Muslims said they were upset with the Statesman for reproducing an article from the UK's Independent daily in its 5 February edition.
The article was entitled: "Why should I respect these oppressive religions?"
It concerns the erosion of the right to criticise religions.
I sought out the original article so I could read the entire thing myself and decide for myself whether anything written by the author, Johann Hari, could be construed as offensive enough to jail journalists over.
Hari's piece brings up examples of how criticism of any law in a country that could somehow be justified by religion has basically been banned, watering down to almost nothing the landmark Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He writes:
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.
Critical of Islam? Of course. But critical of Catholicism and evangelical Christianity as well. Hari is not singling out Islam for the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights; He also rightly blames the other groups for supporting certain barbaric practices of one faith so that they could carry out their own barbaric practices should they choose to do so.
This seems to be the passage that got the Indian editor and publisher in trouble for reprinting:
All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.
I agree with Hari 100% on this point. We should all respect others' right to believe in whatever faith they wish. We do NOT, however, have to respect what it is they believe in. Note that Hari again does not single out Islam in his criticism. Which brings us to why, specifically, the editor and publisher who reprinted Hari's work were arrested:
Some Muslims close to the Jamiat-e-Ulema e Hind (The Organisation of Indian Scholars, a leading Islamic group in India) later filed a complaint with police alleging that the publication had "outraged their religious feelings", which is an offence under Section 295 A of the Indian Penal Code.
Yes, that is a law on the books in India. How does one measure "outrage?" Who knows. If I am sitting in a coffee shop in Calcutta and I read a story about a Muslim blowing up a synagogue, am I able to be outraged enough to have the journalist who wrote the story arrested? At the end of the day, the Indian governments police actions against these journalists perfectly proves the point Hari made in his article:
But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs – but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.
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.
I hope India comes to their senses, repeals this unjust law, and continues to improve their democracy, as we have struggled to here in the United States for hundreds of years.
Comments are closed on this story.