Guest Article
Image Credits: Civilsdaily
Blasphemy and laws criminalising it have existed for centuries. But fundamental questions about what actually constitutes blasphemy and how it has continued to survive as societies become more modern remain unanswered. Analysis from a sociological perspective of the concept is required for a deeper understanding of what role blasphemy plays in society and its continued existence.
In 1997, Nike was suddenly forced to recall around 38,000 of its brand-new Nike Air shoes and later issued a public apology about them. The reason? The design of the word ‘Air’ on the shoe resembled the word ‘Allah’ in Arabic calligraphy and Islamic advocacy groups threatened to boycott Nike’s products.[1]
Tracing Blasphemy Through the Ages
The concept of Blasphemy finds its roots in the Greek term blasphemia, which when divided into constituent parts means blapto (to hurt) and pheme (speech, utterance and fame, reputation).[2] Therefore, Blasphemy clearly hints towards hurtful speech or conduct which damages reputation or defaces it. Blasphemy can mean, simply, saying bad words about, or contradicting, someone, taking a different view from the norm. The concept is very open and wide, with great opportunity for interpretation, something which is seen across blasphemy laws around the world, which use vague and ill-defined terminologies aplenty.[3]
Blasphemy’s etymological roots are important in understanding the context in which it developed and how it has regulated societies and behaviour in it. A Greek export, the term was prevalent in Roman and Greek societies and closely linked with treason.[4] The concept was moulded over a long period, involving individual incidents of misuse of the name of God and religious images, beginning from the conversion of the Roman imperial state to a Christian state. Such a transformation intensified the destruction of other “pagan” religions with a simultaneous strengthening of Christianity and its symbols.[5] The existence of these so-called “pagan” religions and their symbols was seen to be a focus of evil spirits which received power and strength through their worship. This was, however, not the only reason for such a destruction. Removing non-christian symbols and images from the commoner’s eyes helped Christianity flourish.
In the mediaeval times, however, blasphemy transcended symbols and began to be viewed as a public order problem, also aiming to cast aspersions upon other aspects of an individual’s lifestyle such as drinking, vagrancy, or gambling. This was because occasionally blasphemers were found to be drunk or took part in practices associated with their former religions (in the case of converts). Thus, the approach was to differentiate between deliberate utterances and isolated incidents of accidental blasphemous remarks, requiring disciplining with respect to other aspects of the individual’s life which could have caused such indiscipline.
With the Reformation and the re-emphasis on religion, Blasphemy became equated with having heretical beliefs thereby, bringing even independent thinkers under the ambit of Blasphemy. During the reformation, physical depictions of God were reprimanded for removing its spiritual, mysterious aspects which slowly morphed into possessing heretical beliefs, as pre-reformation practices were also looked down upon. This displayed a solidification of the concept of Blasphemy which was inherently linked with the security of the state, blurring the line between religion and polity, which culminated in the passage of Blasphemy legislations in most western countries by the end of the 17th century.[6] The English Blasphemy Act of 1697 for example bolstered the idea that religion and state were mutually supportive as it criminalised denial of Christianity or the authority of the Bible. Such acts were clearly thought of as reducing state power.
With the importance of twin agendas of individual rights and religious toleration heightening, many countries in the west in contemporary times have forgone harsh prosecutions and punishments in instances of alleged Blasphemy, moving from passive to active blasphemy, where the precise religious beliefs and feelings of individuals were considered under direct attack from the expression of others and not the state itself.[7] This transformation is visible in the fact that sexual revolutions and equal rights movements have led to new and tense public conflicts between religion and gender/sex.[8] These movements, by imbibing so-called ‘religious’ symbols have attracted the ire of conservative groups. A prime example may be James Kirkup’s poem The Love that Dares to Speak its Name published in Gay News, which earned the paper’s editor a fine and punishment.[9] The poem was deemed blasphemous for depicting sexual intercourse between a roman soldier and the crucified body of Christ, even though the author claimed the main point of the poem was discussing the possibility of religious salvation for homosexuals.[10]
Blasphemy in the Indian Context
While in the current context, Blasphemy manifests itself as a couple of provisions under the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”)[11], thanks to Lord Thomas Macaulay, it can be observed in ancient Indian Hindu society as well.
