Sunday Reading

New Delhi, 15 January 2010

Freedom Of expression

“CRITICISM HAS TO BE HEALTHY”

By Syed Ali Mujtaba

Ban on a book has always been a contentious issue in India for long. Every time a controversial book is written the cacophony for and against the ban raises its ugly head. The aggrieved party complains of the malicious writing that hurts their sentiments and demands a ban on the book. At the same time, there are voices that raise the bogey of freedom of expression and demand the fundamental right to expression should not be curbed.

Unfortunately, so far there is no clear direction on this issue and opinion remains divided.  Sometimes, politics steps into such a controversy and a mountain is made out of a mole hill. In such a situation, while those in favour of the ban hardly benefit anything except perhaps self esteem and the right to live with dignity, the allegation of ‘pandering to vote bank politics’ makes martyrs of those opposing the ban.

Recently, in a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court has sought to address such a controversy, giving a direction for future cases of such nature. Notwithstanding the judgment is being challenged in the Supreme Court, the fact remains that the justice delivered upholds the plurality of the Indian society and upholds the cornerstone of Indian culture--forbearance, tolerance and peaceful coexistence.   

The center of controversy this time is a book written by a Supreme Court advocate and a former Air Force Officer, R V Bhasin entitled: Islam – A concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims. The author argues that the philosophy of Islam encourages terrorism, and does not tolerate those of different faith. There are several passages in the book including those about Jihad, the Quran, Prophet Mohammed, Indian Muslims, and religious conversions that depict Islam and Muslims in poor light and were found objectionable by the Muslims.  

The book was published in 2003 and was banned in 2007 by the Maharashtra government on the ground that it contained derogatory remarks about Islam, Prophet Mohammad and insulted the sentiments of the Muslims in the country. Bhasin, however, challenged the ban saying it violated his right to freedom of expression and contended that the book is a historical analysis that throws light on lesser known facets of Islam. He further argued that the book, which was published in 2003, was banned after four years--in 2007 with its copies being confiscated after raiding his office in Mumbai.

A three-member bench of the High Court, comprising Justice Ranjana Desai, Justice Dhananjay Chandrachud, and Justice RS Mohite, after hearing the arguments upheld the ban of the book and wrote a landmark judgment that deserves to be reproduced in some detail. It begins with generalities and says: “In our constitutional set up, everything is open to criticism and religion is no exception to it. Every religion, whether it is Islam, Hinduism, Christianity or any other religion, can be criticized...While we have the right to criticize, the criticism has to be healthy and not malicious. It must not lead to creating ill-will and hatred between communities...”

“The freedom of expression granted by the Constitution should not be used to trigger senseless destruction of lives and property and breach of public order….” Besides, while upholding the ban, the bench said: “If a book reeks of hatred for a community and stirs communal passions, it has to be determined if its circulation would be in public interest…”

Commenting on the book, the court observed that the author’s criticism of Islam is done with a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of the Muslims, particularly Indian Muslims and such criticism is not permissible even under the right to freedom of expression.

The author in his book had argued that the philosophy of Islam encourages terrorism, and does not tolerate those of different faith. He quotes few Quranic verses to substantiate this point. To which the court observed, in the case of religious scriptures, several interpretations are possible and therefore Quranic verses must be "correlated” and historical background must be kept in mind when interpreting these.

“Some of the Quranic verses are indeed strongly worded and appear to have been directed against idol worshippers but having read the commentaries we feel that perhaps it is possible to urge that they relate to an era when the Muslims were attacked by the Pagans..."   

Bhasin had written that Prophet Mohammad had 11 wives, “married and otherwise”. To this the bench observed; “the lurid details allegedly of Prophet Mohammad’s life, the authenticity of which may be challenged by some, could have been avoided by the author. We feel that the attempt is to show Prophet Mohammad in poor light and thereby attempt is made to hurt the sentiments of the Muslims.”

The court found the author’s view that all Muslim youth are misguided and terrorists, objectionable. "It cannot be denied that misguided Muslim youth have indulged in acts of terrorism. But misguided youth are in every religion."

The court observed: “India is an amazing mix of people coming from different social and cultural background. Indian Muslims are part of the mainstream of the nation’s life and are contributing to India’s development in all fields.” Upholding the ban, the bench observed: “the author by writing such a book has insulted a large section of Indian Muslims. He has tried to create ill-will and hatred between communities and used this means to trigger senseless destruction of lives and property and breach of public order…”

Commenting on the judgment, the author has reportedly said that he will challenge the order in the Supreme Court even though he feels happy to join the ranks of Salman Rushide and Taslima Nasreen. He was earlier in the news for filing a public interest litigation petition (PIL) against the United States in an Indian court for the cancellation of a visa to Gujarat Chief Minster Narendra Modi. The petition filed in Baroda purports to hold the US accountable to the Government of India, State of Gujarat and Narendra Modi as he claimed damages to the tune of $201 million from the US government.

Indeed, it would be worthwhile to wait and watch the Supreme Court’s ruling on the issue as this story shall further play itself out. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)