Nirmukta » Legal Pad

Religion, Corruption and Politics

Narendra Nayak — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 17:11:29 +0000

The discovery of huge amounts of gold, silver and precious stones in the bedroom of late Satya Narayana Raju aka Satya Sai baba, proves very well what we have been saying all along – that he is a cheat, fraud and a smuggler. I wonder what those who have been saying every penny is accounted for and all donations are by credit into bank accounts have to say now about it! Whenever we have pointed to the unsavoury things happening in these places of so-called godmen, we were told that all the ‘good’ that was being done was not being appreciated. Now our stand has been vindicated and perhaps if these raids were conducted earlier more such things could have been found. Now maybe these things may be explained by the claim that they were all ‘materialised’ by him and he did all these for the good of the people.

As far as the gold goes, when late B.Premanand took the matter to court the judgment was that he was ‘creating’ gold and that does not come under the purview of the gold control act. Perhaps, he was ‘creating’ currency notes too! The official word for ‘creation’ of currency notes would be ‘counterfeiting’ and an offence under the laws of any sovereign country. So, this explains why he needed an international airport in his backyard – to smuggle in all these things under the nose of pliant customs officials who would be posted in anticipation of him. This explains may other things too, such as how his empire worth billions was built with the money collected by such nefarious means. So, much for all the ‘persons of integrity’ who are the members of his trust, such as eminent jurists, retired bankers and so on. They have all been parties to this looting and much more. It also lends credence to the rumours that there was much more there that has been smuggled out. The wealth found here is the tip of the ice-berg.

This brings us to the question of who is responsible for it. The blame lies at the door of the greatest institution of the Indian democracy – the parliament. This supreme body in a democracy has been instrumental in passing a law making his institutions exempt from all laws of the land! Forget those about smuggling and income tax – even the criminal laws! When there were dead bodies in his bedroom, it was hushed up as an internal matter as if the laws of the land are not applicable to him.

This brings into the picture the unholy nexus between religion, politics and corruption. Well, we have had holy men going into fasts unto death to bring back the money stashed away in Swiss banks by politicians. Now what about the money stashed away in the bedrooms of these so called religious, spiritual leaders? When I made this remark to a Roman Catholic priest, a rebel, he said if the bishop was raided probably more cash would be found! So, it is not a case of one religion being so. All of them are, without exception. If we have these politicians visting these so called religious leaders, having ‘audiences’ with them, it is doubtful whether these discussions are about ‘spiritual’ matters or about matters of illicit wealth. These visits generally do not arouse suspicion because of the ‘holy’ tag attached to the owners of such places. We have innumerable such institutions in Karnataka where grants have been made in the millions for social work – a good way to get it back as unaccounted money for political manipulations and bribing the voters.

In a obscure place like Sringeri in Chikmaglur district there is a helipad. The former Prime Minister of India- the late Mrs. Indira Gandhi, used to be regular visitor to this place to ‘seek the blessings’ of the Shankaracharya. There used to be rumours that these visits were not for blessings but for cash transactions! Now, these links between these so called holy men and politicians are becoming more and more public with one of them being totally exposed, though after his death. In this country, where every aspect of public life in entwined with corruption, our people with their superstitious mind sets have put their faith on such so called holy men under the illusion that they are men of the cloth and hence not corrupt. But, it is the other way round- they are men of the cloth and hence must be corrupt!

To amass wealth is a temptation for every one however holy he or she may claim to be. The popular myth that the so caller religious leaders are unmarried and hence honest is another delusion for people in perennial search for a leader who is honest and so on. We do not understand that the absence of a family and progeny does not automatically guarantee honesty and integrity. These people are just ordinary people like us who are subject to the same temptations that we are all wont to, and when something comes easily, the temptation is to take it. To exempt these people from laws of the land under the pretext that they are doing social service gives them the license to do whatever they want and get away with it. When we have been pointing this out again and again the defenders of such people have pointed out to the ‘social work’ going on in these places brushing aside out arguments that this so called social work is facade behind which such unsavoury, anti-national activities have been going on.