The concept of dharma, an encompassing term referring to duty, religion, morality, social obligations, justice, righteousness, and law, has been central to Hindu thought. Conversely, so has Adharma (the opposite of Dharma) which included offensive speech by lower castes against higher castes, especially against the Brahmins, the highest religious caste. Proof of this may be found in the Manusmriti which charts out a list of horrific punishments for a ‘man of low birth’ who hurls ‘cruel words’ at a Brahmin, such as his tongue should be cut out.[12] If he mentions his name or caste maliciously, a red-hot iron nail ten-fingers long should be thrust into his mouth. If he is so proud as to instruct Brahmins about their duty, the king should have hot oil poured into his mouth and ears.
Therefore, as Wendy Doniger in her book, The Hindus: An Alternative History argues, even though Hinduism itself does not subscribe to the Christian conception of Blasphemy and orthodoxy, it does imbibe within itself social blasphemy.[13] Social Blasphemy manifests in the form of impurity and profanation of temples and sacred spaces and objects.[14] This was seen recently as Hindu College professor Ratan Lal was arrested and later granted bail for his sarcastic comments upon the finding of a religious object resembling a ‘shivling’ in the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi.[15] Another example includes filing of an FIR against 2 Netflix Executives for a kissing scene inside a temple in the Mira Nair’s A Suitable Boy under section 295A.[16]
This social blasphemy, prevalent in almost all religions, today is perpetuated by colonial Blasphemy provisions in the IPC even though other countries have done away with such sections. In 1952, the US Supreme Court held blasphemy to be ‘unconstitutional’ and it was abolished in Australia and England in 1995 and 2008 respectively. Indian Blasphemy provisions have led to the formation of a “Marketplace of Outrage”, a new economy that thrives on emotion, one in which “if the feelings run (or are seen to run) high and deep enough, a good price will be fetched.”[17]
It is important to note that Sections 295 and 295A require the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens[18], however, it is usually used by pressure groups to stifle the voices of artists, writers, and filmmakers. Several examples of this include a complaint against former Indian cricket team captain, M.S Dhoni for posing in an advertisement for a business magazine as Lord Vishnu holding several things including a shoe in his hands.[19] Section 295 was invoked against him for denigrating the Hindu god and hurting the religious feelings of the Hindus.
Image credits: Shutterstock
This provision is, however, egalitarian in nature, allowing all religions to harass individuals and usurp the rule of law, be it Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, which offended the sentiments of Muslims in India and across the world, or the murder of a Dalit farmer who ‘attempted’ to steal the Nihang Sikhs’ (a Sikh warrior community) holy scriptures.[20]
The complicated survival of Blasphemy
The long history of Blasphemy suggests that controversies about blasphemy are places where definitions of the universe and its working are debated; places where identities are forged and where communities debate issues about public order. Contrary to the dictionary definitions which suggest that blasphemy is a purely religious crime, many blasphemies seem to have registered as ‘blasphemies’ because they targeted the nation and the complicity between church and state. Blasphemy is a concept that is, by definition, in the eyes and ears of the receiver.[21] But if some seeming- ‘blasphemies’ are celebrated and commissioned by religious communities, then trying to guess what might hurt religious communities might be a tricky business, to say the least. Therefore, bunching blasphemy up in homogenising secular theories might not be correct.
If modern society has been unable to reduce religiosity and thereby limit Blasphemy, what is the reason that Blasphemy has been able to survive for so many years?
What is considered blasphemous? A Functionalist Perspective
One of the principal architects of modern sociology, Emile Durkheim offers a functionalist perspective of blasphemy, and what can be constituted as blasphemy. The functionalist perspective sees society as a structure with interrelated parts designed to meet the biological and social needs of the individuals in that society. According to Durkheim, societies would in the beginning be less individual-centric and based more on consensus. However, as they would progress, individuals would become freer and more individualistic, creating more problems for societal cohesion. Thus, in the modern world, what role does Blasphemy play? As discussed in the previous section, it is clearly not on a decline, therefore, does the work of Emile Durkheim give any suggestions?
