Internal Security Watch

[brihaspati]

The modern rashtra cannot be hostage to claims of special protection of criticism of "doctrine" under blasphemy/hate speech laws. In spite of supposed "hate speech" laws quoted here, most European courts show a much greater respect for the individuals right to explore and criticize doctrine - and not just the right to criticize one single religion. In India only "Hinduism" can be freely and devastatingly negatively deconstructed with counter arguments not allowed to be aired in parallel in the same context.

It is dishonest to quote Irish or British laws only - and forget how Denmark protected the right of individuals to criticize what they found abhorrent in any doctrine.

[brihaspati]

Ireland in particular has had an on and off relationship with "blasphemy". There is also a "constitutional " problem. Not many of the excusers here perhaps are aware that a referendum is slated to be held in June - on the question of removing the reference to blasphemy in the Constitution. Moreover people have already started campaigning for a "yes" vote. There is some kind of a "blasphemous art exhibition" going on in Dublin, and oh-so-strange - the authorities have allowed it to go on! Imagine something like that allowed in India if it was not blasphemy against Hinduism!

[brihaspati]

VHP leader shot at, tension in Nagori town

Ah, well...he was communal onlee, so deserved it...
Must be a retaliation for 1992 Babri and 2002 riots ( since everything from SIMI to Kerala muslims in J&K are finally justified by that reason)

As well as say the crackdown on KP that happened when they protested the abduction of a Hindu minor girl Parameswari in 1967, riots in 67 following this, or say things done on KP beginning 86-89 - all was because of what was to happen in 1992. The Condeom are prescient and they also react for what they know will happen in the future.

[harbans]

Valid criticism of doctrine has to be a fundamental part of Freedom of Speech. Since time memorial in India different schools of thought have debated, meditated and subsequently evolved. India cannot and must not close it's doors to such criticism. WKK's don't have an understanding of what they are getting into. MMS i feel is also influe3nced by his daughter who's into this SAJA and UCLA liberal bandwagon. There is an intrinsic hate of Indic/ dharmic i that group.

[somnath]

Valid criticism of doctrine has to be a fundamental part of Freedom of Speech. Since time memorial in India different schools of thought have debated, meditated and subsequently evolved. India cannot and must not close it's doors to such criticism. WKK's don't have an understanding of what they are getting into. MMS i feel is also influe3nced by his daughter who's into this SAJA and UCLA liberal bandwagon. There is an intrinsic hate of Indic/ dharmic i that group.

Harbans-ji, in principle, absolutely...The issue there isnt about laws, but implementation of them...As I said before, most laws can be interpreted and used in a certain manner that "favours" a certain viewpoint/motivation...Unfortunately, the Indian body polity has not achieved the maturity required to hold firm on intepretation and execution of statutes in the manner intended, or indeed the philosophies embedded in the constitution..Whether its Satanic Verses, or Lajja (Taslima Nasreen's first public "controversy"), whether its JAmes Laine or Rohington Mistry, MF Hussain or indeed the Danish cartoonist - the polity of India has bowed to the loony fringe...There was no "Communal..." law then...The issue there is larger, way beyond tokenism bills like the one we are discussing...

On the positive side, Indian society the way I see it is moving beyond such trivia...The dominant narative, that of economic aspiration, is what is governing and agitating people's minds...You see that everywhere - so a "nationalist" Narendra Modi gets re-elected, but so does a Nitish Kumar who takes pains to keep Narendra Modi at an arm and a foot length - both on grounds of the same, aspirational agenda...And despite an enviable record of communal peace, the Left Front govt faces heavy reverses among the muslim electorate in WB, along wit pretty much all other sections...So overall I wont be pessimistic, or indeed alarmist!

Its a tad unfair to brush MMS with the influence of his daughter, whatever that might be - typically you would expect the influence to pass from the father tot he daughter, no?

[harbans]

So the GOI is putting into law what the loony fringe wing is demanding? Which again is alarming. As B Ji mentioned the K/ Hadith are full of hatred towards groups. That's something the WKK's have not read about as yet. So they have assumed the guilt lies with the Hindu fringe groups. Economic outlook is key i agree but India is nothing without freedom. Without the freedom to discuss, question specially doctrine. This move is a move to appease ONLY Islamists...and prevent criticism of doctrine becoming mainstream. BTW when people become older >70 or so..it's the children specially the oes that have an exuberance is some cause that influence with vehemence the older dad who's much more pensive.

[somnath]

So the GOI is putting into law what the loony fringe wing is demanding

First, its a "draft of a draft", not a law..Second, barring the eggregious definition of "group", there isnt much that issnt already there in other statutes (barring the various commissions)..But yes, the attempt here is clearly "tokenistic", and will fall flat, just like most such tokenism usually do..There is certainly not anything that "curbs freedoms" - given the nature of the group that prepared this draft, these guys hold individual freedoms a bit too dear to their hearts! Sometimes annoyingly so..

But..

BTW when people become older >70 or so..it's the children specially the oes that have an exuberance is some cause that influence with vehemence the older dad who's much more pensive.

Really? We need to study all three of MMS's daughter carefully then!

[putnanja]

I think it is intellectually dishonest to compare taslima nasreen and MF Hussain. Taslima Nasreen was almost abandoned by India, with comments made that religious feelings shouldn't be hurt. She was told to leave the country, and granting visas itself was made a big issue. even now, she has to renew her visas every 6 months.

In case of MF Hussain, the dear sir wasn't causing any takleef to anyone, and only rabid RSS/hindutvavadis was behind me. It is freedom of expression that was shut down.

The media and all the so called liberalists including UPA/Left subscribed to the above positions.