That brings us to the latest reformers on the national scene, again – a Gandhian, with his members of the ‘civil society’ and the bearded man in saffron, who undertook a ‘fast unto death’ to bring back the money stashed away abroad, only to give up in exactly one week! His is another rags to riches, second hand bicycle to private aircraft story. While he went on a fast unto death after hiring the Ram Lila Maidan at Delhi for a yoga camp, the police raid on the venue caused a upheaval leading to a baton charge and injuries to innocents. This action was compared to the jalianwala bag massacre by the political combination desperate to come to power, which supported him by a sit-in at the memorial of the ‘father of the nation’, with the leader of the opposition in the parliament doing a jig to ‘protest’ when she had come to the place to show solidarity with them. This swami baba, fasting for Gandhian ideals, offering satyagraha for the truth, had no compulsions running away when the police came to arrest him, disappearing for an hour and finally getting caught trying to escape wearing women’s dress, hiding his beard behind a veil! What a climbdown for a man who was supposed to be following Gandhian ideals! To run away when the police came to arrest him and then try to hide in drag!

After being deported from Delhi and sent to hardwar where he continued his fast, his health, glowing with the power of yoga and Ayurveda, packed up in a few days and he was admitted to a hospital. Not a place where yoga and Ayurvedic treatment is done but to one where modern medicine, invented by the decadent West to keep the poor permanently so both in terms of health and wealth, was being practised. If this be not the height of hypocrisy what could it be? So, it is one yardstick for the gullible hordes who pay through their noses to attend his “health camps” and a totally different one for the one who preaches about the health industry being in the clutches of the multinationals!

He who had been preaching about the powers of yoga by which one could live for thousands of years without food and water, has some explaining to do as to why he, with all those powers, had to pack up his fast unto death in a week! Of course this is one question his gullible following will never ask! If they do there will be sloppy explanations and excuses for what has happened! The same kinds of explanations are given for the billion rupees or so which he has amassed by selling his useless concoctions and other activities. The huge amounts collected for his so called ‘free’ yoga camps have not been accounted for. The thousands of acres of land he has accumulated is again by a mixture of deceit, lies and coercion. All complaints about such have been brushed under the carpet by a compliant political leadership and servile bureaucrats. Most of the political parties are to be blamed for this.

The UPA combination first humoured and honored him and later came down upon him like a ton of bricks when he turned out to be the renegade that he always was! The plan was to use him as a pawn against the Gandhian on protest with his members of the civil society, but it turned out that after the midnight raid on the so-called peaceful protest, they succeeded in uniting them. Well what would be the remedy for this? The root cause is the exemption of scrutiny given to these so called religious, spiritual setups. When these are being run on business lines they are not subject to the laws that the business had to follow. They fudge accounts, do not pay taxes and are almost never subjected to income tax raids. These are a major source for the origin and storage of so called black money. These should be brought under scrutiny and preferably nationalised as all of them claim to be charitable institutions. No one can claim that these are their personal property. Since these are supposedly for the welfare of the society, there should be no objection to the same being done under the supervision of the authorities.

SWEARING BY GOD: An Atheist’s Experiences In Indian Courts

Narendra Nayak — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 11:20:19 +0000

In the place where I was born, and probably elsewhere in our country, religious sensitivities run very high. If a Hindu were to be asked to swear by the Quran, or a Christian by the Gita, there would be riots. But no one is bothered about the feelings of us non-believers! In order to spare people from taking oaths on a variety of books, in the courts of Karnataka a placard is hung in the witness box that reads – ‘I swear on the name of god that what I say is the truth and nothing but the truth.’ This is supposed to be a secular form of oath. In a place called Shimoga about 200 kms from Mangalore an atheist refused to take oath in the name of god and was hauled up for contempt of court. He appealed to the High Court which set aside that and came down heavily on the judge for trying to impose his religious beliefs on a witness.

My first brush with this form of oath was in 1980 when my wife and I got married under The Special Marriages Act, 1954. This act enables those of us without any religious beliefs to get married without any religious rituals. The registrar wrote this on the application - registration of a Hindu marriage under the special marriage act. I told him, ‘Sorry, strike that off!’ He asked, ‘What is the problem? You are both Hindus.’ I replied, ‘No, I am not.’ Later, during the marriage ‘ceremony’ he told me to hold up my right hand and swear, ‘I take (my wife’s name) as my wife in the name of god.’ When I categorically refused to take an oath of marriage in the name of a non-existent god, the registrar looked at me like a master chef espying a fly in the soup and disdainfully said, ‘OK, omit the god.’ So, my wife and I were married without swearing by god.

