Freedom from Religion

What we Indians need is freedom from religion; freedom from its foolishness, from its ignorance, from its zealotry.  We need freedom from a religion’s version of morality, from its archaic traditions, from its blind faith, from its superstition.  We need freedom from its imbecility, its bigotry and its intolerant imposition of values and virtues onto us.   Religious people are free to practice any idiocy in their lives, but they have no right to impose it onto us, by any law or by any decree of the land.

And yet, we are stuck with one of archaic and medieval laws.  Section 295A of Indian Penal Code says:

295A. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.

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 of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

There are so many religious belief systems in India that one cannot even count them.  While we have Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Parsees, Jains, Buddhists as major religious groups, we also have many religious sects within each of those major religions, with religious sentiments changing from region to region, from faction to faction. 

How big should a religion be to be considered a religion by the state?  Can I form a new religion with 100 people, and then go on to say that we get offended each time someone defecates either inside a toilet or anywhere?  According to our religion, defecation is a sin, and each time someone takes a dump, we get offended.  Can our religious feelings be protected?  Can we prosecute each guy who shits?

There is no limit to what can ‘insult’ a religion.   Does eating with your left hand a personal choice or an effrontery against a religious practice?  Does sitting during a ritual a personal choice or an egregious act against a religious ritual?  Is consensual sex between two adults a personal choice or an insult to a religious belief? Is painting Hindu gods in nude artistic freedom and continuation of long held liberal practice or an attempt to insult a religious group?

Many old Hindu temples have sculptures of Hindu gods standing in nude and you never bother to pay attention to it, but then suddenly after few years you realize that the artisan who sculpted it was a Muslim.  Now, what do you do?  Do you now prosecute this Muslim artisan for outraging religious feelings of Hindus?

Religious feelings are mere feelings and they can be hurt by almost anything.  There should be no law to protect feelings of people, especially not groups.  Religion, like a government, is an all pervading idea that touches upon all of us, and there is no unique definition to what makes a religion.  Therefore any attempt to define it universally and then try to protect it from getting hurt is foolishness.  

For example, Hinduism has no single definition- some people eat beef, some people don’t; some eat meat, some don’t; some visit temple on Saturday, some on Thursday; some celebrate festivals on full moon day, some on new moon day; for some people taking drugs is immoral; for some it is a religious practice; for some people prostitution is immoral; for some it is a religiously sanctioned profession.  How do you defend a religious sanctity when there are so many versions?

The question is why should we even defend a belief that is based in blind faith, superstition and irrationality?  And against whom?

Nityananda scandal

According to me all godmen are fraudsters.  These godmen know that they cannot perform any miracles; they know that they are no different from any magician, and yet they pretend to have healing powers, and that makes them fraudsters.   Some fraudsters get caught while others die without ever getting caught.  Nityananda happens to be one of those fraudsters who got caught.

Nityananda was arrested under two cases of Sections 295A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), 376 (punishment for rape), 377 (unnatural sex), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC.

I do not know much about other cases, but I am not sure why and how Nityananda is charged under Section 295A.  What Nityananda did cannot affront, outrage or insult Hindus or Hinduism.  Hinduism has a long tradition of Babas and Sadhus healing people under false promises.  Mothers-in-law drop off their daughter-in-laws at Baba’s place for few days.  Lo and Behold, a child is born nine months later.   So if Nityananda did anything, he upheld the long tradition of Hinduism.  He should be given a religious award for upholding long cherished belief system and practices of Hinduism, not penalize him.  Having sex with an adult woman does not go against Hinduism.  If the lady did not consent to sex, then that would be rape; if he cheated people, then it would be ‘cheating’.   There are already laws to take care of such things.  Why a separate law to protect any kind of religious sentiments? 

Religious beliefs are based in blind faith, irrationality, and superstition.  There is no limit to what a person can do to antagonize a religious group.  You can just sit at home and think some thoughts and that can offend a religious person.  Blasphemy laws in some Islamic states are a testament to such foolishness.

Section 295A does not make sense in a modern secular state.  It is an anachronistic law from Victorian times.  There is no need to protect a religion from itself or from other religions.  The ordinary secular laws are good enough to protect people and identities without having to resort to laws like Section 295A of IPC.

The laws like Section 295A will be used by all and sundry to harass almost anyone.  Any criticism, any religious discourse or debate, any untraditional practice, any deviation, any anomaly, any creativity, any originality, can be deemed as an insult to a religion.  Such laws curtail individual freedom and suppress original thinking. 

Sania Shoaib Marriage

The recent drama on TV about Sania Shoaib marriage prompted some idiotic Muslims to charge the couple with hurting religious sentiments under Section 295A.

The complainant alleged Shoaib Malik and 13 others by way of their false representation played with religious beliefs and maliciously outraged the religious feelings of Muslims as such their acts are illegal and constitute an offence under section 295 (A) (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) of IPC.

India has become a place where anyone can harass almost anyone with such ridiculous and flimsy cases.  Recently we have successfully kicked out one of the greatest artists India has ever produced.  MF Husain was hounded by hundreds of such cases against him in almost every city and town of India. 

Religion can be and should be insulted in a modern nation because it is an all pervading notion that affects each of us.  Like the ideas of a nation, a language, a government, it is not a private matter.  Practice of religion could be private, but the religion as a notion is not private.   Religion needs to be reformed and corrected by the people where necessary. Such reformations and corrections cannot happen without criticism.  Any criticism or deviation can be considered an insult by oversensitive people.   

And if we start protecting religions, its blind followers and blind belief systems, against any such alleged insults through diktats of state, we will be stopping all reformation and corrections.  This is no different from Dark Ages where religion was considered supreme, above all reproach, where originality and creativity was curbed for nearly five hundred years.  Man moved into light from darkness only when he realized religion is not above reproach and rebuke, only when he could question, criticize and debate, only when sanctity was pushed into the background while reason and rationale came into the foreground. 

Let there be light in our lives.  Let there be freedom from religion.  Repeal Sec 295A.