The problem with the bill is that the government of the day can order police to arrest people based on any statement which "cause /promote hatred" etc, and the individuals have to seek relief from the court. The arrested people can be in custody for days together while trying to get relief. The law as someone said is pretty close to the paki blasphemy law in terms of classifying the crime.

It is easy to implement these kinds of laws. Any changes later on will cause much issues, and will be almost impossible, as seen in the paki blasphemy case.

[somnath]

The problem with the bill is that the government of the day can order police to arrest people based on any statement which "cause /promote hatred" etc, and the individuals have to seek relief from the court. The arrested people can be in custody for days together while trying to get relief

Putnanja-ji, the police in India can arrest anyone without formal charges at all, and hold him in custody for 48 hours before presenting him before a magistrate! No new laws are required if harassment is a goal - existing IPC is good enough for that - just ask the thousands languishing in jail without trial...

The law as someone said is pretty close to the paki blasphemy law in terms of classifying the crime

I have posted the Indian existing statutes, the proposed bill and the Paki blasphemy law along with English and Irish laws on "hate speeches"...Barrgin the most superficial, can you point out the similarities? And yes, if the Indian and Paki laws are similar, then so are Paki and English/Irish laws!

[putnanja]

If you think that the way law is applied in UK/India/Pakistan is same, then I don't have anything else to talk about the matter.

It is an issue today too that the police can arrest and keep a suspect for 48 hours in custody without presenting him to the magistrate. Instead of rectifying the issue, claiming that the new law is similar and not worse is just posturing.

[Arjun]

I thought given our respective ignorance about law, we had exhausted what is to be discussed on this bill...the basic point was on the issue of "presumptive guilt" construed by someone - clearly that isnt the case...But this Paki business got me thinking...So despite the fact that you have no knowledge of law, you have concluded the bolded section?

Do I have a background in international law ? No. Other than that, lets leave aside what my exposure to law is - given that this is an open forum.

Matters relating to free speech and restrictions thereof are extremely serious issues - and a debate on any change is extremely healthy. Leave aside the question of definition of 'group' which is an obvious outrage - this NAC draft also needs to have a debate on what kinds of restriction on freedom of expression are appropriate for India.

http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legis ... f1860.html
Sections 295 to 298...

Other than 298 B and C (relating to Ahmadis) all the other sections can be construed as being encompassed in the Indian definition of hate speech simply because of the loose definition of hate speech that includes anything that can 'cause ill-will' among communities.

British anti hate speech law ..(they made one specifically for this in 2006)..
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200 ... 001_en.pdf

The British law is a fine example of the specificity of definition in western law that I had referenced earlier. If you look at the definitions there is only one benchmark used throughout in your document - that the accused must have used 'threatening' language / expressions / gestures.

In general, the test in UK law – of inciting hatred – goes some way further than simply hurting the feelings of believers, and requires a conscious effort on the part of the offender to threaten or cause harm.

The basic point I am driving at is that India should either (1) use the same benchmark as in the West and drop all restrictions other than that on hate speech that constitutes a conscious effort to threaten or cause harm -OR it should place restrictions on free speech using a 'socio-political praxis' that is relevant to India- which is that dogma-based religious discourse that is insulting to another religion (such as 'All Gods other than mine are False Gods'') are included in the definition of hate speech. Subscribing to a Paki definition of blasphemy as included in India's definition of hate speech is neither here nor there.

Not sure if anyone's done a "liberalism of religions" analysis, and adjudged hinduism to be the exemplar on that - if you have, maybe you should post it somehere!

My benchmark was a very objective, reasoning based criterion. You don't need a peer-reviewed paper to adjudge in basic logic.

Based on the criteria of doctrinal dogma - do you dispute the assertion that Hinduism has less 'doctrinal dogma' than either Islam or Christianity?

As far as I am concerned, both Taslima Nasreen and MF Hussain are symptoms of illiberalism of society..

If anybody threatened violence on MF Hussain that is illeberalism (though a campaign to stop people from buying his work if folks are convinced that his nudes are driven by malicious intent against a religion, is not illiberalism). But was anyone justifying this based on Hindu doctrine?

And RSS presents the same level (though different types) of obscurantist rubbish as Deoband......Both are antithetical to modern India - now if certain definitions of "liberalism" includes one but not the other, it is behind the times

Which doctrine of the RSS leads you to that view? Happy to be educated.

It should not be the case that you are an extreme case of 'political correctness' that wants to do an equal-equal for all matters. As regards being behind the times, the world is now moving AWAY from political correctness wrt religion, for your information.

[putnanja]

...
Indian existing statutes, the proposed bill and the Paki blasphemy law along with English and Irish laws on "hate speeches"...Barrgin the most superficial, can you point out the similarities? And yes, if the Indian and Paki laws are similar, then so are Paki and English/Irish laws![]/b

I don't think even the pakis thought of that defence, that their law is similar to British/Irish laws and so there should be no pressure on them to change blasphemy laws!! Wonder how many are arrested and kept in illegal detentions in pakistan and UK as laws are similar

The problem with pseudo-secularists is that the attempt to clutch at straws when none exist, when their perfidity is pointed out. They will be happy to shaft the majority(only if they are hindus) as long as it suits them. But once majorities are other communities, like in J&K etc, those "minorities" don't exist for them. Look at today's news articles where the congress wants to showpiece its "minority-friendly" face by time of UP elections by bringing in the communal violence bill in monsoon session. They themselves tacitly accept the fact. However, some congress members here want to hide that fact.

