India may not have the sensibility of France and that of Charlie Hebdo’s editors, cartoonists and readers, but it does need to move towards a more mature situation on the freedom of expression. Without protections for free speech, India is just a partial democracy
When masked terrorists gunned down several staff members of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, the world sat up and took notice. There has been much hand-wringing since then on the limitations to freedom of speech and whether the answer to seemingly offensive articles, pictures or cartoons is ‘self-censorship’. What was the correct response to the attackIJ
On Sunday, January 11, millions of people in France marched in solidarity — after all, the principle of ‘liberty, Equality and Fraternity’ is the reason why the French Revolution took place three centuries ago. The French have a long-standing history of satire and of attacking organised religion.
France is ostensibly a Roman Catholic majority country but short of the Notre-Dame Cathedral in the heart of Paris, religion is not intertwined with the French state. This is a state that values secularism so much that while it barred girls from wearing the hijab in school, it also banned students from wearing the crucifix.
Charlie Hebdo’s brand of satire was in the best traditions of Marianne — the lady symbolising French liberty. Even theAsterix comic strip, with its often juvenile humour, continuously makes political points — attacking imperialism, corporates and divisions in society. These often gets lost within ‘chasing wild boars’ and the protagonists beating up Roman legionnaires for children, but when you read between the lines and see the drawings by René Goscinny and Albert Uderzo, you cannot miss them.
But India is not France, the Constitution of India does not guarantee free speech although the great BR Ambedkar had envisioned it. The first amendment to the Constitution of India limits free speech in the country, quite opposite of the first amendment in the United States that enshrines the right to free speech. Parts of the Indian Penal Code, notably Section 153(A) and 295(A), prescribes punishment for offending religious feelings.
Section 153(A) states: “Whoever (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, . . . shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” Section 295(A) is not much but a reiteration of this.
The problem becomes ambiguous when one considers who applies these laws — the police and the judiciary. What is offensive to one person could well be a joke for the other. After the Charlie Hebdo attack, some took it upon themselves to argue that Islamic terrorists were against the very idea of freedom of expression. But one does not need to look too far to find the case of former artist MF Husain whose paintings depicting some of the Hindu goddesses were seen as offensive by parts of the Hindu community.
The fact is, under the Constitution of India and the Indian Penal Code, MF Husain’s paintings could well be easily classified as offensive by a senior policeman, and Husain, one of India’s greatest modern artists, could have been, under the law, sent to jail. MF Husain then renounced his Indian citizenship and emigrated to Qatar in the twilight of his life.
India is a country where communal riots are awfully easy to engineer. A few years ago, the image of a Pakistani cricketer, who was praying towards Mecca, had been altered to seem like he was lying prostrate towards a female Bollywood actor. This brought crowds in some cities and, as is the case in India, public property was damaged. It was a miracle that no-one was killed in the incident.
With education and particularly knowledge levels not up to global standards, an obviously faked photograph can set off riots. Our religious ‘leaders’, from many religions, take even the smallest provocation to get ‘offended’. The release of the Hollywood movie The Da Vinci Code, based on Dan Brown’s airport thriller of the same name, was protested by the Christian community in India who demanded a ban, even though the movie was not banned in any other country.
The case has to be made to remove such restrictive laws which serve little purpose but to enhance the narrow fundamentalist ideals of some people. But before such laws are removed, India does have to make progress economically. A simple reason why so many young Muslim youths are getting radicalised and are joining organisations such as the Islamic State is because these young men and women feel isolated from society.
Of course, this might not always be the case: Mehdi Masroor Biswas, the Islamic State tweeter from Bangalore, seemed to be a well-integrated young man with a proper job. However, greater integration and economic opportunities is the best way to de-radicalise people, and towards that end, it appears that the Ministry of Minority Affairs, instead of encouraging the hand-out culture, is trying to do some good work.
Coming back to the point though, India does not legally have the right to a similar sort of freedom of expression that is enshrined in France and other Western democracies. As has been pointed by many, BR Ambedkar and Bharatiya Jan Sangh (precursor to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party) founder Syama Prasad Mookerjee did indeed insist on full freedom of expression. It is very easy to argue that there is either full freedom of expression or there is none.
While hate speech, libel and malice have to be guarded against, satire and sarcasm, (or for that matter art) should never be a reason to be sent to jail or to be killed. We may not have the sensibility of the French and that of Charlie Hebdo editors, cartoonists or readers, but India does need to move towards a more mature situation on the freedom of expression. Without such protections, India is just a partial democracy.
(Footnote: This column has been written with no malice towards any religion or person.)