Durkheim’s inquiry into blasphemous expressions dismantles the view of looking at blasphemy from the perspective of believers of God versus no believers. Rather, it begins with analysing what is considered as ‘sacred’ and ‘profane’[22] and the penal consequences arising thereof. Durkheim defines scared as,
By sacred things one must not understand simply those personal beings which one calls gods or spirits; a rock, a tree, a spring, a pebble, a piece of wood, a house—in a word, anything can be sacred. A rite can have this character; a rite that does not have it to some degree does not even exist.[23]
Therefore, it is clear that what constitutes ‘sacred’ is extremely wide ranging from inanimate objects to imaginary concepts. However, even though what may constitute as sacred may be wide-ranging, each individual’s connotation of what is sacred is specific and independent of the individual, based on communal action and ritual, evoking emotional responses of belonging and awe in the believer.[24] While sacred objects may be everyday commonplace objects, what sets them apart according to Durkheim, is the fact that they are exclusionary and ‘withdrawn from general circulation’.[25] Sacred things are sacred because they have an aura of exclusion attached to them since the common person cannot touch or enjoy them. Only a certain elite class of individuals have access to these objects. In the past, these have been the priestly class or the ruling class in all religions and communities, who begin associating themselves with similar purity and sacredness by virtue of their access.
Durkheim’s reliance on viewing religion from a communal lens forms the bedrock of the functionalist perspective. He argues that Religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church all those who adhere to them.[26] By virtue of uniting a society into ‘one single moral community’, religion is nothing but the representation of collective ideals and beliefs.
Durkheim’s central placement of the scared in the definition of religion shows that there can be no society without the sacred since the sacred is society’s idealised vision of itself, captured and sustained by the society in the form of reunions, assemblies, and meetings where individuals, being closely united to one another, reaffirm in the people their common sentiments.[27] Therefore, it is clear that in the Durkheimian Model, symbols given the tag of being sacred form an important aspect of religion, thereby ultimately influencing social cohesion in the society.
A good illustration to demonstrate this example might be a religious flag. The flag in and of itself has no value. However, it is indirectly of value as the followers of the particular religion associate it with their community and followers. Individual followers acknowledge the significance, hold the flag in very high regard, and cling to it. Such expressions may manifest in the form of religious flags being symbols of separating warring groups in times of riots and violent outbursts. The value of the flag may also be seen in the Republic Day violence in 2021, where protesting farmers hoisted their own flag, the Nishan Sahib on the Red Fort.[28]
Morality & Blasphemy
Durkheim argues in his seminal work Professional Ethics and Civic Morals, that Man is a moral being only because he lives within established societies.[29] Until and unless there is a power above (in whatever form or institution), to enforce such strong moral obligations, morals don’t appear to be obligatory. In such a context, what role does morality play in our understanding of blasphemy?
It is clear that morals are inherently linked with the preservation and maintenance of the sacred in society.[30] And since there is a strong power enforcing such moral values, non-adherence to morality in the form of questioning or disapproving of the sacred and thereby challenging the authority itself, is seen to be supporting and brewing chaos, anarchy, and immorality in society. It is because of this, Durkheim argues, that societies have a strong response to Blasphemy.[31] Not only is Blasphemy immoral by attacking the sacred, but it is also an attack on the fundamental nature of society since the sacred embodies the society and its aspirations and visions.
Conclusion
Blasphemy has and continues to exist in society because of the central role of the ‘sacred’ prevailing in the society. Since, blasphemy constitutes an attack on the sacred in the very first place, to maintain order and morality in society, blasphemy laws continue to be used and flourish. Therefore, viewing Blasphemy only from a narrow lens of religiosity is a flawed approach. Blasphemy goes beyond religion. To understand it properly and why it continues to exist, it must be seen as a political choice taken by the society to protect itself from anarchy and maintain social cohesion in people.
Can such a choice however, be allowed to trample upon liberties? And does such a choice actually promote social cohesion or divisiveness? These are all necessary and important questions which must be reflected upon but beyond the scope of this piece. Blasphemy and its existence must be deliberated upon from a sociological perspective, keeping in mind the deeper roots of Blasphemy in society.
By Rehan Mathur (Guest Writer)
Rehan is a 2nd-year law student at National Law University, Delhi interested in criminal and constitutional law.