Many members here have shown their party inclination openly, but some insist on hiding it saying they have no affiliation, even though their posts clearly shows that bias

[Pranav]

Actually India should be comparing itself with progressive countries like Iceland. UK, US and Ireland are going backwards as far as freedom is concerned.

[Arjun]

Actually India should be comparing itself with progressive countries like Iceland. UK, US and Ireland are going backwards as far as freedom is concerned.

Ireland seems to be moving backward, with blasphemy laws etc being considered given its Catholic background...

But why do you mention UK and US?

[somnath]

this NAC draft also needs to have a debate on what kinds of restriction on freedom of expression are appropriate for India.

And what additional "restrictions" on freedom of speech does it draft entail, over and above what is there is existign statutes?

Other than 298 B and C (relating to Ahmadis) all the other sections can be construed as being encompassed in the Indian definition of hate speech simply because of the loose definition of hate speech that includes anything that can 'cause ill-will' among communities

Thats an amazingly sympathetic reading to the Pakis! So reference to a specific religious book and repercussions on its "defilement", similar reference to a specific religious prophet, not to mention the sections on Ahmadis - Sec 153/295 are similar in letter to the Paki law?! Just because of generic similarity in semantics of certain sections?

Its a bit like saying that the Paki Army is similarly equipped, similarly trained and has broadly similar battle doctrines as the Idnian Army - so the fundamental nature of both armies is the same!

The British law is a fine example of the specificity of definition in western law that I had referenced earlier. If you look at the definitions there is only one benchmark used throughout in your document - that the accused must have used 'threatening' language / expressions / gestures.

In general, the test in UK law – of inciting hatred – goes some way further than simply hurting the feelings of believers, and requires a conscious effort on the part of the offender to threaten or cause harm

Thats sophistry at best...Starting fromt the first article:

A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred

So any words that are "blasphemous" can be construed to be threatening, and anything of that sort can be construed to be an intention to "stir up religious hatred"...This is as open-ended as anything in IPC, even if IPC is more verbose in describing..Ditto with the definition of religious hatred as well - as open-ended as anything in IPC, without using as many words...

My benchmark was a very objective, reasoning based criterion. You don't need a peer-reviewed paper to adjudge in basic logic

Wow, you have just reduced a vast area of academic study - comparative religion, into a "basic logic" concept! Well...

But was anyone justifying this based on Hindu doctrine

Absolutely not - but then RSS/Sangh Parivar is not = Hindu!

Which doctrine of the RSS leads you to that view? Happy to be educated.

It should not be the case that you are an extreme case of 'political correctness' that wants to do an equal-equal for all matters. As regards being behind the times, the world is now moving AWAY from political correctness wrt religion, for your information

There's a lot on RSS - ut it will derail the thread big time...About the issue of "poltiical correctness", analysis of a legal matter cannot be on the basis of political stances/dogmas - which is how the discussion started when someone concluded that the draft bill concludes "presumptive guilt"....

I don't think even the pakis thought of that defence, that their law is similar to British/Irish laws and so there should be no pressure on them to change blasphemy laws

Err, werent you the person who said that the Indian and Paki laws are the same! When pointed out both (and English and Irish) statutes, you dont provide proof of how they are same, but come up with this!?

[Pranav]

Actually India should be comparing itself with progressive countries like Iceland. UK, US and Ireland are going backwards as far as freedom is concerned.

Ireland seems to be moving backward, with blasphemy laws etc being considered given its Catholic background...

But why do you mention UK and US?

The US Patriot Act and the UK hate speech laws are regressive steps. Various states in the US also have hate speech laws, I believe.

The basic philosophy behind hate speech laws is to stop people from speaking out when you have no way to counter their arguments. Such laws are a relatively recent phenomenon.

[Arjun]

And what additional "restrictions" on freedom of speech does it draft entail, over and above what is there is existign statutes?

You don't seem to getting it, do you? The NAC draft, the issue of 'group' definition etc is one issue. What I have been talking about in my last few posts goes way beyond the NAC draft and is questioning the basis of our current laws. A healthy debate on the nature of our hate speech / blasphemy laws is something we as a nation have never had, and now is a good time as any to have this debate. If it makes you feel any better - I am not accusing the INC of anything on the latter front.

Thats an amazingly sympathetic reading to the Pakis! So reference to a specific religious book and repercussions on its "defilement", similar reference to a specific religious prophet, not to mention the sections on Ahmadis - Sec 153/295 are similar in letter to the Paki law?! Just because of generic similarity in semantics of certain sections?

Your response has given me enough indication of the level of legal acumen you possess. Forget the rest of the drivel - just respond to the simple question whether a case can be made under Indian law to provide legal defence to a person under the same grounds as the sections in the Pakistan blasphemy law. I have already ruled out the sections relating to Ahmadis - that part is NOT similar to Indian law whatsoever.

Thats sophistry at best...Starting fromt the first article:

A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred

Your understanding of the clause seems to be quite poor. The qualification 'intends thereby to stir up religious hatred' is NOT a definition for 'threatening' which seems to be your understanding. The first BASIC criteria is that there needs to be a threat - without a threat of violence of harm to a group / individual there is no case under this law. The further qualification is that the threat should be based on religious hatred. eg a statement such as 'we will drive all muslims away from britain' would qualify as hate speech.

Wow, you have just reduced a vast area of academic study - comparative religion, into a "basic logic" concept! Well...

I see that you have not answered the simple yes / no question I had asked.

Absolutely not - but then RSS/Sangh Parivar is not = Hindu!

Have no idea WTF you are trying to say out here !

Since the discussion is going OT - my last post on the matter.

