News Analysis: This very country is ours

In 1927, Hindu-Muslim relations in then undivided India were being tested by the publication of “Rangila Rasul” three years before. The judiciary and the legislature engaged in a row over the issue. The court was not satisfied because the author had to be tried under a section of the law that had punishment for spreading enmity or hatred among different communities. At that time, the government was mulling a new law to stop deliberate attacks on religious sentiment or religion of any community through writing, speech or presentation. A number of local Parliament members also joined the British ruler’s move for introducing two-year imprisonment for hurting religious sentiment. However, many opposed the move, arguing that it would lead to the oppression of religious minorities instead of curbing communal hatred. They also feared that the law would affect freedom of expression and practice of history. One of the then members of the legislature prophesied that the law would be a threat to artists, novelists and aestheticians. Others argued that citizens disturbing the peace by a brawl will be considered a crime against the state, not against religion. KC Neogy (a politician from the then Dhaka division) said: “The criminal law of a country is the index of its civilization” and this law will “proclaim to the world the unhappy relations that subsist between the different communities in our land.” But the majority in the legislature passed the law ignoring criticism and logic, adding section 295 (A) to the Penal Code. The apprehensions of the members opposing the law came true in independent India. Pakistan went further by adding sections 295 (B) and 295 (C) to its Penal Code with the provisions of life imprisonment for disrespecting Quran and death penalty for defaming Prophet Muhammad. In 1993, Jamaat-e-Islami's then general secretary Motiur Rahman Nizami proposed the House to make similar amendments to that of Pakistan. In 2004, an independent lawmaker proposed punishment for disrespecting Quran or Prophet Muhammad through any word, gesture, speech, picture, painting, movie or any other behaviour. However, this proposal was not placed in the Parliament. In 2006, the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act was passed quietly with the provision of punishment for hurting religious sentiment online. The law was hardly spoken about before the government blocked Facebook in 2010. After the Shahbagh movement started in 2013, radical Islamist group Hefezat-e-Islam branded bloggers as atheists and infidels and demanded their maximum penalty. In order to pacify them, the range of punishment under Section 57 of the ICT Act was increased to 14-year imprisonment. Moreover, cases filed under the section were made non-bailable. Several bloggers were arrested. Even though the Islamists have targeted bloggers, authors and publishers, the administration repeatedly warned the bloggers not to cross limits. Much of the horror this draconian law for “protecting religion” has created, has remained behind the scene except for a few widely-discussed cases. A teacher and a tailor were murdered by machete-yielding attackers despite being cleared of the charges of hurting religious sentiment. The houses of Nasirnagar Hindus were set afire by spreading rumours on Facebook. None of the culprits was brought to justice. But an innocent Rasaraj, whose name was used to spread the rumours, spent time in jail. In 2015, India’s Supreme Court declared section 66 (A) of its ICT Act illegal in the wake of harassment of innocent people. Although the section does not specifically touch the question of religious hurt the judgment addressed the issue as well. The court in its verdict said one’s opinion on any subject might appear to be disturbing, inconvenient or insulting to others. As such, imposing control for such reasons would curb the freedom of expression. Bangladesh’s court, however, seems unmoved by the havoc created by Section 57. Several cases challenging the legality of the section have been scrapped. Two other cases have been pending for a long time. The information minister has recently said that Section 57 would be scrapped. But, the proposed Digital Security Act has the similar provision for contempt of religion – only the punishment has been eased. We can only hope that our lawmakers do not take the increase or reduction of punishment as the only parameter of improving laws! Law does not provide security to any religion or ideology, but to individuals. Law can ensure that no one is being targeted, discriminated or harassed for their religious belief or being obstructed from practicing religion. It is not the duty of the state or the law to provide security to one's feelings or values. In our constitution, there is no mention of religious sentiment as a ground of imposing restriction on freedom of expression. The constitutionalism of any law for protecting religious sentiments – be it the ICT Act or Digital Security Act – is not beyond question. Recently, the Lady Justice statue was removed from the Supreme Court premises on the excuse of hurting the majority Muslims’ religious sentiment. Many of us venting our anger are saying “this country is not ours.” But, this very country is ours! In our land, the national curriculum gets changed and the statue gets displaced. Yet, there is no one to shoulder responsibility. Everything is being done “to keep situations under control.” But who creates the ground for such ‘situations’? Why does the prime minister’s adviser say the premier would not be able to take a stand about Avijit Roy’s killing? Why does the PM say that the situation has changed and that Islam would remain as state religion in the constitution? A 2005 Law Commission report, without any data, claimed that the Muslim community would revolt on charge of hurting their religious sentiment if a uniform family law is formulated for all religious communities in the country. But, in 2013 another Law Commission report based on survey showed that the majority Muslims wants reform of the Shariah law provisions relating marriage, maintenance, and guardianship. The unfounded ‘breach of peace’ coin is being used time again to legalise all anti-people actions. We can surely recall Hafazat’s 13-point demand. The government had assured considering the “logical demands.” Since then, the textbook curriculum has been changed, the draft national broadcasting policy has cautioned hurting of religious sentiment, the minimum age for marriage has been changed, Qawmi madrasa’s Dawra degree has been made equivalent to post-graduation level and the Pohela Boishakh celebrations has been limited to 5pm for last two years. Now, we have witnessed the removal and reinstallation of the lady Justice statue in the Supreme Court premises. The PM had asked the Qawmi madrasa Ulamas to have confidence in her and that she would do everything necessary about the statue. Hefazat has termed the removal and reinstallation as a fraud with peoples’ sentiment. The PM had again said the statue was distasteful and also not suited to the taste of all religious communities. We can presume that all the demands in the 13-point charter will be implemented gradually. When the state directly sides with the religious fundamentalists, our confidence gets shadowed. Will distrust remain among those demanding justice for Hazrat Ali and Ayesha, who killed themselves after being denied justice. Will the confidence of those voicing to save the Sundarbans be ever regained? Will uncertainties of the people whose tears have met the flooded haor be ever addressed? Will doubts remain in the minds of the detained teacher Shyamal Kanti Bhakta and his family forever? Will distrust remain in the pages of the constitution where it is written that one of the key aims of the state is ensuring “rule of law, basic human and political rights, economic and social equality, liberty and justice for all citizens”?