Extract from "Negationism in India" by Koenraad Elst, pp 58-62:
"A consequence of the negationist orientation of the Indian state's religious policy, is the readiness to ban books critical of Islam at the slightest suggestion by some mullah or Muslim politician. It is symptomatic that India was the first country to ban Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses", at the instance of Syed Shahabuddin (in exchange, with some other concessions, for his calling off a march on Ayodhya).
[....Discussion about various banned books in India....]
The Nehruvian establishment has no liking for free research into the contents of Islamic doctrine and history, and in spite of loud slogans about 'secularism' the administration gave in to the Muslim fanatics. None of the so-called secularist intellectuals has bothered to protest against this obscurantist act of censorship.
The official motivation for this banning of meritorious books is that they have been written with the intention of insulting a religion or inciting communal conflict (art. 153A and art. 295A of the Indian Penal Code). Under section 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the executive power must take action against such books. However, this weapon could be turned around against its initial users. For, according to some, there is a book which fulfils the description given in the Penal Code, even to a far greater extent than the already banned books; but which is recited and invested with supreme authority in state- subsidized schools and in prayer houses in every town and village of India. This objectionable book is known as the Quran.
In 1984, a citizen of India, H.K. Chakraborty, filed a petition with the West Bengal State Government to ban the Quran. He added a list of 37 Quran verses which "preach cruelty, incite violence and disturb public peace" (to use the terminology of the Penal Code), 17 verses which "promote, on grounds of religion, feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different communities in India", and 31 verses which "insult other religions as also the religious beliefs of other communities". Even after reminder-letters, the West Bengal authorities gave no response.
In 1985, Chandmal Chopra filed a petition with with the Calcutta High Court, asking for a ban on Quran. He added a list with reprehensible verses from the Quran: 29 passages from the Quran (1 to 8 verses in length) that incite violence against non-believers, 15 which promote enmity, 26 which insult other religions.
[Some Quranic verses given]. There are dozens of Quran verses like this, which in their unanimity can not be dismissed as "isolated, mistranslated" little accidents "quoted out of context".
Chandmal Chopra stated in his writ petition: "The cited passages in the Quran.. arouse in Muslims the worst sectarian passions and religious fanatism, which has manifested itself in murders, massacres, plunder, arson, rape and destruction or destruction of sacred places both in historical and contemporary period, not only in India but in large parts of the world."
The petition created a lot of furore in Calcutta and abroad. Muslim mobs took to the streets in many places. The government intervened and put heavy pressure on the judicial process. The secret service was put to work to find possible objectionable biographical data of the petitioner. Both the authorities and the court violated the secular basis of the Indian Constitution by using as justification for their policy c.q. judgment a statement of religious belief. The Marxist West Bengal government stated in its affidavit: "The Quran contains the words of God Almighty revealed to His last prophet Mohammed... As the Holy Quran is a Divine Book, no earthly power can sit in judgment on it, and no court of law has jurisdiction to adjudicate it."
The judgment dismissed the petition on this ground: "Banning or forfeiture of the Quran... would amount to abolition of the Muslim religion itself." Indeed, the very text which preaches war against the unbelievers is the core text of Islam, so abolition of Islamic hate propaganda amounts to abolition of Islam itself.
The judge further observed: "This book is not prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religions. Because of the Quran no public tranquillity has been disturbed upto now..." - a resounding statement of negationism.
The petitioner has made it clear that he considers bookbanning counterproductive and that the controversial petition was meant to direct public attention towards the Quran's contents: people should read it, because Indian citizens have a right to know why their country is plagued with never-ending religious riots.
When Chandmal Chopra had the documents of the legal dispute published including the judgment, the administration decided to prosecute him and his publisher on the basis of the very same Penal Code articles which he had invoked to request a ban on the Quran. ..."
Comments