Where is the boundary between freedom of religion and freedom of speech and where, in a modern democracy, is its rightful place? This is the question that underpins arguments around blasphemy laws. Critics argue that such laws – particularly in states such as India and Pakistan – unfairly restrict freedom of speech by simply legislating to prevent any offence to the religious. It is difficult to argue with this assessment given a litany of recent cases. In Pakistan, those accused of blasphemy face stiff fines and sentences, as well as the risk of execution – either via the death sentence, or at the hands of an angry mob. In India, the anti-black-magic campaigner Narendra Dabholkar was murdered last year, a crime that many suspect was linked to his activism.
The country’s blasphemy laws – known as Section 295a, colonial-era legislation intended to curb communal tension – make “deliberate and malicious speech” insulting to religion punishable with up to three years in prison and a fine. The law has been used by various religious pressure groups to cancel events or ban books.
Sanal Edamaruku, the president of India’s Rationalist Association, has felt the full force of these laws. He has spent the last two years living in self-imposed exile in Finland, after charges were brought against him in 2012.
Edamaruku has spent his career debunking supposed miracles, and the claims of gurus and mystics. His organisation was well known for its Rationalist Reality Theatre: a travelling road show in which a rationalist, posing as a guru, performs miracles for villagers, before demonstrating how these apparent miracles can be explained by science. In one high profile incident, Edamaraku challenged the guru Pandit Surinder Sharma to kill him using his magical powers live on TV.
His problems began in earnest in 2012, after a TV channel asked him to investigate a Catholic miracle in Mumbai, where water was dripping from a crucifix statue in the church. He traced the source of the water to faulty plumbing nearby. Soon afterwards, blasphemy complaints were filed by Catholic groups. Edamaruku was denied “anticipatory bail”, which would have prevented him from being taken into police custody without investigation. He claims he received threatening calls from police, and, anxious about being arbitrarily detained, decided to leave early for a European lecture tour. Finland was the first country to give him a visa, so he stayed there. He expected the furore to die down after a few weeks – but two years later, it has not. The Catholic Secular Forum – one of the groups that made the initial complaint – insists it will press for prosecution if he returns to India.
Speaking to the New Humanist’s Paul Sims in December 2012, Edamaruku explained his mission: “Explaining these miracles, these holy experiences that people have, is so important for India, to come out of fear. There are two Indias. The modern, progressive India, and the India controlled by holy men, astrologers and tantrics, underpinned by the caste system. The modern India has to win, because an India with a prominent role on the world stage must not be controlled by the forces of reaction. We have to stop it now.”A petition launched by the New Humanist in 2012 calling for the charges to be dropped attracted more than 12,000 signatures from across the globe.
This case demonstrates one of the problems with India’s model of secularism, which enshrines equal rights for all religions, rather than the separation of religion and governance. Section 295a, with its broad-reaching remit, creates a situation where anyone can claim that anything is offensive and the government is obliged to act. It has also led to what some analysts have termed “competitive intolerance”, where religious groups assert their place in society by fighting legal battles, like banning books or events deemed offensive. This runs the risk of restricting discourse to “safe” topics, which tend to exclude religion. This trend effectively allows the most conservative voices in society to set the benchmark for what is acceptable. This is not just a concern for Edamaruku, entering his third year 3000 miles away from home, or for atheists. It should be of concern to anyone who values free speech.
