Is religion beyond media scrutiny?

This was an interesting panel discussion on one of the big debates of our times. And edited version appeared in the Indian Express on March 3, 2009.

Chinki Sinha
New Delhi, March 2, 2009

When Basavaraj Swami had published “Merciful Mohamed” with pictorial
representation of Prophet Mohamed in Suddi Moola on Feb. 15, little
did he anticipate it would lead to a mob situation where thousands
would vandalize his office property alleging he had insulted the
Muslims.
Swami, the editor, printed an apology following the protests and the outrage but was
booked under Section 295 (A), which states that ‘deliberate and
malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by
insulting its religion or religious beliefs’ are punishable by law. He
spent one night in jail.
“I didn’t think it would invite such an outrage. It was a small story
on the kindness of the Prophet meant for children and we decided to
illustrate it. Had I known it would invite protests, I would have
refrained,” Swami said.
Swami was speaking at a panel discussion “Is religion beyond media
scrutiny?” organized by the Foundation of Media Professionals on
Monday at the India International Center.
Chapter 42, verse 11 of the Koran says "[Allah is] the originator of
the heavens and the earth... [there is] nothing like a likeness of
Him."
Muslims therefore feel that Allah cannot be captured in an image and
his beauty and grandeur is beyond human imagination. Thus an attempt
to portray him is seen as an insult to Allah and Mohamed.
He was joined by BV Seetaraman, the managing director and chairman of
Chitra Publications that also publishes Karavali Ale, the evening
newspaper that allegedly got into trouble with the Sangh Parivar after
it wrote against the communal politics being practiced in Mangalore,
and Ravindra Kumar, the editor of The Statesman, who had to surrender
to the police in Kolkata over outrage after he ran a column “Why
Should I respect these oppressive religions?” by Johann Hari in the
Independent, a UK-based newspaper.
Kumar said after there no protests in London, which has a 14 percent
Muslim population, after the column was published, he decided to carry
it in The Statesman. But such censorship from the religious groups
wasn’t anticipated and he decided to surrender to the police because
it was a law and order situation in the city.
“No religion is beyond media scrutiny,” he said at the discussion.
“There was no malicious intent.”
Seetaraman, who had numerous FIRs lodged against him by individuals
who took umbrage to his position against the religious right, it was
worse. He was brought to the court handcuffed, he said.
“Curbs on media is a sad thing,” he said. “We were critical of the
government. Government cooked up cases against me. Rationalist
thinking is what the constitution ordains us to do. But we are halted
in the exercise of it.”
A couple of years ago Seetaraman had written against a procession by
Jain leaders in the nude.
“By law, nudity is prohibited,” he said. “We were critical of it. But
we got into trouble. Media should have the right to scrutinize
religion.”
But while these editors were arrested under what they termed a
draconian provision of the law, a few others at the panel discussion
including Pioneer’s Chandan Mitra said because the country is so
volatile politically and everything is linked to religion, media must
exercise self-restraint.
Mitra, who is also a lawmaker, said freedom must not degenerate into license.
“Whether 295 (A) should be diluted, my immediate answer would be
‘no’,” he said.
The debate whether religion is beyond the bounds of the media is an
old one. In India, there have been instances of communal violence
after newspapers or other media have used their discretion in running
stories or images that have either incited the masses or angered
religious parties. Some have highlighted the freedom of expression
from where the media derives its freedom and defense, while others
have argued that one man’s freedom ends at the point it starts to hurt
other’s sentiments.
Media people have long indicated that newspaper or television space is
the forum for ideas and debate on such issues and as long as there is
no malicious intent, such freedom should not be curbed. And right to
criticize religion is being doused by religious censors that have
rewritten the rules. In India, barring one publication, none carried
the Prophet Mohamed cartoons that led to huge riots across the world
after a Danish newspaper Jyllends-Posten published those.
But as Swami put it, repealing Section 295 (A) is not the solution.
Editors and journalists will continue to bear the brunt of
politically-motivated individuals and continue to be booked under law,
he said.
“It doesn’t matter what law is used. We will still be targets of the
state’s high-handedness,” he said.
Justice JS Verma, who too was present along with Nandita Das, Madhu
Kishwar and Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, said media and judiciary were
powerful institutions and needed to exercise self-restrain because
their actions had far-reaching ramifications.
“If you are powerful, you should be circumspect,” he said.
Two editors had been the victims of Muslim fundamentalists who carried
out mass protests and Maulana Khan, who is known for his moderate
views, said Islam doesn’t prohibit scrutiny and absolutely does not
condone any form of violence.
But the media can criticize religion only when it has studied it, he said.
“Simply being a journalist is not enough to scrutinize Islam,” he
said. “The question is whether your scrutiny is valid.”
But actor Nandita Das put it in perspective when she said as a victim
of religious extremism when objections were raised when she was part
of the film Water, which had to be later shot in Sri Lanka, she would
rather have people discuss and debate it in the public space rather
than being scared but then those voices should represent the diversity
and not just the extremists.
“You know Gods can protect themselves. We don’t need to protect them,”
she said. “When we only invite right-wing voices, it is dangerous.
People are being squashed in the middle.”