My next brush with oaths was a few years later. As a consumer activist I had filed a complaint with the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission for India against a well-known magazine that was running a sort of cheat lottery to promote subscriptions. This was located in Delhi. In those days, Mangalore to Delhi was a three day trip! At the hearing I was sworn in as a witness. As is my usual practice, I refused to take oath in the name of god. There was no expression of surprise at all from the judge, and he said that I could ‘solemnly affirm’ and I did just that. The judge asked the lawyer for the magazine if he wanted to question me. The lawyer said no. I wondered out aloud, ‘just for this I had to come all the way to Delhi spending a week of my time?’ The judge looked sternly at me and asked. ‘Young man, are you employed?’ I said, ‘Yes sir.’ Then, he asked, ‘has your employer given you leave on duty?’ I said, ‘Yes sir.’ The judge said, ‘I am giving you first class train fare, take that and go. If you utter one more word I will haul you up for contempt of court. As a citizen you are duty bound to attend as a witness when summoned. If you don’t the court will make you attend by a warrant!’ I said ‘Yes sir, sorry sir’ and scooted out of the place!

The third time I had to take oath was when I had to testify at my case against the management of the medical college in Mangalore where I used to work. I was put in the witness box and the bench clerk pointed out a piece of cardboard hanging inside that and told me to read from that. The text was, ‘I swear in the name of god that I shall speak the truth and nothing but the truth.’ It was in both English and Kannada. I said, ‘no’. He said, ‘What?’ I told him, ‘no, I will not swear in the name of god.’ Infuriated he asked, ‘What is your problem? It is not any Hindu, Muslim or Christian god, it is the universal god.’ I said, ‘I am an atheist and I cannot swear by the name of any god.’ The commotion attracted the attention of the judge who asked about the matter. I replied that I am an atheist and shall not swear by the name of any god. He said you can solemnly affirm. I remarked that I was going to do precisely that but the bench clerk was objecting to that. The judge gave a glacial look to the clerk and ordered him to let me ‘solemnly affirm’. Later on, the bench clerk told me that in his three decades of service it was for the first time that he was seeing someone refusing to take oath in the name of god!

The next occasion for me to bear witness was at the trial of a supervisor of an orphanage who was sexually exploiting girls under his care. I was sworn in as a witness, the prosecution lawyer finished his examination and the defence lawyer started his cross examination. It went something like this:

D (defence lawyer): You did not take oath in the name of god.
I: So what?
D: YOU DID NOT TAKE OATH IN THE NAME OF GOD.
I: YES, I DID NOT TAKE OATH IN THE NAME OF GOD.
D: I WANT IT TO GO ON RECORD THAT THE WITNESS DID NOT TAKE OATH IN THE NAME OF GOD.
I: Are you implying that I am not under oath or something?
D (to the judge): SIR, I WANT IT TO GO ON RECORD THAT THE WITNESS HAS NOT TAKEN OATH IN THE NAME OF GOD.
Judge: The form of oath is irrelevant, the witness is under oath, that is all.
D: I KNOW THAT SIR, BUT I WANT IT TO BE ON RECORD THAT THE WITNESS HAS NOT TAKEN OATH IN THE NAME OF GOD.
Judge: Not allowed.
D: I OBJECT.
Judge: Objection overruled. It shall not go on record. Proceed. If you have any more objections, file an appeal under section….(i dont remember that section)
D (to me): YOU ARE AN ATHEIST.
I: How many times should I tell you that?! I solemnly affirmed, because I am an atheist!
Judge (to D): You can stop asking questions about his religious convictions and go on with your cross examination
D: That has a bearing on his testimony.
Judge: No it does not, go on.