[nachiket]

The British law is a fine example of the specificity of definition in western law that I had referenced earlier. If you look at the definitions there is only one benchmark used throughout in your document - that the accused must have used 'threatening' language / expressions / gestures.

In general, the test in UK law – of inciting hatred – goes some way further than simply hurting the feelings of believers, and requires a conscious effort on the part of the offender to threaten or cause harm

Thats sophistry at best...Starting fromt the first article:

A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred

So any words that are "blasphemous" can be construed to be threatening, and anything of that sort can be construed to be an intention to "stir up religious hatred"...This is as open-ended as anything in IPC, even if IPC is more verbose in describing..Ditto with the definition of religious hatred as well - as open-ended as anything in IPC, without using as many words...

Err.. no. I can blaspheme by abusing someone's god or prophet without threatening him/her or their community in any sort of way, which would make me immune from prosecution in the UK. In India however I can be accused of "creating ill will", "causing disharmony" and inciting hatred" all at once and the court might have no choice but to convict me due to the loose definition of the law. So yeah, our laws are closer to the paki laws we so deride rather than the English laws which you claim to be similar. Fortunately for us, they aren't implemented so rigorously.

P.S. I remember Karunanidhi stating that Ram, who the majority community in this country regards as a God did not exist during the Ram setu saga. Can he be prosecuted according to this (or other) laws? Or is he in the clear since no "minority sentiments" were hurt?

[svinayak]

The British law is a fine example of the specificity of definition in western law that I had referenced earlier. If you look at the definitions there is only one benchmark used throughout in your document - that the accused must have used 'threatening' language / expressions / gestures.

In general, the test in UK law – of inciting hatred – goes some way further than simply hurting the feelings of believers, and requires a conscious effort on the part of the offender to threaten or cause harm
Thats sophistry at best...Starting fromt the first article:
A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred
So any words that are "blasphemous" can be construed to be threatening, and anything of that sort can be construed to be an intention to "stir up religious hatred"...This is as open-ended as anything in IPC, even if IPC is more verbose in describing..Ditto with the definition of religious hatred as well - as open-ended as anything in IPC, without using as many words...

In India however I can be accused of "creating ill will", "causing disharmony" and inciting hatred" all at once and the court might have no choice but to convict me due to the loose definition of the law.

P.S. I remember Karunanidhi stating that Ram, who the majority community in this country regards as a God did not exist during the Ram setu saga. Can he be prosecuted according to this (or other) laws? Or is he in the clear since no "minority sentiments" were hurt?

Anti Brahmin sentiments by marxists and class warefare can also be put under the this law and they can be booked.

[somnath]

You don't seem to getting it, do you? The NAC draft, the issue of 'group' definition etc is one issue. What I have been talking about in my last few posts goes way beyond the NAC draft and is questioning the basis of our current laws. A healthy debate on the nature of our hate speech / blasphemy laws is something we as a nation have never had, and now is a good time as any to have this debate. If it makes you feel any better - I am not accusing the INC of anything on the latter front

I was simply responding to your statement on the NAC draft...On the broader issue of "freedom of speech" and "hate speech laws", I said somewhere - the laws arent an issue, its implementation is..upholding the basic spirit of the constittuion, there should not have been any bans on Satanic Verse, or for that matter Lajja - but both happened...Shiv Sena should not have been allowed to get away with the repeated rubbish on Shivaji/James Laine/Mistry - but they have..Its not the presence or absence of legal provisions, but presence or absence of political will that is key...Its got nothing to do with INC/BJP - its a collective abdication of responsbility by the polity - laws are not to be blamed for that, either in their presence or absence...

Your response has given me enough indication of the level of legal acumen you possess. Forget the rest of the drivel - just respond to the simple question whether a case can be made under Indian law to provide legal defence to a person under the same grounds as the sections in the Pakistan blasphemy law. I have already ruled out the sections relating to Ahmadis - that part is NOT similar to Indian law whatsoever

Given your vast legal acumen, I am still awaiting your logic for saying that the IPC is the "same in letter" to the Paki law - I pointed out three major differences on the "letter" - If the allusion is to the general provisions on inciting hatred, ill-harmony etc, then, well by that token the Indian and Paki armies are similar as well! and I am hoping you are not arguing that the "spirit" of the Paki law is the same as that of IPC!

The first BASIC criteria is that there needs to be a threat - without a threat of violence of harm to a group / individual there is no case under this law. The further qualification is that the threat should be based on religious hatred. eg a statement such as 'we will drive all muslims away from britain' would qualify as hate speech

Well, thats not how it reads...To me, it says that anyone using threatening language to promote religious hatred is guilty under that law...Both threatening (which is undefined) language and religious hatred (which is defined) can be as open-ended in interpretation as anything in IPC...As I keep saying, it is not the law, but its implementation that is key...ACtually, it wont be surprising if the principles are similar - IPC is a British era statute!

I see that you have not answered the simple yes / no question I had asked

Well I retain my "hindu scepticism" about having black-and-white views on complex questions...Some people (and cetain organisations) love it in easy monochromes - usually easier on the thought process ...

Have no idea WTF you are trying to say out here !

???Responding to your point on whether threats to MF Hussain was justified under "hindu" tenets...Of course not, it was the sangh parivar types - and they certainly dont represent "hindus", or hindu religion, not in the least...

P.S. I remember Karunanidhi stating that Ram, who the majority community in this country regards as a God did not exist during the Ram setu saga. Can he be prosecuted according to this (or other) laws? Or is he in the clear since no "minority sentiments" were hurt

Well, you have answered the question yourself! Karunanidhi didnt face any legal action for that comment, which he indeed made..So if the interpretation of the English law is what you say, the IPC too has been interpreted in the same way by precedence! On the olther hand, the same definition can be interpreted equally loosely in UK to construe that a blasphemous comment on the Prophet is "threatening" to the muslim community...As I keep saying, implementation of the law is key, not presence/absence of statutes...

