| One Mr Bagga of Lucknow was deeply offended by the fact that he received SMS-ed Santa-Banta jokes on his Reliance connection and filed a criminal case against Anil Ambani. The telecom service provider passed responsibility for the offending jokes onto one vendor, which provides jokes on subscription to those who request them. It appears from the scanty information gleaned from news reports that Mr Bagga paid for some jokes, and sued when he disliked the content! |
| Santa and Banta are stereotypes but this incident may offer some insight into the reasons why they exist. Other popular ethnic stereotypes include the Mullah Nusruddin, the Czech soldier Svejk, Pat the Irishman, Billie-Sue the blonde Confederate Magnolia, Bholanath the Bengali, Jock the Scotsman and Moishe the Jew. All are central characters in ethnic jokes. And ethnic jokes can, there is no denying it, be offensive. They are also part of every multi-cultural, multi-ethnic landscape though some nations such as Australia have laws that attempt to specifically ban these. |
| A long time ago, the government of India, which was then actually the British Government, decided that it was a crime to "outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs". That was duly declared an offence under Section 295 (a) of the Indian Penal Code. |
| That law was not absurd in the context of colonial India circa 1862 but it does clash with the tenets of free speech and belief. It has been invoked for interesting reasons in the recent past. |
| Cricketer-turned-commentator Ravi Shastri has been booked for admitting that he enjoys his steak and thereby hurting Hindu sentiment. Liz Hurley has been booked for undergoing a Hindu wedding ceremony. Madhuri Dixit's comeback movie has been banned for carrying a song with a tagline about cobblers who aspire to become goldsmiths. |
| Publishers of jokebooks have been arrested; so has at least one Vadodara-based artist whose work offended religious lunatics. Another nonagenarian artist has been forced into exile to avoid persecution under this law. Some time ago, a youth magazine, which published a sketched silhouette of a statue, was hit by 295 (a) after somebody complained that the sketch bore possible resemblance to a late dalit leader. |
| It seems 295(a) is a very broad law. It can be invoked by anybody who is a member of a "class", whatever that is, and who feels hurt for any given reason by any action taken by anybody else. If one carried 295(a) to its logical conclusion, anybody could sue anybody for pretty much anything under this law. |
| Given sufficient creativity, 295 (a) can be invoked against anybody who says or does anything anywhere. If, for instance, you said you wanted a non-religious electric cremation, you could be sued by those who want to go out in a blaze of sandalwood and ghee. Then you could sue them back for offending your rationalist religious sentiments! |
| If you said that you liked a drink, you could be sued by anybody who believed alcohol consumption was sinful. Equally, anybody who believed that ceremonial alcohol consumption was a religious necessity could sue Alcoholics Anonymous or any other religion that forbade alcohol consumption. |
| It would be easy to invoke 295(a) against Narendra Modi for offending Vaishnav sentiments by boasting of cold-blooded murder. This law could be invoked against all rioters or politician who incites rioters. It never will be of course. But taken to its logical conclusions in fact, 295(a) could help put more or less everyone in prison. How long before we reach that limit of politically correct absurdity? |
Top Section
Explore Business Standard