common parlance) marginalizes non-religious belief systems such as atheism.

With time, the evolution of Indian secularism has led to an emphasis on the philosophy of sarv dharma sambhava, or the notion that ‘all religions are true’/ ‘all religions should be respected’. The concept arose as a pluralist counter-narrative to communal ideas that seek to re-imagine India as a homogenous/ monocultural society. In this context, the state emerges as a ‘protector’ of religions and any assault on the ‘veracity’ of any religion becomes a deliberate act of provocation or disrespect to religious sentiments.

The term ‘respect’ here is thus quite contentious, for it goes beyond the respect for a person’s right to hold a belief, and accords an element of sanctity to religious belief. This further infringes upon the neutral space for secular beliefs or even criticism of religious belief on rational/secular grounds. Further, it inadvertently results in a premium on mainstream/orthodox interpretations of religious belief, giving a de-facto veto power to the self-appointed custodians of the faith, and delegitimizing alternate voices and dissenting views. This leads to a certain essentialization of religious beliefs, which then become defined by what they are not. Thus, critics of Doniger and Ramanujan say that the work of these authors does not portray “real Hinduism”.

In another recent instance, a member of the Islamic Cultural Center in Delhi demanded that a law should be enacted that guarantees protection against disrespect of all religious personas. Obviously, the gentleman carefully couched his demand to bring in a legislation that mirrors the proposed Anti-Blasphemy Law by the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) in the language of sarv dharm sambhava to make it more palatable to non-Muslims in India. Such foolish demands fail to notice the impact of such legislations in countries such as Pakistan, where blasphemy has become an instrument of systemized repression of minorities and public debate.

The Doniger case also brings out the fault lines between group rights and individual rights in India. Freedom of expression in India is riddled with caveats, not just restricted to religious matters, but often also encompasses discussions of historical figures. It is interesting to note here that group interests are seldom defined by the views of the majority, and are mostly represented by who speaks the loudest.

While it may still be premature to sing dirges for secularism in India, if this charge of the right brigade continues at pace with the steady retreat of the state, we could find ourselves in a situation where India begins to resemble a ‘multi-theocracy’, in which the state’s character is increasingly defined by not one, but several religions.

The Library has now given me another Wendy Doniger book:

SPLITTING THE DIFFERENCE:  Gender & Myth In Ancient Greece and India.

A Scholarly work, with comparisons such as Rama/Sita - Menelaos/Helen, Alhyba & Alcemena, and others.
She finds Hindu and Greek myths have many similar themes.

D

I find the "FirstPost" to be a political website, opposing Doniger and "allies."
Their Sandeep Balakrishna writes "Neither Penguin nor petitioners acted outside the boundaries of the law concerning free speech in India." and
therefore "The episode is *not* an issue of free speech" (emphasis his).
I find this argument a Non Sequiter.

He goes on to compare "... arson and violence in the wake of the Danish cartoons ..." with "... simply took to legal recourse ..." as if permissible
means must justify the ends, and also as if the impermissible means were not present in the backround as a threat.

He writes of "Penguins's decision ... voluntarily withdraw ..." as if no threat had anything to do with it.

I cannot accept these arguments.

He also questions Doniger's scholarship.
Her other book (I mentioned above) show her a diligent scholar, whatever the accuracy of her translations. 

D,