[Anindya]

From http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110529/j ... 042619.jsp

Bhubaneswar, May 28: The Maoists struck in Nuapada, Orissa’s hunger bowl-turned-emerging Red bastion, killing two alleged police informers in the wee hours today, four days after massacre of nine Chhattisgarh policemen.

While Paras Majhi of Kalmi Dadar village was shot dead by the rebels at point blank range, Nageswar Majhi of Koten was clubbed to death. Sources said both had been kidnapped a few days ago, but their families had refrained from lodging a complaint for the fear of reprisal. “When the bodies were found their worst fears were confirmed. The families are in a state of panic,” sources said.

and from http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/fathe ... nts-108724

Srinagar: Militants shot dead a man and his son in north Kashmir's Kupwara district, officials said on Saturday. Heavily-armed militants barged into the house of Ghulam Rasool Mir at Bawan-Rajwar in Handwara area of Kupwara, 100 kms from Kupwara, last night and fired indiscriminately on the inmates, they said.

Mir and his son Manzoor Ahmad were killed on the spot.

Preliminary investigations have found that the Mirs were targeted on the suspicion of being informers of security forces as a militant had been killed in a encounter inside their house in 2009, they said.

[abhishek_sharma]

Dump NAC’s communal bill

[somnath]

Dump NAC’s communal bill

Sudheendra Kulkarni is usually very good with his analysis and he spot on here as well..This new bil reeks of typical tokenism, without adding anythign to the capacities of the state in achievign the objectives that even the sponsors of the bill perhaps want..

In the meanwhile, a great interview of SY Qureshi, CEC - he is perhaps the best CEC after Lyngdoh that we have had..

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/at-on ... n/796654/0

The issue of electoral funding is key - I actually quite like the idea of "no cap" that one of the questioners asked, which the CEC didnt approve of...I think thats a good way to start..LEt candidates officially spend as mucha s they want -but through publicly recognised mediums, tracked to the last paisa - both fund raising and spending..Soenmthing like in the US..

[Arjun]

Given your vast legal acumen, I am still awaiting your logic for saying that the IPC is the "same in letter" to the Paki law - I pointed out three major differences on the "letter" - If the allusion is to the general provisions on inciting hatred, ill-harmony etc, then, well by that token the Indian and Paki armies are similar as well! and I am hoping you are not arguing that the "spirit" of the Paki law is the same as that of IPC!

Somnath, if you know anything about legal matters you would know that the relevant question to ask is not whether the two laws are similar in 'letter' or 'spirit' , but simply whether a party can file a case under Indian law for the same grievance that he/she is seeking to redress under the Pakistani blasphemy law. Please start with the right question, so you at least have a chance of getting to the right answer.

Well, thats not how it reads...To me, it says that anyone using threatening language to promote religious hatred is guilty under that law...Both threatening (which is undefined) language and religious hatred (which is defined) can be as open-ended in interpretation as anything in IPC...As I keep saying, it is not the law, but its implementation that is key...ACtually, it wont be surprising if the principles are similar - IPC is a British era statute!

If you know anything at all about UK law you would know that they take any infringement on freedom of expression very, very seriously - perhaps less so than US law, but this extensive regard for freedom of expression is definitely not mirrored in IPC.

Section 29J of the document you provided reads as follows:

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

This kind of exception is not to be found anywhere in Indian law.

Well I retain my "hindu scepticism" about having black-and-white views on complex questions...Some people (and cetain organisations) love it in easy monochromes - usually easier on the thought process

You can try and convince yourself that this is 'hindu scepticism' on your part - I would attribute this more to an inability to think logically and derive the right conclusions.

???Responding to your point on whether threats to MF Hussain was justified under "hindu" tenets...Of course not, it was the sangh parivar types - and they certainly dont represent "hindus", or hindu religion, not in the least...

If Sangh Parivar types expressed dissent without any threat of harming Hussain that is a fine example of exactly how one should protest in a liberal democracy. If there were some loonies (maybe Shiv Sena types) who threatened harm to Hussain - they WERE being illliberal. But even so, I come back to my fundamental question - was ever Hindu scriptures used as a justification for any threatening act to Hussain? Taliban types and Islamists are very open that it is Islamic scriptures that call upon them to wage jihad. Similarly, many Christian preachers are very open that the the Bible lays down that all Gods other than the Christian God are false. Both these religions fall back on their scriptural doctrines to justify their illiberality.

[Pranav]

Excellent article by Swapan Dasgupta - deserves to be posted in full:


NAC’s Bill would land Dikshit in jail
May 29, 2011 11:40:37 AM

Swapan Dasgupta

Amid the annual madness over college admissions, Delhi is witnessing a sideshow in St Stephen’s College, which its Principal has described as a “national treasure”. It seems that Sandeep Dikshit, a Delhi MP and son of Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit, was dropped as the alumni representative on the college’s governing body. The college authorities say that Dikshit hadn’t attended a single meeting since 2009 and Dikshit has retorted that St Stephen’s has lost the plot and functions like a “communal institution”. In reply, Principal Valson Thampu has charged Dikshit of failing to distinguish between communalism and “minority rights”.

Despite the headline-grabbing potential of anything to do with St Stephen’s, this controversy is somewhat stale, and unless someone says something rash, is certain to peter out in the coming week. However, my reason for invoking this minor skirmish is different.