The next few times when I had to bear witness were some long pending cases where nothing much happened. Then, once more, there was a case in which I was summoned as witness. That was also when I was assaulted. I was demonstrating to people outside my laboratory that the Ganesh idols ‘drinking milk’ was just a phenomenon of physics. Some local thugs had come with a mob to take revenge for past grudges. The oath-taking went on without any problems as the bench clerks had got used to my form of taking oath. The examination by the prosecution went on smoothly. Then came the turn of the defence:

D (defence lawyer): You are an atheist?
I: Yes.
D: Do you know there is a Vithoba temple on the road where your business is?
I: Yes.
D: Do you know there is a Venkataramana temple situated about 200 meters from your business?
I: Yes.
D: Do you know there is a Kathyayani temple on the road parallel to the street where your business is?
I: I don’t know.
D: Why don’t you know?
I: Because I don’t know.
Judge (to D): Are you conducting a quiz or something about the location of temples? Go on with your next question.

Many times there have been occasions when people are asked to stand up for prayers, and all have stood up except for a few of us. We have refused to light lamps and so on. The very same people who talk about hurting religious sentiments do not understand that our sentiments too get hurt when we are asked to pray to the secular, universal ‘god’.

Freedom of religion must include freedom from religion as well.

Prof. Narendra Nayak is President of the Federation of Indian Rationalist Associatons.

“Defamation of Religion is not Racism” says U.N. – OIC Disagrees.

Editor — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:17:48 +0000

On the April 22^nd 2009, secular activists won a major victory for human rights and free speech when three special investigators representing the U.N. Human Rights Council declared that “defamation of religion” is not racism. The proposal to label religious criticism as racism was put before the U.N. Human Rights Council at the on-going Durban II conference on race and discrimination, by the 57 nations led by Pakistan, all members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The OIC had attempted to include the language in the declaration of the conference but had to back down after condemnation from the West. Past conferences have been controversial, with anti-semitic slogans screamed at times. The U.S., Canada and Israel did not attend this year’s conference because of these reasons.

The issue was on the table again on June 16^th, when the Pakistani delegate Muhammad Saeed Sarwar made an appeal to the U.N.H.R.C. claiming that criticism of Islam, which they label as “defamation of religion”, is a new form of racism, intolerance and xenophobia, constituting discrimination. A representative from the International Humanist and Ethical Union, Roy Brown, responded the next day with the following statement.

We were dismayed to hear again in this very debate an attempt to link defamation of religion to racism. Mr President, if I believe that a particular religion has no merit; that it is founded on a pre-scientific worldview, and that the application of many of its tenets is contrary to internationally accepted standards of human rights, then that is my opinion and I have the absolute right to express it. And, Mr President, it has nothing whatsoever to do with racism.

To read the IHEU’s original statement on racism at the conference, go here.

We have chronicled in detail the past attempts that this group of Islamic nations have carried out through their campaign to eliminate much-needed criticism of religion.

Here is an excerpt:

Since the founding of the UN in 1948 till the year 1992, there was no mention of blasphemy in any form under the Declaration of Human Rights. The articles 7, 21, 18 and 19 could have been interpreted to reject the idea that blasphemy is a crime. Jump to half a century later; every year from 1999 to 2006 has seen new resolutions to restrict “Defamation of Religion” introduced through the Human Rights Council (UNHRC) by member nations, mostly Islamic. Since 2005, the UN General Assembly has passed a similar resolution every year.

Roy Brown

To view some of the underhanded actions used by the OIC, read the original article. Last year at the U.N. General Assembly in New York the Council passed a non-binding resolution against “defamation of religion”.Just last month the same group of Islamic nations along with political allies successfully pushed through a similar resolution at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Our stalwart allies in this fight against the abuse of basic human rights is the European Union. What is really shocking is that present and former communist nations, Russia, China and Cuba have joined the Islamic countries in pushing for this legislation to go through at the U.N.H.R.C. Free-thought groups all over the world have opposed the OIC’s attempts to classify criticism of religion as racism. We will watch how this issue is tackled at the U.N. over the coming months.

Religions Silencing Dissent: The Global Resurgence of Blasphemy Laws

Ajita Kamal — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:13:28 +0000

Are anti-blasphemy laws really on the rise? Consider this: Since the founding of the UN in 1948 till the year 1992, there was no mention of blasphemy in any form under the Declaration of Human Rights. The articles 7, 21, 18 and 19 could have been interpreted to reject the idea that blasphemy is a crime. Jump to half a century later; every year from 1999 to 2006 has seen new resolutions to restrict “Defamation of Religion” introduced through the Human Rights Council (UNHRC) by member nations, mostly Islamic. Since 2005, the UN General Assembly has passed a similar resolution every year. I’ll come back to the UN resolutions in a bit, but first I’d like to consider some recent developments in India.

