Violent threats or calls for beheading on the internet fall in the category of vigilante injustice.
In a pluralistic society like India where religions abound, it is imperative that adherents of all religions maintain a degree of decorum in public debate especially when they make references to one another’s religion. A rash of recent high-profile acerbic verbal exchanges on television and on social media where allegedly the participants crossed the line of religious restraint has sparked public ire and put the focus on the combustible topic of blasphemy.
What exactly is blasphemy? Is there a standard benchmark to define blasphemy? And how should society respond to those who commit blasphemy?
The word blasphemy is derived from the Greek “blasphemia” and as per the Merriam-Webster is “the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God; and/or the act of claiming the attributes of a deity”.
According to the Pew Research Center, as of 2019, there were 79 countries (40%) in the world that had blasphemy laws on their books. However, not all countries are agreed on the penalty. While some countries are content to levy mere fines, others may exact more severe punitive measures like imprisonment or even death. Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan have provisions to impose the death penalty in cases of blasphemy. In 2019, at least 17 persons were sentenced to die in Pakistan for blasphemy.
The notion of offence central to the crime of blasphemy is a subjective emotion that can vary from individual to individual. There is a fine line between legitimate criticism and blasphemy and can impact freedom of speech. What may appear as profane to one individual may seem less sacrilegious to another. For this reason, many countries have repealed or made scant use of existing blasphemy laws.
India does not have an anti-blasphemy law per se. Individuals indulging in hurting religious sensibilities are prosecuted under more definable anti-hate speech laws. Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, a British legacy law states that “Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
Different religions perceive affronts to religion differently. Traditionally, blasphemy is a concept native to Abrahamic religions. The concept of blasphemy does not find mention in Hindu scriptures probably because of the open construct of its theology that emphasises dialogue and inquiry.
Hence, Hindus appear less sensitive to insults heaped upon their religion. However, in a multi-religious society like India such an attribute cannot be interpreted and exploited as a licence to slander Hinduism and its Gods at will which often does occur.
A case in point is a recent occurrence. The finding of an alleged Hindu Shivling in the Gyanvapi mosque provoked a plethora of memes on social media. A prominent journalist retweeted a photo that mocked the Shivling by comparing it to a nuclear reactor; a mainstream newspaper gave further flip to this canard by publishing those images. Another tweet ridiculed this incident by claiming that a series of stone traffic barriers could be Shivlings.
That these incidents did not result in a major hue and cry or a call for beheading the guilty does not make these insults less egregious than other similar violations related to other religions. We need to show appropriate respect to each other’s religious sentiments regardless of our varying sensibilities.
Blasphemy is a sensitive and volatile topic that engenders powerful emotions like deep hurt and uncontrollable rage that sometimes translate into a reckless call for instant punishment. Vigilante justice delivered by mobs acting as judge, jury and executioner is a common fallout of blasphemy laws especially in radicalized fundamentalist societies like Pakistan. Since 1990, about 70 people accused of blasphemy have been lynched or murdered by mobs there; efforts to even amend the blasphemy law have been looked upon disapprovingly, resulting in the murder of the proponents.
The free but unregulated and unfiltered domain of social media where restraint is a desideratum has become another fertile area to exercise vigilante justice. Calls for beheading of individuals arbitrarily accused of blasphemy crowd the internet as we saw in the case of a recent alleged utterance by a member of India’s ruling party.
The million-dollar question is how do we approach the problem of alleged religious hate speech?
At the outset let me make it very clear. No human being has the right to insult another religion and cannot be condoned. But a person’s guilt must be proved by a court of law before they are given appropriate punishment. Our ability to deal with such infractions in a systematic and acceptable manner by taking recourse to the laws of the land is what defines us as a civilized society.
Vigilante justice meted out spontaneously by mobs baying for blood or private individuals acting as self-appointed executioners goes against the basic tenet of giving an accused a fair hearing; additionally, it can result in misuse, abuse and loss of innocent lives; freedom of speech is also impacted negatively by this waywardness.
Violent threats or calls for beheading on the internet also fall into this category of vigilante injustice. The burgeoning influence of the internet makes it imperative to curb proactively and promptly such expressions that can potentially encourage actual killings. The guilty need to be hunted down and penalized to the full extent of the law so that this increasing tendency is nipped in the bud.
The government must use these recent incidents to send out a strong message to one and all that violent intimidation via the internet is as culpable as physical threats. Let it not be forgotten, Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code that is applicable to internet crimes, advocates imprisonment of up to two years for criminal intimidation.