Phone: +91 8076893887
Bibliography
[1] Murphy C, “Nike Pulls Shoes That Irked Muslims” (The Washington PostJune 25, 1997) <https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1997/06/25/nike-pulls-shoes-that-irked-muslims/b02211fb-c120-4780-9ce4-4c01225c8e92/> accessed September 28, 2022
[2] Sherwood Y, Blasphemy: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press 2021)
[3] Ibid
[4] Nash DS, Blasphemy in the Christian World: A History (Oxford University Press 2010)
[5] Sauer E, The Archaeology of Religious Hatred in the Roman and Early Medieval World (Stroud, 2003), 162–4, 30, 159, 46, and 162.
[6] For example, England passed the Blasphemy Act, 1698
[7] Nash D, “Blasphemy and Censorship. the Historical Importance of Passive and Active Models” [2013] Revue LISA / LISA e-journal
[8] Supra Note 2
[9] Ibid
[10] Tomes L, “Blasphemy and the Negotiation of Religious Pluralism in Britain” (2010) 4 CONTEMPORARY BRITISH RELIGION AND POLITICS 237
[11] See Sections 295, 295A, 296, 297 of the IPC
[12] Supra Note 2
[13] Doniger W, The Hindus: An Alternative History (Speaking Tiger 2015)
[14] Ibid
[15] Swami P, “India's Blasphemy Battles-Hindu or Muslim-Show Reason Has Succumbed to Faith” (ThePrintJune 14, 2022) <https://theprint.in/opinion/security-code/indias-blasphemy-battles-hindu-or-muslim-show-reason-has-succumbed-to-faith/992318/> accessed September 28, 2022
[16] “'A Suitable Boy': FIR Filed in MP for 'Hurting Religious Sentiments' over Kissing Scenes in Series” (Scroll.inNovember 23, 2020) <https://scroll.in/latest/979238/fir-filed-in-mp-for-hurting-religious-sentiments-over-kissing-scenes-in-netflixs-a-suitable-boy> accessed September 28, 2022
[17] Padmanabhan M, “The Republic of Hurt Sentiments” (The HinduJuly 25, 2016) <https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-republic-of-hurt-sentiments/article2872893.ece> accessed September 28, 2022
[18] Section 295A, IPC
[19] “Case Registered against Dhoni for Posing as Lord Vishnu, Hurting Hindu Sentiments” (FirstpostMay 6, 2013) <https://www.firstpost.com/sports/case-registered-against-dhoni-for-posing-as-lord-vishnu-hurting-hindu-sentiments-756393.html> accessed September 28, 2022
[20] “Nihang Leader Justifies Gruesome Singhu Murder, Warns Farmers Leaders to Keep Off” (The Wire) <https://thewire.in/rights/punishment-for-blasphemy-nihang-leader-justifies-gruesome-singhu-execution> accessed September 28, 2022
[21] Supra Note 2
[22] Burns Coleman E and White K, “Negotiating the Sacred in Multicultural Societies” [2006] Negotiating the Sacred: Blasphemy and Sacrilege in a Multicultural Society
[23] Durkheim, E. 1965 [1915], The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, trans. J. W. Swain, New York, Free Press.
[24] Supra Note 23
[25] Burns Coleman E and White K, “Stretching the Sacred” [2006] Negotiating the Sacred: Blasphemy and Sacrilege in a Multicultural Society
[26] Ibid
[27] Doomen J, “Blasphemy in an Age of Corroding Secularity - Law and Critique” (SpringerLink June 13, 2020) <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10978-020-09268-6> accessed September 28, 2022
[28] Ojha A, “Republic Day Violence Was Conspiracy to Make Red Fort New Farmer Protest Site: Delhi Police” (India Today May 27, 2021) <https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/republic-day-violence-conspiracy-red-fort-farmer-protest-site-delhi-police-1807488-2021-05-27> accessed September 28, 2022
[29] Durkheim, E. 1953, Professional Ethics and Civic Morals, Westport, Greenwood Press, p. 73.
[30] Durkheim, E. 1974, Sociology and Philosophy, New York, Free Press, p. 68
[31] Supra Note 29