March 2, 2009: “Is religion beyond media scrutiny?”
This debate, organised by FMP in the wake of the arrests of three editors allegedly for offending religious feelings of either Hindus or Muslims, has been reported in The Times of India and The Indian Express. It has also featured in two blogs: one in Law And Other Things and another in The Hoot.
FMP’s president Madhu Trehan welcoming the panelists and audience at the media dialogue on blashpemy law held in India International Centre, New Delhi.
“This is the innocuous reason for which Muslim rioters attacked my office in Raichur and the police arrested me and detained me for a night in their custody.” Suddi Moola editor, Basavaraj Swamy, showing the illustration he had published of Prophet Mohammad along with a short story on his generosity.
Statesman editor Ravindra Kumar explaining the circumstances in which he had to surrender to the police after a three-day siege by Muslim rioters in Kolkata protesting the reproduction of an article from a British newspaper titled, “Why should I respect oppressive religions?” Since it was anyway a critique on all religions, there was no such protest in Britain from Muslims or others.
Kairale Ale editor B V Seetaram narrating the bizarre manner in which he was first arrested and handcuffed in a two-year old defamation case and then detained for a whole month as the police foisted eight blasphemy cases on him because of his campaign against Hindutva forces in Mangalore.
Tracing the history of the blasphemy law in India, moderator Manoj Mitta, senior editor of The Times of India, pointed out that section 295A, which was inserted in the Indian Penal Code in 1927, is meant to penalise only those insults to religion that have been committed with “a deliberate and malicious intention”. It is obvious that none of the three arrested editors has committed the alleged crime with such an intention. Given the growing misuse of the blasphemy law against journalists and other practioners of free speech and expression, Mitta raised the question whether the time has come for India to repeal or at least reform section 295A IPC. He added that while Pakistan supplemented section 295A with more draconian provisions, Britain repealed its age-old blasphemy law in 2008.
Justice J S Verma, while sounding a note of caution against the misuse of the blasphemy law to muzzle the media, said that prima facie evidence of “a deliberate and malicious intention” to insult a religion was a pre-requisite to booking a case under section 295A IPC. By way of an example, the former Chief Justice of India said that there was no way that the illustrations of Prophet Mohammad published by Basavaraj Swamy along with a short story on his generosity could have been construed as blasphemy.
Reflecting the diversity of views on this sensitive subject, Chandan Mitra, editor of Pioneer and Rajya Sabha member, rejected the suggestion that there was any need to provide further safeguards against the misuse of section 295A. Citing the controversy over M F Hussain’s nude paintings of Goddess Saraswati, he called upon journalists to display greater restraint in deference to religious sentiments and the sheer volatility of Indian society. He added that in some cases the editors could have been arrested more to save them from popular wrath than to punish them.
Reacting to the question framed by FMP for the panel discussion, moderate Muslim leader Maulana Wahiduddin Khan said that the media can scrutinise religion only when it has studied the subject. No journalist, he added, can claim to know Islam unless he can read Quran in its original Arabic form. Since they are unlikely to have such scholarship, journalists, in his opinion, should limit themselves to reporting events.
Editor-activist Madhu Kishwar countered Mitra and Khan by asking if those accusing the media of offending religious feelings are themselves competent to speak on religious matters. She asserted that a group of goondas claiming to represent a religion cannot be allowed to dictate how the law should be enforced.
Recalling the setbacks she had herself suffered because of the conflict between freedom of expression and religious fundamentalism, actress-film maker Nandita Das lamented the steady decline of tolerance in India over the last decade. The delay in the release of her award-winning directorial debut Firaaq, based on the aftermath of Gujarat riots, is a case in point. She appreciated the initiative of holding a nuanced discussion on religion and its implications.
A snacking report of the debate by Vivian Fernandes:
This debate was the third in a series in as many months, but the one that has really affirmed FMP’s mission: to raise the bar in a vocation that has no entry barriers, and to debate issues of concern mainly to journalists, but not only to them.
Unlike the debate on coverage of the Mumbai terror attacks in December, we did not have an emotionally-charged context. Other depressants: a debate first thing in the morning, on the first day of the week, on a nippy day. At 11 am, when the debate was about to start the speakers seemed to outnumber the audience. Aniruddha Bahal did not have the heart to step into the auditorium, so he cleverly decided to be part of the welcoming committee! After a peek into the auditorium, I too decided to join him, till we got a summons in response to the sounding of the gavel by moderator Manoj Mitta.
If I am so glad to bring this report to you, it is as a messenger of good news. Because within no time we had 105 participants who had signed in, and our guess is the number that turned up was closer to 150. Which just shows that you need to have the right message and a little bit of organisation to get people interested.
Madhu Trehan set the tone with her welcome remarks.
Manoj ably stirred the discussion and added weight with his understanding of the blasphemy law (sec 295 A of the Indian Penal Code) and perspective: the turn of the law for the worse in Pakistan, punishable with death in some instances (despite common origin), and its abolition in the UK.
It was great to get Ravindra Kumar, editor of the Statesman, B V Seetharam, editor of Karavali Ale (Coastal Wave) from Mangalore, and Basavraj Swamy of Suddi Moola (News source) from Raichur. The latter two had been detained: Seetharam, for allegedly hurting Hindu religious sentiment in Mangalore and Swamy for publishing a sketch of the Prophet along with an approving story of the Prophet’s compassion. Kumar himself surrendered to the police in Kolkata, after Muslim fundamentalists took offence to an article reprinted from the Independent, an English daily, that itself had not cause offence in London, where 14 percent of people are Muslim.
The gist of the debate: (a) Prosecution is persecution. The aim of fundamentalists is not to uphold the truth but to prevent inconvenient expresssion with the threat of violence. To uphold social peace, the State will oblige, even if it has to trample on Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
(b ) You do not have to give offence to suffer the consequences. Someone, somewhere has to take offence. Nandita Das’s directional debut, Firaq, is an example.
(c) There was also a point of view that in an evolving multi-religious society, restraint is prudent and one should not be guided by strict legality. For example, a sketch of the Prophet is not pictorial depiction and therefore not unIslamic, but that nuance may be lost on the mob. Similarly, the depiction of Hindu goddesses in the nude. Journalist, and now, lawmaker, Chandran Mitra said one should be practical in the exercise of one’s rights Manoj made the interesting point that all but a fringe Indian daily published the Danish cartoons of the Prophet, indicating that Indian editors were quite restrained and mindful of the feelings of readers whose belief they might not share.
(d) Maulana Wahiduddin, agreed that religion was subject to scrutiny- but by scholars, not by journalists who report on events. He said journalists, for instance, could report on the danger of the Taliban getting hands on nuclear weapons but only a scientist could hold forth on the intricacies of nuclear science.
And here is a heart warmer: Nandita Das applauded the programme for making “nuanced” debate possible.
…………………………………………………………
