The One-Way Liberal Street

French philosopher Voltaire was a free-speech absolutist. His famed statement, “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” however, is clearly not in vogue today among left-liberals and self-appointed guardians of ‘secularism’ and free speech in India.

Admittedly, doublespeak and ideologically convenient arguments marred by intellectual dishonesty are not the exclusive property of any single ideological stream. The malaise is spread across the spectrum. The difference, however, is that when “right wingers”— as leftists describe Indian conservatives—err, it is called out vehemently, and almost instantly, by an aggressively vocal section, but dubious claims made by left-liberals are routinely glossed over.

Those in the business of fact-checking will always wink at these issues. They are seen as minor transgressions best condoned because of ‘larger interests’. The liberty they take with the truth is, in fact, celebrated as a legitimate tactic and a tool for the sake of the larger good (as it is defined by them) and the ends are seen as justifying the means. Leftists have been adept at this subterfuge and are past masters at whitewashing what was politically inconvenient to their narratives by selectively highlighting only dressed-up ‘facts’. Take, for instance, the NCERT textbooks written and vetted mostly by groups of ‘experts’ anchored in left-liberal thinking for decades, from the post-Independence Nehruvian era.

Sponsored aggressively by the ruling establishment for decades—in an understanding of sorts between the ruling Congress and the left-liberal pantheon of leaders—the NCERT texts, studied uncritically by lakhs of students across India, blithely brushed the destruction of Hindu temples by Islamic invaders under the carpet, choosing instead to deck the likes of Emperor Akbar in the fetching garb of benevolence and syncretic values. He is the initiator of the “Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb” that became a patently revisionist touchstone for ‘secularists’ after 1947. Akbar, in these textbooks, could do little wrong: his imposition of jizya on the majority Hindu population and his very considered marriages with Hindu royalty in order to keep his ‘empire’ under control, even while concocting supposedly cohesive and syncretic religions like Din-i-Ilahi (1582 CE) that remained highly esoteric with no takers, found no mention except with a positive spin. Akbar, in these texts, was an emperor who aggressively espoused liberal values, was a champion of religious tolerance and appreciated art, music and poetry with roots in both his place of origin and his vast ‘empire’, thus allowing both to flourish individually and together, equally impacting the Islamic and Hindu cultures of his time. Quite apart from this, the NCERT textbooks downplayed the exclusivist and supremacist tendencies in Islam when it undermined the very faith of millions of Hindu subjects of the Mughal emperors while positing the Quran as the only true path to spirituality and Allah as the only god.

This tactic worked even with those who were not sophists, popularly associated with moral scepticism and specious reasoning. The lack of alternative sources of knowledge and reliable information meant that even crude expositions by them worked convincingly. Revisionism was posited as the very fount of socio-cultural, religious and historical wisdom, which was in turn controlled stringently by the anointed custodians of knowledge. The cocky presumption was that people would never be any wiser and that their monopoly over sources of knowledge, or what passed for them, was absolute. Now, though, that protectionist dome has been breached significantly and several troubling issues about this presentation of history have begun tumbling out of the closet, exposing the existing narratives as dishonest and mainly purveyed by practitioners of double standards.

The current environment of critique, research and questioning has meant that all established versions of history and its associated fields, including social, cultural, religious, spiritual and even economic spheres—both Raj-era and post-Independence (more so the latter)—have come under heavy fire and these ‘scholars’ have been hauled over the coals.

The controversy triggered by the Nupur Sharma episode is a classic illustration of this pseudo-intellectual skulduggery. To date, not one of those criticising her has put forth a reasoned argument against what is, even among Islamic scholars, an issue of debate and discussion even today. This is not to justify any attempt to hurt anyone’s religious sentiment. Here, it needs to be said that not one of those who have taken strong exception to her statement has rebutted Nupur Sharma with factual reasoning. Instead, they continue to ply their specious logic and the more they do that, the more they are in danger of being exposed for their hollow claims.
Despite this, they continue to tie themselves up in knots. In that very debate hosted by a TV channel, Nupur Sharma cited, in response to a co-panellist’s comment on her faith in the Shivling, what the Hadith says in relation to the Prophet. In Islam, Hadiths refer to what a majority of Muslims believe to be the record of words, actions or silent approval of Prophet Muhammad in his lifetime, as interpreted through a chain of narrators, and Hadiths are viewed as second only to the Quran in giving spiritual guidance to the believers.