If the Communal Violence Bill as drafted by the National Advisory Council is passed by Parliament, it is entirely possible that the Congress MP for East Delhi could well be confronted with a non-bailable warrant on the charge of creating a “hostile” and “offensive environment” against a minority institution [clause 3 (f) (5)]. A member of a minority group could walk up to any police station and submit that Dikshit’s expression of disgust with St Stephen’s had contributed to his “mental” and “psychological” harm [clause 3 (j)]. He would claim that Dikshit’s outburst “could reasonably be construed to demonstrate an intention to promote or incite hatred” against the Christian minority [clause 8]. Since the proposed legislation stipulates that “Every Police Officer shall take action, to the best of his or her ability, to prevent the commission of all offences under this Act” [clause 18 (2)], the relevant thana will have to register a case under the new legislation.

Nor can the politician in Dikshit brush off the case as yet another occupational irritant whose handling is left to a lawyer and forgotten. The Bill is explicit that “unless otherwise specified, all offences under this Act shall be cognisable and non-bailable” [clause 58].

More insidiously, the proposed legislation has an intriguing clause: “Where any question arises whether an offence committed against a member of a group was committed against him or her by virtue of his or her membership of a group, it shall be so inferred that it was so directed from the nature and circumstances of the act” [clause 73]. In plain English, this means that there is a presumption of guilt of the accused. As far as the Bill is concerned, the principle of innocent until proven guilty has been turned on its head.

Cooling his heels in custody, the MP may wish to send someone to impress upon the complainant that he meant no harm to the “secular fabric” of the country. Unfortunately for him, the Bill is categorical that the “National Authority shall take appropriate action to protect the identity of the victim or informant at all times” [clause 40]. In short, the man charged with spreading communal hate won’t even know which lunatic has made the complaint against him, and for what collateral reason.

In case, the police officer decides that the case against Dikshit is frivolous and completely spurious, that will not be the end of the story. The anonymous informant who has to be constantly updated on the progress of the inquiries [clause 69 (1)] will have the automatic right to appeal to a seven-member National Authority [clause 70 (1)].

The National Authority appointed by the Centre is not made up of seven sober and dispassionate judges. Of the seven, four must be members of a minority group or SC/ST and four must be women [clause 21(3)]. Apart from a knowledge of law, they must “have a record of promoting communal harmony” and shouldn’t have been a member of a political party in the year preceding their appointment [clause 23 (1)]. Additionally, they shouldn’t “have exhibited bias against any group, by acts or in writing or otherwise” [clause 23 (2)]. It is unlikely such an authority will be unbiased.

For India, such a National Authority, blessed with draconian powers, including the right to enter properties, carry out searches [clause 33 (4)] and even control media content [clause 8 and 67(1)] may remind people of the infamous Rowlatt Act. But there is an added twist: This is the first time a statutory and quasi-judicial authority will be appointed on the basis of a communal quota. And this body will also monitor and review transfers and postings of the civil administration in districts that have a record of communal tension or where communal disturbances could flare up [clause 32(2)].

India will thus make its debut in coupling activist jurisprudence with communal jurisprudence. With a State Authority mirroring the National Authority and replenished by ‘Human Rights Defenders for Justice and Reparations’ in each district [clause 56 (1)] it will now be jobs for all the activists and their friends, relatives and lovers.

India will witness a parallel Government committed to the principle that some Indians are more equal than others. It will open the floodgates for settling private scores and political vendetta. The dangers of outsourcing law-making to the self-professed army of the virtuous couldn’t have been better illustrated.

Sandeep Dikshit is lucky he said what he did in the twilight days of sanity.

http://www.dailypioneer.com/341967/NAC% ... -jail.html

[somnath]

Somnath, if you know anything about legal matters you would know that the relevant question to ask is not whether the two laws are similar in 'letter' or 'spirit' , but simply whether a party can file a case under Indian law for the same grievance that he/she is seeking to redress under the Pakistani blasphemy law. Please start with the right question, so you at least have a chance of getting to the right answer

That is a really bizarre interpretation, now this really defies common sense..By that logic, there are laws on indecent exposure in many countries - Australia to Saudi Arabia, and some scenarios where redressal is sought for could be similar between Australia and Saudi Arabia..Are we to conclude therefore that indecency laws are same "in letter" (your words, vis a vis Indian and Paki laws) in the two countries?!
And "letter and spirit" are not the relevant issues while comparing laws?!!!! Lawyers obsess over the letter of the law, and virtually kill themselves (ok, never themselves, but everyone else) over its various spirits - they see nothing else! Have you ever dealt with cross-border/multi-country legal issues? I do it all the time (albeit in a very narrow sense of just financial market laws) - letter and above all spirit are the only variables that matter in interpreting and comparing regs....

If you know anything at all about UK law you would know that they take any infringement on freedom of expression very, very seriously - perhaps less so than US law, but this extensive regard for freedom of expression is definitely not mirrored in IPC.

Section 29J of the document you provided reads as follows

The Indian constitution g'tees freedom of expression as a fundamental right...Not sure why a fundamental right has to be reiterated in every law that is entered in the statute...(UK btw doesnt have a written constittuion)..

the point that you can make justifiably about India is about our adherence to principles of "freedom of expression"....I said before, it is a story of populist (or rather, "mobbist") copouts....Whether Taslima Nasreen, Rushdie, MF hussain, James Laine, Rohington Mistry, Danish cartoons - the polity has surrendered to the mob...It has nothing to do with laws, or their absence...James Laine's book on Shivaji could be construed as a work of history by some and a malicious agenda by some others...Whether under Indian law or English, or Irish - both interpretations can be taken by the court...Unfortnately, in India, the govt gets cowed down easily by the mob and takes the easiest route out...Its not a reflection on our laws, its a reflection on the polity...Funny ting is - Hussain, Nasreen, Laine, Rushdie - none of them have ever been convicted of anything that the mob has accused them of (and there have been cases/complaints filed against all of them)...Ergo, the issue isnt with the law, letter or spirit, its with the polity..

