Keshav Kulshrestha
BACKGROUND
The Blasphemy saga around the world is once again reignited by Pakistan tightening its blasphemy laws which already carry the death penalty as a punishment. However, India is no longer excluded from the global discussion surrounding blasphemy. The discussion about the necessity of blasphemous laws in India was raised by the recent incident involving blasphemous remarks made about the Prophet Muhammad by former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma. The brutal murder of a tailor in Udaipur has caused widespread outrage throughout India. The severity of the problem is so great that many Middle Eastern nations have demanded an apology from India, Indian goods have been boycotted, irate protesters have engaged in violent clashes with law enforcement in numerous states, and even Al-Qaeda has threatened to send an army of young suicide bombers to attack India. In light of the recent incident, numerous national-level organizations including Vishwa Hindu Parishad and All India Muslim Personal Law Board demanded stricter implementation of Blasphemy Laws in India.
WHAT IS BLASPHEMY?
Nowadays, blasphemy is defined as “defamation against God”. In some countries, blasphemy is defined as acts or remarks that insult god or sacred religious figures or objects. However, it wasn’t always this way. Blasphemy’s origin dates back to AD 325 in Greece. As the idea of monotheism took hold, the concept of blasphemy began to be linked to the denigration of God. Initially, in the legislature, it was taken as “Treason against the state and law itself“. It was established as a law in the context of the state in the year 1675. However, in recent times, blasphemy is used by rulers to defy the voices against them. They considered themselves the shadow of God and any offence against them has been deemed an offence against God. Soon after, the concept of blasphemy was popularized, and it is still employed today in some nations to silence the voices of minorities.
BLASPHEMY LAWS: AROUND THE WORLD
Blasphemy laws are not only limited to Islamic nations and Islam as a religion. In the Bible, Leviticus calls for the stoning of anyone who curses the God of Israel. It varies from one religion to another. It is common for society to punish for the mockery of its religion. The concept of blasphemy is not static. However, what is deemed to be blasphemy may differ from time to time and from place to place. Nowadays, blasphemy laws are more prevalent in Islamic nations. Even in western countries, blasphemy used to be part of their penal provisions but from the 1950s and onwards these nations have tended to be more tolerant of religious differences. The US abolished the Blasphemy law in the year 1952 and the same was in Australia and England in years 1995 and 2008 respectively. However, more than 71 nations now have anti-blasphemy legislation, with Pakistan & Iran having capital punishments for the offence.
BLASPHEMY LAWS IN INDIA
In India there was no law against blasphemy until section 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was added in 1927. However, it is not considered a formal legislation against blasphemy. “Whoever, with the 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”. This law came in the background of communal tension between two communities, Hindu and Muslim, as the pamphlet called ‘Rangila Rasul‘ was published by Mahashay Rajpal. Soon after the publication of the pamphlet, the Muslim community went into a rage, asking that Rajpal be punished for his brutal attack on the religious spirit.
But the need for a blasphemy law again raises the question, is there any need for a separate law for blasphemy if the Constitution already protects the fundamental right to freedom of religion and places reasonable limitations on both the State and the individual as long as the exercise of that same right does not violate public morality or order? The IPC already includes a number of sections that address religious offences.
In 2018, due to the ongoing escalation of racial tensions in Punjab and other northern Indian regions, the Punjab government amended the IPC 1860 and included 295AA, which stipulates that the crime of blasphemy in the state of Punjab is punishable by a life sentence. It was claimed that the action was taken to stop religious disturbances that were taking place in the state. This change, however, has drawn criticism because it only covers some religious artefacts, not all.
LOOPHOLES ASSOCIATED WITH BLASPHEMY
- Legitimizing Mob violence
Defining in very simple terms, blasphemous laws are those rules which punish a person for hurting “religious sentiments”. But nowhere is the term religious sentiment defined which makes it a tactic for quelling national dissent. This gives wide ambit to the State and governments to interpret the law in the way which suits them. Usually, the person who sparked the disturbance is held accountable for the violent reaction. Morally, only violence used in self-defence against violence is justified. But in the case of blasphemy, the person is ended up imprisoned because the other feels insulted about their religious sentiments. Insult can never be treated as violence. Countries like Pakistan have provisions for the death penalty for blasphemy and it was argued that locking up the person is fine instead of awarding them the death penalty. But even locking up the person is as wrong as crushing an individual’s freedom for appeasing the demands of the majority. Morally, here the one who should be locked is the violent mob. Critique is in the very nature of democracy and it is an established fact that none of the nations will be able to progress without addressing the flaws in its policies and law.
The idea is that the harsher the punishment, the more it serves to prevent crime. Is it real, though? In contrast to many Asian and African nations, there are either none or very few blasphemous laws in western nations. Even some countries have the death penalty as a punishment for committing blasphemy. However, the data shows that there are very few blasphemy incidents reported in western countries but in the Asian and Middle Eastern regions, it is the opposite. This clearly shows that harsher penalties have nothing to do with prevention of crime. The straightforward explanation for it is, the mob or groups get pleased whenever someone gets punished because of them. Punishment here acts as an encouragement for them and eventually somewhere their belief in violence gets stronger.
- Not in consonance with Freedom of Speech and Expression
Practically, Blasphemy laws are not justifiable in democratic countries. The use of blasphemy laws in a democratic society will be a direct violation of fundamental rights. Article 19(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. Individuals are permitted to freely express their thoughts under Article 19(a), which also safeguards the plurality of opinion in society. However, freedom of speech is frequently restricted in the guise of blasphemy and hurting religious feelings which again narrows down the scope of criticism. But why should criticism be allowed in society with respect to religion? Some argue that criticism shouldn’t be permitted since it offends many people’s religious sensibilities, but banning criticism would not only violate fundamental rights but also give a nod to various religious beliefs and practices. These practices vary from praying to God to Sati-Pratha. There are some institutions and practices that need to be corrected because they are unethical and immoral.
- Protecting religion from criticism
Blasphemy is inherently a bad law. Shielding religions from criticism cannot be equated to protecting religious sentiments. The term religious sentiment or religious belief is a very ambiguous term in itself and is subject to various interpretations, giving people the power to label anything they considered appropriate in accordance with their beliefs, even to the far extent that criticism should be allowed just for the sake of correcting the errors. Religion is the way of governing oneself and allowing criticism will help religious thinkers to improve their theology. It should be acceptable to criticize religion for curbing the unlawful and immoral practices carried out in the name of religion.
CONCLUSION
Activists are fighting for reforms in the Blasphemy laws for decades, but very few steps have been taken in light of the changing of the law. It is important to distinguish between constructive criticism and violent incitement. It was due to Raja Ram Mohan Roy that gruesome beliefs like “Sati Pratha” were eradicated from society. However, it all began with criticizing that practice. Indeed, the objective behind the Blasphemy laws was to maintain peace and tranquility in society, but it is also essential that these rules do not restrict people’s freedoms of speech and expression and that the seriousness of the issue is not limited to India, it also needs to be addressed at global levels.
The author is a 2nd-year law student at the Institute of Law, Nirma University
Image Credits: Foreign Policy
Constitutional Law Society 
Leave a comment