Recent Cases in India:

[smartads] Two recent cases of human rights abuse by the Indian government have garnered much media attention. The first was the arrest of the editor and publisher of The Statesman on reprinting an article that first appeared in the UK. The second was the case of Ajith D, a 19 year old from Kerala. The accused were charged under Sections 153A, 506 and 295A of the IPC. Section 506 is concerned with making intimidating comments and was used in Ajith’s case, but doesn’t concern us here. Section 153A was used against the Newspaper editor and publisher. Here’s is what it says:

Section 153A: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.

Go here for the full statement of the law.

Section 295A is the most relevant of the three. Here is the entire section:

Section 295A: Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or 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.

It was these two recent cases that got me into a dialogue with friends of our blog, Hindu Atheist and Nitwit Nastik, prompting me to do some research into the phenomenon of blasphemy laws. I had assumed that such outdated restrictions on speech and expression were slowly disappearing as the knowledge of our natural world grew. I was wrong.

How Blasphemy Laws were Born/Reborn:

PETA Demonstration

Pre-democratic societies had strict blasphemy laws. Offending religious sensitivities meant death in most cases. As times changed and modern democratic republics were beginning to take shape, the values of freedom of speech and expression began to matter more. Many European countries still had blasphemy laws on the books, but rarely implemented them. These were laws that were originally left in place to defend Christianity, and Christianity had become more benign a religion than it had been in the past. Go here, here and here for examples of blasphemy in the West (Warning: Images not suitable for sensitive people). The few cases that were brought to court in European countries were dismissed, with a couple of exceptions. Western countries today have an immense amount of freedom of expression. Just as it seemed as though the concept of blasphemy was disappearing in the Western world, a few events through the 1990s changed things at the level of international law.

In 1990 the Organization of the Islamic Conference(OIC) adopted the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI). In effect the OIC member nations had signed onto an agreement declaring Shariah law as the only guide to human rights. According to wikipedia, “Articles 24 and 25 of the CDHRI make all the rights and freedoms stipulated in it subject to Shariah and only to Shariah”. Protecting Islam against blasphemy is an integral part of Shariah.

The CDHRI was presented at the UN in 1992 and was accepted into the Human Rights Commission’s A Compilation of International Instruments (vol. II (1997), pp. 478-84) in 1997.

The “Defamation of Religions” resolution of 1999 was first brought to the UNHRC by Pakistan, initially as the “Defamation of Islam” resolution. Suddenly Pakistan became the leader of the movement for anti-blasphemy UN legislation. But what history does Pakistan have for such ideas? Has Pakistan always restricted free-speech in these cases?

Jinnah and Gandhi

According to Muhammad Abdul Haye, in 1860 the British repealed existing blasphemy laws in order to allow missionary proselytizing. From the time after the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, till 1982 when Mushtaq Raj published Heavenly Communism, there were no cases of blasphemy in Pakistan. During that period no anti-blasphemy laws were in place (my source does not mention if Pakistan had adopted Section 295A which was in place before partition). In the aftermath of the Mushtaq Raj case, Section 295C was added to the penal code in 1986. It reads:

Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mohammed- Peace be upon him- shall be punished with death and shall also be liable to a fine.

Not only do you get to die, you also get to pay for your own execution! Today Pakistan’s courts follow

the strictest interpretations of the blasphemy laws, usually sentencing guilty parties to death or life in prison. Many of those convicted and killed are minorities of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. The government has ruled that this group is not even allowed to proclaim themselves as Muslims. Many young kids have been killed by these laws.

In India:

Section 295A was enacted in 1927. Section 153A was not sufficient to prosecute the writer of Rangeela Rasoon, a book published by Rajpal (he was later murdered by an Islamic fanatic) that mentioned the prophet Mohammed in a negative light. The case was dismissed because 153A requires intent to cause communal harm. Muslim groups demanded that the supreme court justice who delivered the verdict, justice Dilip Singh, be sacked. Unsuccessful at that, they demanded that a law be enacted that would outlaw all religious insensitivity to Islam. In writing 295A, the framers were careful to insert a “deliberate and malicious intent” clause, in an attempt to ensure that those in pursuit of academic expression of ideas and those who hurt religious sentiment unintentionally or by accident were not to be prosecuted.