Nupur Sharma subsequently clarified what she had said, not with the intent to offend, but to point out that many overriding contradictions and seemingly questionable issues persisted in all faiths, especially when viewed through today’s socio-cultural prism. That religious faith transcended what appeared today to be logic, modernity, acceptable social and cultural norms, and should not be judged on those premises. Her statement on the Prophet was triggered by angst over many unflattering things being said about her own deity of worship, Shiva, by the left-liberals. For instance, when there was mockery about the Shivling appearing circumcised; connections were drawn between prophylactics and the Shivling; and one journalist went to the extent of posting an image of the phallus-like dome of the BARC on a micro-blogging site, drawing comparison with Lord Shiva. But Nupur Sharma, in the process, broke an unstated taboo on a topic that no non-Muslim had ever taken up for debate or critique, least of all a woman.

Muslims debate this very issue amongst themselves. The most reviled figure among them today, the presiding priest of the most intolerant face of Islam, Zakir Naik, routinely talks about it. The believers debate it among themselves but they do not want, or allow, non-believers to discuss the same topic, even as they reserve for themselves the right to talk of and critique the gods of ‘kafirs’. Nupur Sharma’s ‘crime’ was that she entered this area forbidden to non-Muslims.

The loudest reactions to Nupur Sharma’s statement showcased the intolerant face of the believers with the violent fringe bullying even the most marginal voices of criticism into submission. That was most starkly captured in the slogan “Gustakh-e-Rasool ki ek hi saza, sar tan se juda (There is only one punishment for speaking against the Prophet and that’s beheading)” raised by the killers of tailor Kanhaiya Lal Teli in Udaipur. The whole debate over Sharma’s remarks has been distorted by left-liberals today by maintaining that she committed blasphemy.

She committed no blasphemy. Blasphemy, by all accounts, can be committed only if you say something that’s inaccurate, false or inauthentic from the point of view of religious commentary. But what Sharma referred to is a debate that is on-going even today in Islam over the Hadith. Besides, evangelists like Zakir Naik, too, refer to the issue. This is hardly the substance of blasphemy.

What is being sought to be enforced here now is a replica of the blasphemy law in Pakistan. Even liberal bodies that have winked at the worst excesses committed in the name of Islam there, however, have argued for the blasphemy law to be repealed, largely because of their concern for Christians like Aasiya Noreen, or Aasia Bibi, and others. Aasia, born and bred in rural Pakistan, was convicted of blasphemy by a religious court after an argument with a neighbour over berries when she allegedly tore up the Quran and was sentenced to death in 2009. She was acquitted in 2018 by the Supreme Court of Pakistan for lack of sufficient evidence, by which time, already, two ministers had been assassinated for speaking in her behalf. She reached Canada in May 2019 after several gruesome death threats from fundamentalists in her home country.

In Nupur Sharma’s case, what appear to be happening are attempts to enforce a similar blasphemy ‘law’ in India. In Bangladesh, Hindu and secular-minded bloggers were murdered for voicing their contrarian opinions on Islam and growing religious intolerance. The attempt seems to be to create a similar environment in India.
Ironically, the Indian Constitution that left-liberals so ardently defend is antithetical to such a rigid interpretation of blasphemy and the enforcement of a ‘law’ concerning it. In the Constitution, the word “secular” was added to the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment and makes it clear that as a secular nation, the state will not interfere in religious matters and that all religions are viewed by it on a level playing field. Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), however, criminalises insult to any religion and allows imprisonment up to three years with fines for “deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feeling of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults and attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class.” However, this law is not rigid and is designed to be read keeping all the relevant facts of every individual case in mind. It does not require that all cases invite penalty; it only suggests penalty in cases where there is deliberate and malicious intent.

