The bigots' code

It is a frightening thought that if the Indian Penal Code (IPC) had been put in place in 1821 rather than 1861, sati might still be a prevalent custom. The IPC offers enormous protection to obscurantists who wish to block social reform of any sort. They can simply claim that their religious sentiments are offended.

For example, Section 295A of the IPC reads: "Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment - for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
 

The bigots receive an added layer of protection from Section 153A1(b) of the IPC, which can be used to prosecute "whoever commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity".

These sections are conveniently forgotten when politicians spout communal and religious hatred from public platforms. But they are equally conveniently invoked when any custom is questioned. Taken together, these sections successfully stifle the debates that must arise when any social evil with religious overtones is challenged.

Sati was banned in 1829. Widow remarriage received legal sanction in 1856. The next spate of reforms occurred only after Independence. In the 1950s, polygamy was outlawed for all communities except Muslims and caste-based discrimination was banned. Anti-dowry measures were first legislated in 1961. Women - widows and daughters alike - fought for years to be given their rightful share of inheritance.

Every one of these reforms was mooted by an enlightened minority. Every one was carried out in the teeth of widespread opposition from the religious right. India was incredibly lucky in that the government had a brute majority after Independence and several rationalists were at the helm of drafting legislation in that era. The shadow of the Mahatma also loomed large at the time.

There has been little or no progression on the social reform front since then. This is not because India doesn't need more social reform. Our society is riddled with absurd customs and superstitions, most of which I cannot mention in specific terms without running the risk of being arrested.

Attempts to reform and rationalise divorce; fair payment of maintenance to divorced partners; legalisation of gay relationships; uniformity of age of consent; gender-equal inheritance; and sex education have all run foul of religious sentiment in the recent past. So have attempts to call out irrationalities like people claiming to be God incarnate, or treating the mentally ill with exorcism, or claiming to cure AIDS through Ayurveda, or tell somebody's fortune by astrological means.

Just in case the proscriptions of the law are not enough, religious bigots have no hesitation in resorting to violence. Since the state tends to wimp out the moment a religious card is invoked, the violence usually occurs with impunity. The usual response is, in fact, to ban an offending book, or file criminal charges against somebody who has made a Facebook update.

It takes courage to face up to religious obscurantism. It takes nimble footwork to criticise social evils and superstitions in the trenchant terms they deserve without doing time in jail. It takes persistence to continue doing so for decades.

Dr Narendra Achyut Dabholkar had all the required qualities in large measures. It is ironical that his murder may finally have shamed the Maharashtra government into passing the anti-superstition and black magic ordinance, albeit with umpteen amendments and dilutions. Dabholkar spent decades ignoring threats of physical violence and endured abuse in the vilest terms. One of the last "threats" he received before he was shot was "Remember Gandhi". Indeed, we should.