You can try and convince yourself that this is 'hindu scepticism' on your part - I would attribute this more to an inability to think logically and derive the right conclusions

"Logical" thinking on complex issues cannot be a result of newspaper and blog reading - whether comparative religion or fiscal deficit...As I have no experience/learning of the former, I tend to not jump to monochromatic conclusions...given that you are so sure, I initially thought you are referrign to classical liberalism, since you were not, I asked for a reference on how (it wasnt sarcastic)...

If Sangh Parivar types expressed dissent without any threat of harming Hussain that is a fine example of exactly how one should protest in a liberal democracy. If there were some loonies (maybe Shiv Sena types) who threatened harm to Hussain - they WERE being illliberal. But even so, I come back to my fundamental question - was ever Hindu scriptures used as a justification for any threatening act to Hussain? Taliban types and Islamists are very open that it is Islamic scriptures that call upon them to wage jihad

Threats and a lot more were used against Hussain, not all of which came out in the media...By all hues of the so-called sangh parivar...And using scriptures as justification?! These chaps do it all the time - loonies on all sides find it easy to wrap their violence in religious/social mumbo-jumbo...why just Hussain, most of their "pet projects", cow, Mandir-Masjid, et al - have a religious background of some sort..

[Pranav]

Excellent article by Swapan Dasgupta - deserves to be posted in full:

It is becoming clear that the provisions are so draconian, that it will make Comrade Stalin look like a boy scout.

[somnath]

Swapan Dasgupta makes some very valid points, interspaced with some obvious chestnuts, or maybe red herrings!

He would claim that Dikshit’s outburst “could reasonably be construed to demonstrate an intention to promote or incite hatred” against the Christian minority [clause 8].

This is partially correct..What SD doesnt mention is that the same could be done under IPC 153A as well - in fact sec 8 references 153A as the prosecuting act in the draft...

Since the proposed legislation stipulates that “Every Police Officer shall take action, to the best of his or her ability, to prevent the commission of all offences under this Act” [clause 18 (2)], the relevant thana will have to register a case under the new legislation.
Nor can the politician in Dikshit brush off the case as yet another occupational irritant whose handling is left to a lawyer and forgotten. The Bill is explicit that “unless otherwise specified, all offences under this Act shall be cognisable and non-bailable

Here, he is being completely disengenouos..Warrants, non-baliable or not, cannot be issued by the police..Only a Court can issue warrants..And "cognisable"!!! Is he serious? All offences under IPC are cognisable, many are non-bailable...If stray remarks against people/institutions/govt were to be a touchstone, then all opposition (and govt) politicians would be confronting NBWs today...

“Where any question arises whether an offence committed against a member of a group was committed against him or her by virtue of his or her membership of a group, it shall be so inferred that it was so directed from the nature and circumstances of the act” [clause 73]. In plain English, this means that there is a presumption of guilt of the accused. As far as the Bill is concerned, the principle of innocent until proven guilty has been turned on its head

This is the ultimate one - repeated here as well earlier...What it means in plain English is "presumption of offence", not "presumption of guilt"...So in a communal riot situation, if a hindu kills a muslim, it would be prsumefd that the ofence is because of the provisions defined in this bill rather than any other motivations under Sec 302..

This is the first time a statutory and quasi-judicial authority will be appointed on the basis of a communal quota. And this body will also monitor and review transfers and postings of the civil administration in districts that have a record of communal tension or where communal disturbances could flare up [clause 32(2)].

SD is competely right here - the communal quota in the commission is as eggegious as the definition of the "group"..

While SD's concern for Sandeep diskhit in light of this law is misplaced, the bill in its current form needs changes..

[Arjun]

Obfuscation and more obfuscation from the resident Manish Tiwari.

Will sign off from this discussion. Here are the points I have raised, and whenever you develop an ability to think logically or address the very specific questions in there do let me know.

1. Can a party file a case under Indian law for the same grievance that he/she is seeking to redress under the Pakistani blasphemy law (not counting the provisions relating to Ahmadis) and have some chance of winning the case? Given the loose definition of what constitutes hate speech or 'generation of communal disharmony' in India, the answer seems to be yes. If anybody has a legal answer to this very pointed question and can present legal facts - would be glad to hear from them.

2. UK law has 400% more specificity with regard to definition of hate speech than anything in IPC. There is absolutely no similarity here. In particular abusive or insulting language regarding a religion is completely legal under UK law, as long as it is not threatening - but this is not the case under IPC.

3. There have been enough and more loonies from the Hindu side, as from other religions, who have committed all kinds of acts ranging from rioting to murder to threatening violence. Are there any specific examples where the perpetrators have claimed to be driven in their deeds by Hindu scriptures ? We all know the examples from Islamic and Christian side - just want specific quotes from Hindu side.

Thanks

[somnath]

Obfuscation and more obfuscation from the resident Manish Tiwari.

Will sign off from this discussion. Here are the points I have raised, and whenever you develop an ability to think logically or address the very specific questions in there do let me know.

You cant move beyong personal commentary, isnt it? Well, my last two pence - whenever you move beyond blogs and newspaper for your "logical" thoughts, we can discuss..And of course, when you understand the importance of "letter and spirits" of law! (at least you wont make statements like they are similar in "letter")

[chetak]

Swapan Dasgupta makes some very valid points, interspaced with some obvious chestnuts, or maybe red herrings!