Pakistan’s revered founder, M.A. Jinnah, who predicted that Mahatma Gandhi’s strategy of achieving independence by appealing to Hindu nationalism would split the subcontinent into communal groups, stated at the inception of Section 295A that “those who are engaged in historical works, those who are engaged in the ascertainment of truth and those who are engaged in bona fide and honest criticisms of a religion shall be protected.“

In 1957 the supreme court ruled that cases where malicious intent to outrage a religious group cannot be proven, Section 295A does not apply. The court stated

Section 295(A) does not penalize any and every act of insult to or attempt to insult the religion…Insults to religion offered unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class do not come within the section…It only punishes the aggravated form of insult to religion perpetrated with deliberate and malicious intention

Despite this “malicious intent” clause, the law has been increasingly misused by Hindu and Muslim groups to defend their interpretation of religion. One famous case is that of M.F. Hussein, an artist awarded the second and third highest civilian awards in the country, who has had cases filed against him under sections 295A and 153A, for the treasonable act of painting nude Goddesses- a subject that is universally identified with ancient Indian art.

India has not passed any new blasphemy laws since independence, unlike Pakistan.

The Duplicitousness of Religion:

As stated above, the “Defamation of Religion” laws were initiated at the UN with the introduction of Shariah as a Human Rights issue at the UNHRC. Islamic countries managed to introduce a concept that would eventually lead to preventing legal criticism of ideas, under the banner of Human Rights! In effect, a fascistic ideology was labeled as a human rights cause.

To get an understanding of the sneaky strategies used by religious fundamentalists in pushing these laws, more analysis of the language used at the UN is helpful.

For 4 years in a row now the General Assembly of the UN has passed a non-binding resolution against “Defamation of Religion”, starting with Yemen’s introduction of ‘Combating Defamation of Religions’ in 2005. The resolutions that passed in December 2007 and November 2008 required the Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation of the resolutions, including on the “possible correlation between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world.”

What!!! In an unbelievably heinous statement the resolution seeks to blame the violent acts of religious fundamentalists on those who criticize religion. It’s like saying that there’s a possible correlation between women walking around at night and the upsurge in brutal rapes and sexual assaults- and the law protects the rapists, not the women! The women are to blame for inciting rape and the rapists are the ones filing the charges.

Think about this. The religious organizations pushing for this MUST have actually sat down and worked out the wording of a UN resolution that would unequivocally transfer the blame of the crime from those committing it to those who knowingly or unknowingly trigger those who commit it.

The Objectives of Religion:

The modern resurgence of blasphemy laws is most likely a reaction to increased public awareness of the unlikelihood of a supernatural God, an awareness augmented by education. Of course, that means that the resurgence in laws was preceded by a resurgence in blasphemy itself. Let’s look at religion as a natural phenomenon, as Daniel Dennett would. The tenets of any successful religion must be self-serving, in the sense that they must maximize the odds of their own survival first. In this sense, religions that demand anti-blasphemy laws are a particularly infectious case of parasite that get their hosts (us) to defend them (the religious beliefs) against other cultural memes.

Analyzing the scholarly interpretations of religions can only take you so far. The sociological effects of religion are best observed by studying how proponents of a particular religion behave over time. If the resurgence of blasphemy law worldwide is any indication, religions are twisting the ears of their rides and digging the spurs in deeper, in what they see as a last ditch effort to defeat that evil villain, secularism.

Update: Some facts that are presented here are now on freethoughtpedia. You can follow up on them here for information on the latest push from the religious establishments regarding blasphemy laws around the world.

Unraveling a ‘Secular’ Hoax

Manoj TV — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 23:56:07 +0000

“Section 49-O” of the Constitution of India!