In the case of Nupur Sharma’s statement, what is being sought to be engineered is a rigid law of censorship that disallows citizens to even debate or discuss what is already a subject of debate in the existing theological discourse among scholars, in this case, of Islam and the Quran and of Hadith. An unstated and very rigid censorship law about non-Muslims debating anything related to Islamic theology was being unofficially enforced and practised in India for a long while, given the developments in 1924 when Mahashay Rajpal published a text, Rangeela Rasool, in response to a pamphlet titled Sita ka Chinala (a work that depicted Sita as a prostitute) and three other books. In Punjab, conversions to Islam began after the Arab invasion of Sind in 712 CE under Muhammad bin Qasim. But resistance carried on for two centuries. The 1910s and 1920s were decades of communal flare-ups in Punjab. And whatever happened on the streets manifested in a polemical war. Three very controversial books were published by Muslims in that period: Krishna Teri Gita Jalani Padegi, Unnisi Sadi Ka Lumpat Maharishi and Sita Ka Chinala. They contained vulgar sketches and abuse of Lord Krishna, Dayanand Saraswati and Ma Sita. Dayanand Saraswati was a special target because he had started the Shuddhi movement.

A Section 153A (promoting ill will among different communities) case was registered against Mahashay Rajpal. That he had engaged in something defamatory was proven. But that was not enough to punish him under Section 153A. The judge discharged him. There were several attempts on his life. In 1929, a 19-year-old carpenter, Ilm-ud-din, stabbed Mahashay and he did not survive this attack.

And then protesters began to demand a blasphemy law. The British introduced 295A of the IPC to skirt it: a law that seeks to criminalise speech deemed insulting to religious groups. Lala Lajpat Rai called the legislation a temporary measure necessary to “satisfy some hyper sensitive folk.” One of those at the forefront of the demand for the blasphemy law was Salman Taseer’s father, Muhammad Din Taseer, Urdu poet, writer and literary critic. Ironically, Salman Taseer, then serving as the governor of Pakistani Punjab, was assassinated by his bodyguard Mumtaz Qadri in 2011 for opposing Pakistan’s blasphemy law.

Non-Muslims had played along with this censorship for the last 100 years. Not surprisingly, all hell broke loose when Nupur Sharma said it. Left-liberals who would say that artist Maqbool Fida Husain was perfectly within his rights to use his creative genius to depict Hindu goddesses Ma Durga and Ma Saraswati naked either fell silent or started marshalling contrived arguments to claim that Nupur Sharma had erred. When the protests began, their silence was deafening. Just for writing a fictional story in 1986, Kerala-based writer PKN Namboodiri faced huge opposition. Protests over this work in Karnataka took the lives of 16 people. Stone-pelting occurred in Mysore, in Bangalore and in other parts of the state. The riots affected even smaller towns like Kolar, Hubli and Tumkur. In 2010, there was also the case of TJ Joseph, a professor of Malayalam at Newman College in Kerala’s Thodupuzha. About eight people armed with swords and knives pulled out the professor from a vehicle and chopped off his right hand for committing a blasphemous act. The list of such incidents is almost endless. Curiously, left-liberals, who have a long memory, remained silent over these grave instances of violent censorship.

When protests against Nupur Sharma began, left-liberals, who otherwise cried hoarse when Hindus said Ayodhya was the birthplace of Lord Ram that had remained under occupation for 500 years, looked askance. In the process, “a matter of faith” has been elevated to the level of law, the absolute Law. Left-liberals who have developed reputations and earned fortunes by railing against hate speeches by the Hindu fringe also decided to wink at the throngs of Muslims that gathered outside mosques shouting “Sar tan se juda” in various cities and towns. It was an invocation that harked back to medieval punishment. It was an invocation for punishment that is written in Sharia. Liberals who object to slogans like “Desh ke gaddaron ko goli maaro” lapsed into silence when 50,000 people gathered at Nanded and 30,000 on the outskirts of Delhi. Important ‘secular’ leaders attended these events, but chose to ignore the slogans.

