AT PENPOINT
The blasphemy uttered by BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma during a TV debate illustrates many things, which almost drown out the reality of a blasphemy being uttered against the Holy Prophet (PBUH).
The first thing to be noticed is the context: the attack was made during a debate over the Banaras mosque where Hindus have claimed the presence of a Shivlingam in the place meant for ablutions, but which Muslims claim was merely a fountain. Be that as it may, it was on such thin evidence that the Babri Mosque was first demolished, and on which the Supreme Court of India finally allowed the construction of a mandir. The BJP evidently hopes for the Benares mosque controversy to follow a similar trajectory.
However, the BJP has used the controversy to get in a few quick blows of its own. First, it has found a replacement for the Babri Mosque issue. Second, it has gone exercised the right of free speech, which is the most common plea for blasphemy. It has shown Muslims as intolerant, and there is an element of revenge for the lack of reverence shown by Muslims towards Ram, who until recently was at the centre of debate because of the Babri Mosque issue.
There has been official protest by a number of Muslim countries, which has got the Indian government worried. The Gulf governments have reacted because the popular reaction has been so strong. One of the subjects has been a boycott of Indian manufactures. So far there have been no exhibitions of unrest against the Indian expatriates in the Gulf, but it is not beyond reason to see Pakistanis take along national issues into a communal clash.
It is also possible to see the BJP carry over into present old pre-Partition disputes. It has replicated the Shudhi and Sangathan movements of the 1930s by the GharWapsi movement, of which a potent symbol came in December 2021, when Waseem Rizvi converted to Hinduism, taking the name Jitendra Tyagi. In the same way, the blasphemy by Mahashe Rajpal, who published an anonymous pamphlet, RangilaRasul, in 1923, caused the sort of protests that are presently going on. It is worth noting that RangilaRasul contained the same allegations as Ms Sharma made on TV, about the Holy Prophet (PBUH) marrying Ummul Momineen Aisha bint Abi Bakr (RA).
It is interesting that the blasphemy committed by Salman Rushdie in The Satanic Verses is also related to Hazrat Aisha (RA). Rushdie is still alive, even though the late Ayatollah Khomeini called for his killing, as well as that of all those involved in the publication. As it is, the only person killed was Hitoshi Igarishi, the Japanese translator, in 1991. Though the fatwa of death by Ayatollah Khomeini came 1989, within months after the 1988 publication, Rushdie is still around, and will mark his 75th birthday on Sunday.
It is interesting that the blasphemy committed by Salman Rushdie in The Satanic Verses is also related to Hazrat Aisha (RA). Rushdie is still alive, even though the late Ayatollah Khomeini called for his killing, as well as that of all those involved in the publication. As it is, the only person killed was Hitoshi Igarishi, the Japanese translator, in 1991.
As the Rajpal example showed, there could be a time lag, and there is no guarantee that the passage of time will help matters die down/ Rajpal was assassinated by Ghazi Ilam Din Shaheed in 1929. Ilm Din was duly tried and hanged the same year and the Quaid-e-Azam’s pleas that he was only 21, made to the Lahore High Court, were turned down, and he was executed.
The Rajpal case had led to the introduction of Section 295A into the Indian Penal Code, which prescribed punishment for hurting the religious sentiments of others. That is the law under which it is being demanded that action be taken against Ms Sharma, but none is being taken. The failure of the authorities to act shows that the Quaid-e-Azam and the All-India Muslim League were right to demand a separate homeland for the Muslims of the Subcontinent. The demand showed that even such a law as Section 295A was ultimately dependent, like any law, on the government for its implementation.
However, Pakistan’s own experience with blasphemy laws has not been as happy as the country’s founding fathers might have wished. Section 295C deals specifically with blasphemy against the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Along with Section 295B, defiling the Holy Quran, it comprises the Blasphemy laws, which makes liberals so wroth, and which rightists defend so tigerishly.
That the blasphemy laws have been misused, because the accusers wish to pursue some other dispute cannot be gainsaid. Indeed, that is part of the nature of enmity that the PPC merely becomes a means to pursuing it, and any charge may be made. Murder? Robbery? Blasphemy? All are fair game.
One of the problems with blasphemy cases is that they lead to an assumption of guilt, which has thrown acquittals under suspicion, and apart from the accused, judges and lawyers have been murdered.
The blasphemy laws are themselves subject to defence, which has precluded any discussion even on their wording. Punjab Governor Salman Taseer was not murdered for blaspheming, but questioning the blasphemy laws. His murder proved that the laws did not really work.
The law had two purposes. First, to stop blasphemy occurring. Second, to prevent private vengeance by providing state punishment. The blasphemy law should have meant there would be no more Ghazi Ilam Din Shaheeds. Instead of the aggrieved persons lodging a complaint against the Governor, knowing that it would be investigated, and if the accused was found guilty, were punished.
India is now facing what the UK did during the Satanic Verses unrest. If there is blasphemy against the Prophet (PBUH), how is a majority non-Muslim state supposed to react to the unrest amongst its Muslim minority. The UK’s view was perhaps clarified by Ayatollah Khomeini’s death sentence. It put Salman Rushdie under guard. It remains to be seen how the Indian government deals with Ms Sharma. She has claimed she has received death threats, and threats of criminal assault.
While criminal assault as a means of punishment seems to be a recent Indian development (then Indian cricket skipper Vira tKohli’s infant daughter was threatened with criminal assault because he had defended Muslim players against charges of throwing the game Pakistan won), there is a clear theological opinion, indeed the dominant one, that blasphemy entails capital punishment. If the Rajpal case is anything to go by, the blasphemer has no way out.
What may not be fully understood by Muslims is that this is part of a move to uproot Islam from the Arab world. During the coverage of Wassem Naqvi/JitenderTyagi’s conversion, the Hindu priest making the conversion said that this was merely the first step to claiming for Hinduism the Kaaba, which he said was originally a Hindu temple, and restoring the idols destroyed by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) at the time of the Conquest of Makkah.
Pakistan seems to be treading carefully. It has joined the general condemnation, but has not led it. The Tehrik Labbaik Pakistan, which was so active over France’s role in committing blasphemy, seems to be quiet now. There have been no demands, for example, that the Indian High Commission be expelled.
It almost seems that Muslims are being challenged, over the issue of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). The RangilaRasool issue is nearly a century old, the Satanic Verses issue less than half a century old. The Nupur Sharma remarks thus seem likely to be the blasphemy cause célèbre for the first half of this century.
