Loose comments and consequences

It is a feature of the times that a remark — ill-considered and unabashedly offensive though it may be — can spark anger and calls for retribution in different parts of the world. The comments by two BJP functionaries, Nupur Sharma and Naveen Kumar Jindal, about Prophet Muhammed, one in the course of a television debate and the other in the form of a tweet, have caught the Modi government in a horribly embarrassing bind. Apart from triggering some angry reactions in India, which included violent protests in Kanpur, the controversy received an international twist with some powerful West Asian countries — including Kuwait, Iran and Qatar — joining in the condemnation.

The Modi government’s response to contain the fallout — one that had immense economic implications, but was allowed to get out of hand — has been two-fold. First, there have been attempts to explain that what was said cannot be linked to the Centre, including a peculiar statement put out by the Indian Embassy in Qatar implying what was said was by “fringe elements”. Inevitably, it raised questions about how the two BJP functionaries, one a national spokesperson and the other the Delhi BJP’s media head, could be regarded as “fringe”.

The second response was to suspend Nupur Sharma and sack Naveen Jindal from the primary membership of the party. While these were formally decisions of the BJP, there is no doubt that it was the all-powerful Central government that directed this be done. In a statement, the party said it denounced insults of any religious personality and was opposed to any ideology that demeans any sect or religion.

The Centre must be praying this is enough to stem the fallout, but it is not clear what shape or form this controversy will take over the next few days. There are reports of supermarkets pulling Indian products off their shelves in the Middle East; neighbouring Pakistan (whose record of persecuting religious minorities needs no elaboration) has jumped into the fray; there has been a slew of FIRs filed against Nupur Sharma, and some such as AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi have called for her arrest.

There are laws in the IPC such as Section 295A which apply to religious hate speech. It is one thing to try people under these sections, but there is no ground for death threats and other forms of intimidatory statements to be issued in a potentially inflammatory situation such as this. On the other side, there are elements in the Sangh Parivar who have jumped to the defence of Sharma, saying she said nothing more than what was already contained in religious text.

This is hardly the time for such divisive debates. It is worth recalling in these contentious times that hate speech is a notoriously difficult thing to define, leave alone codify. It is also worth pointing out that in any democracy we need to strike a sensible balance between curtailing hate speech and protective free speech rights. While needlessly offensive statements are best avoided, there is no ground for being over-sensitive or overprotective about those who are much too easily outraged.

Are you in Chennai? Then click here to get our newspaper at your doorstep!