T.V.Manoj

(With valuable inputs from Somu Rao, Goa Science Forum)

One of the most nauseating scenes Indians witnessed after the horrific Mumbai terror attack on November 26 was the parade of India’s supposedly apolitical class in front of every other 24/7 television channels, airing their illiterate opinions on politics and governance. Some wanted the country to ‘nuke’ Pakistan. Some others wanted presidents’ rule – American style! Yet another group wanted to abolish politics in the country altogether and the army to rule the country! They paraded as if – as N.Ram, editor-in-chief of The Hindu group of publications pointed out in a lecture given at a meeting recently organized by Samudaya, a progressive theater group based in Bangalore, – these reactionary forces would govern the country with their placards!

There is another group of people who are not depoliticized or apolitical, but nevertheless got fed up with the lumpen and criminal politics we have often experienced in this country for decades. Feeling powerless to do anything and desperate, they get hold of any straw – real or imaginary – that gives them some kind of a consolation. A message that is being passed around through emails since the Mumbai terror attack is a clear example of this phenomenon.

I reproduce below the email message I received recently from one reliable contact. Since he is not the author of the message, I leave out the name of the individual. Here is the message:

Hi All…….

I Vote Nobody!!!!!!!!!

Did you know that there is a system in our constitution, as per the 1969 act, in section “49-O” that a person can go to the polling booth, confirm his identity, get his finger marked and convey the presiding election officer that he doesn’t want to vote anyone!

Yes such a feature is available, but obviously these seemingly notorious leaders have never disclosed it. This is called “49-O”.

Why should you go and say “I VOTE NOBODY”… because, in a ward, if a candidate wins, say by 123 votes, and that particular ward has received “49-O” votes more than 123, then that polling will be cancelled and will have to be re-polled. Not only that, but the candidature of the contestants will be removed and they cannot contest the re-polling, since people had already expressed their decision on them. This would bring fear into parties and hence look for genuine candidates for their parties for election. This would change the way; of our whole political system… it is seemingly surprising why the election commission has not revealed such a feature to the public….

Please spread this news to as many as you know… Seems to be a wonderful weapon against corrupt parties in India … show your power, expressing your desire not to vote for anybody, is even more powerful than voting… so don’t miss your chance. So either vote, or vote not to vote (vote 49-O) and pass this info on…

Use your voting right for a better INDIA.

Please forward this to all the friends and let them know!!!

Isn’t a wonderful instrument to punish our untrustworthy politicians? Hold your answer! Such a section does not exist in our Constitution!

First, The Constitution of India does not have “Sections”, but it has Preamble, Parts, Articles, Chapters, Schedules, and Appendices. In the Constitution, there is an Article 49 (nothing called “49-O”), which has nothing at all to do with elections. The Article 49 of the Constitution is about “Protection of monuments and places and objects of national importance”, which is reproduced below:

49. It shall be the obligation of the State to protect every monument or place or object of artistic or historic interest, 2[declared by or under law made by Parliament] to be of national importance, from spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal or export, as the case may be.

Where, then, is this “49-O”? Though the Constitution of India does not have a “Section 49-O”, The Conduct of Election Rules – 1961 has a rule 49-O under Part IV (Voting in Parliamentary and Assembly Constituenceis). The relevant rule is reproduced below:

49-O. Elector deciding not to vote.-If an elector, after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form-17A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon as required under sub-rule (1) of rule 49L, decided not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in Form 17A by the presiding officer and the signature or thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark.

(The entire text of The Conduct of Election Rules – 1961 can be found at: http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/subord/cer1.htm)

Now compare this rule 49-O with what is claimed in the email message. As per the message,

If the number of electors who have decided not to vote is more than the winning margin of candidate in “a ward”, the election will be cancelled and a re-poll will be conducted.
In the re-poll, the candidates who have already contested and lost the election “will be removed and they cannot contest the re-polling, since people had already expressed their decision on them”!

Does the rule 49-O of The Conduct of Election Rules – 1961 say anything of those sorts? Not at all!

As Somu (Goa Science Forum) points out “many votes are cast for ‘none of the above’. Eventually the winner will be whoever among the existing candidates secures the most number of votes. One can use the 49-O option to make a statement but not to call for a re-election”.

Though I came across this hoax-mail only very recently (post-Mumbai terror attack), Somu informs me that it has been doing the rounds for many years. A google search confirms that it is so. This email is a hoax perpetrated upon the unsuspecting public who generally do not take the pain to go through the entire Constitution and the Election Rules to verify for themselves the correctness of a claim made in a mail received from a reliable friend.