People of a select persuasion were baying for Nupur Sharma’s blood after her remarks in a TV debate without considering the context in which they were made. Nupur Sharma withdrew what she said, apologising for hurting sentiments, and clarifying that it had not been her intent. But free-speech absolutists, who otherwise defended sloganeering in favour of Afzal Guru, those who swear by Voltaire and the traditions of freedom of expression, are displaying the most terrorising and terrifying silence of all. Multiple FIRs were filed against Nupur Sharma but these very intellectuals, who in another era had defended MF Husain’s artistic freedom to paint the most revered Hindu goddess Saraswati, the deity of knowledge and wisdom, in the nude, and today back the likes of documentary filmmakers based in Canada, such as Leena Manimekalai, for denigrating Goddess Kali, have little to offer in defence of Sharma. Husain did not dare to depict the prophets and gods of religions other than Hinduism in a denigrating manner. Nor indeed did Manimekalai. Because they knew the consequences. In the loud silence of the so-called intellectuals lay complicity. The consequent developments were to be expected.

Two ordinary people were butchered as a consequence of supporting Sharma’s remarks, one in Udaipur and one in Amravati. Both tailor Kanhaiya Lal and chemist Umesh Kolhe met gruesome deaths. When Sharma, giving in to the terrorising consequences and cognisant of the death threats to her, approached the Supreme Court to allow the clubbing of multiple FIRs, she was trying to secure what was her legal right. She was not questioning the content of the FIRs , only asking that they be clubbed together so that she was not forced to move from court to court to defend herself. She was not only denied relief but was also cast in the role of a villain when she was held responsible for all the unrest in the country on the issue of blasphemy as viewed by Islamists. The court decided not to grant her plea. No person can be tried more than once for the same offence. And second, since multiple FIRs had been lodged, she wanted relief from the court. What she got was a severe reprimand that held her guilty for the killings of Kanhaiya Lal and Kolhe.

Some went to the extent of saying that the same thing had happened to Teesta Setalvad. In her case, however, typical of the deception that leftists practise, whatever the court said was on the basis of an inquiry conducted by a person who did not belong to Gujarat and was handpicked by the apex court. He reported only to the Supreme Court, was accountable only to the court, and his findings were endorsed by the court. It was on the basis of the findings of an investigation, conducted under public glare in the most intense of situations, with thousands of liberal eyes glued to every twist and turn in the probe, that Setalvad was booked. She was not booked for taking up the cudgels on behalf of the victims of the 2002 riots in Gujarat. The Supreme Court sought action against her for forging documents, for intimidating and pressuring witnesses in a trial. “The proceedings have been pursued for the last 16 years to keep the pot boiling, obviously for ulterior design. All those involved in such abuse of process need to be in dock and proceeded in accordance with law,” the Supreme Court directed and the Gujarat government just did that.

The selective outrage was apparent also when Arnab Goswami was picked up by Mumbai Police. Goswami, however, did not face death threats but had alleged threats of physical harm by Sachin Vaze. Nupur Sharma, in comparison, faces a much graver threat. And now, those who chose silence over speaking out in her case are left with the short end of the stick themselves—fact-checkers or others from their ecosystem.

Karma, it is said, bites hard. In those 30 minutes of Nupur Sharma’s case hearing, the judges have caused more damage to the highest court of the land than when its members had acquiesced in the suspension of fundamental rights during Emergency.

(Also read: Offence: A Brief History by Madhavankutty Pillai)

blasphemyfree speechIslamistsliberalsNupur Sharma