(Thanks to Somu Rao who enlightened me about this hoax in the nick of time.)

The Guardians of Morality

Narendra Nayak — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:58:41 +0000

In this series of articles I write about the forced enforcement of religious laws.

Inscription on the Vidhana Soudha in Bangalore

Here are a few stories that have a common thread running through them.

Two teenage girls, their mother and maternal aunts were shot and buried while still breathing- their crime? The girls wished to marry persons of their choice- their mother and aunt supported them.
A married woman in her twenties was shot dead after being pulled out of her lawyer’s office; the lawyer was also shot at but had a providential escape. Reason- the victim had gone to consult the lawyer about divorcing her husband who was inflicting cruelty on her. The only eye witness to her murder by her husbands people was her mother, who later testified that she had seen or heard nothing. The dead woman’s father justified his daughter’s murder on the grounds of family honor!
A married woman was escorted by her friend’s son nearly half her age. That was construed of as spending time with an alien man. The punishment? The boy’s sisters were raped by the woman’s husband and his brothers.
Genital mutilation is carried out on many pre-pubertal Muslim girls in some African countries to prevent them from “enjoying sex”! Since it is forbidden in all civilized countries some parents try to take their girls back to the home country where it can be performed.
A couple was ordered to be separated by the village panchayat. The reason? According to some religious rule they were of the same gothra and hence were considered as brother and sister and hence their marriage amounts to incest.
A girl commits suicide after she was harassed by a local “sena”, for speaking to a neighbor belonging to another community. Her pleas that he was twice her age and had got her a job fell on deaf ears.
An auto rickshaw driver was assaulted with deadly weapons because he was transporting a woman belonging to another community, late at night. Her pleas that she was being taken to a hospital in an emergency were ignored.
A boy and a girl belonging to different minority communities were traveling together. They were attacked by a boy belonging to the girl’s community, supported by a local sena whose members belonged to the majority community!

Each of these incidents has one thing in common- the treatment of women as a commodity. The constitution of India, it being a secular democratic republic, guarantees fundamental rights to all the citizens. We have the right to follow a religion of our choice, or to not have one. The right to marry a person of any community (though same sex marriages are not allowed!). The right to live with any person with whom we may choose to live, whether married to that person or not. These rights do exist on paper and for those who can afford the due process of law. But, according to the various Senas and Dals belonging to various religions, the constitution of India has been suspended in our district.

Click Here for Part – II

My Right to Blah!

Apar Gupta — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 06:26:44 +0000

Apar Gupta

Division of Atheism and State: Absence of Status and Tacit Discrimination

One of the frequent themes in my introduction to Hinduism is the reference to the number of deities. The figure which adds up to 330 million is seen with incredible surprise by people belonging to monastic world religions. What does not surprise people is the deficiency in the Indian Legal System to accord any status to atheism, as an individual choice or a rational movement. The understanding is universal, law and atheism suffer a disconnect. Though the absence of recognition in law is discrimination itself, it is not limited to law. The result is a broader social discrimination against atheists.

This discrimination is most evident in the exercise of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Naturally atheists are not religious minorities (the only type of minorities recognized by the Indian Constitution) they do not enjoy constitutional protections as a group. The case of Athiest Society of India v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh (cited as AIR 1992 AP 310 ) contains a scathing indignation of atheists in this regard who filed a writ petition to make the court order the state government from performing religious functions at state events. The court noted that, “Such a noble thought cannot be found fault with as offensive to any one… there is no constitutional guarantee to the faith of the Atheists who worship the barren reason that there is no God, and that they cannot seek to enforce such a non-existing right by preventing the believers, in invoking the blessings of the Gods.“

Moreover an atheist as an individual can exercise his/her fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression (subject to the reasonable restrictions). These reasonable restrictions include “public order, decency or morality”. Any person in India will adhere to my personal experience that the chances of an intelligent discussion between an atheist and a theist are remote. Hence an atheist has forgone his free speech right the moment he discovered his rationality. I do not understand the reason for this disability.

Many zealots hold the opinion that atheism is all, “fancy blah blah blah”…. So what’s wrong in me doing some, “blah blah blah”!!