He would claim that Dikshit’s outburst “could reasonably be construed to demonstrate an intention to promote or incite hatred” against the Christian minority [clause 8].

This is partially correct..What SD doesnt mention is that the same could be done under IPC 153A as well - in fact sec 8 references 153A as the prosecuting act in the draft...

Since the proposed legislation stipulates that “Every Police Officer shall take action, to the best of his or her ability, to prevent the commission of all offences under this Act” [clause 18 (2)], the relevant thana will have to register a case under the new legislation.
Nor can the politician in Dikshit brush off the case as yet another occupational irritant whose handling is left to a lawyer and forgotten. The Bill is explicit that “unless otherwise specified, all offences under this Act shall be cognisable and non-bailable

Here, he is being completely disengenouos..Warrants, non-baliable or not, cannot be issued by the police..Only a Court can issue warrants..And "cognisable"!!! Is he serious? All offences under IPC are cognisable, many are non-bailable...If stray remarks against people/institutions/govt were to be a touchstone, then all opposition (and govt) politicians would be confronting NBWs today...

“Where any question arises whether an offence committed against a member of a group was committed against him or her by virtue of his or her membership of a group, it shall be so inferred that it was so directed from the nature and circumstances of the act” [clause 73]. In plain English, this means that there is a presumption of guilt of the accused. As far as the Bill is concerned, the principle of innocent until proven guilty has been turned on its head

This is the ultimate one - repeated here as well earlier...What it means in plain English is "presumption of offence", not "presumption of guilt"...So in a communal riot situation, if a hindu kills a muslim, it would be prsumefd that the ofence is because of the provisions defined in this bill rather than any other motivations under Sec 302..

This is the first time a statutory and quasi-judicial authority will be appointed on the basis of a communal quota. And this body will also monitor and review transfers and postings of the civil administration in districts that have a record of communal tension or where communal disturbances could flare up [clause 32(2)].

SD is competely right here - the communal quota in the commission is as eggegious as the definition of the "group"..

While SD's concern for Sandeep diskhit in light of this law is misplaced, the bill in its current form needs changes..

Are there any inputs on who the eminence grise is who piloted this slick effort through the NAC and beyond??

This would make clear and reveal the motivation as well as the direction from which the attack is being mounted.

[Sachin]

This is the ultimate one - repeated here as well earlier...What it means in plain English is "presumption of offence", not "presumption of guilt"...So in a communal riot situation, if a hindu kills a muslim, it would be prsumefd that the ofence is because of the provisions defined in this bill rather than any other motivations under Sec 302..

I did not have the luxury of time to go through all the posts. A quick question I have is, if a Muslim kills a Hindu in a communal riot situation, will the proposed Act and its legal provisions still hold good? Or is it one way traffic? Next, who decides the charge of Sec 302 IPC applies or some charge under the new proposed Act applies? During a communal riot, a simple murder (a Hindu kills a Muslim for pure material/monetary gain, or vice versa) can still happen? Who takes the call?

EDIT: If we get more posts on the subject of the new law being planned to deal with communal riots, can we start a new thread to discuss the same? Some thing like the Ayodhya verdict thread? And this thread could be used to discuss existing Internal Security issues, dealt using the existing laws.

[Pranav]

This is partially correct..What SD doesnt mention is that the same could be done under IPC 153A as well - in fact sec 8 references 153A as the prosecuting act in the draft...

No, 153A is about enmity between groups, this law is about minority individuals and institutions who may have been subjected to "hate" or to a “hostile” and “offensive environment”. Big difference.

Since the proposed legislation stipulates that “Every Police Officer shall take action, to the best of his or her ability, to prevent the commission of all offences under this Act” [clause 18 (2)], the relevant thana will have to register a case under the new legislation.
Nor can the politician in Dikshit brush off the case as yet another occupational irritant whose handling is left to a lawyer and forgotten. The Bill is explicit that “unless otherwise specified, all offences under this Act shall be cognisable and non-bailable

Here, he is being completely disengenouos..Warrants, non-baliable or not, cannot be issued by the police..Only a Court can issue warrants..And "cognisable"!!! Is he serious? All offences under IPC are cognisable, many are non-bailable...If stray remarks against people/institutions/govt were to be a touchstone, then all opposition (and govt) politicians would be confronting NBWs today...

If police register a case for a non-bailable offense, it follows that the victim of the allegation must be jailed, no?

“Where any question arises whether an offence committed against a member of a group was committed against him or her by virtue of his or her membership of a group, it shall be so inferred that it was so directed from the nature and circumstances of the act” [clause 73]. In plain English, this means that there is a presumption of guilt of the accused. As far as the Bill is concerned, the principle of innocent until proven guilty has been turned on its head

This is the ultimate one - repeated here as well earlier...What it means in plain English is "presumption of offence", not "presumption of guilt"...So in a communal riot situation, if a hindu kills a muslim, it would be prsumefd that the ofence is because of the provisions defined in this bill rather than any other motivations under Sec 302..

As was pointed out earlier, there is no requirement that there be a communal riot situation. The presumption is that any "propaganda" against a minority individual or institution is a "hate crime".

[Pranav]

Are there any inputs on who the eminence grise is who piloted this slick effort through the NAC and beyond??

This would make clear and reveal the motivation as well as the direction from which the attack is being mounted.

Sure, see this post from this thread: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 6#p1098536

[Pranav]

This is the ultimate one - repeated here as well earlier...What it means in plain English is "presumption of offence", not "presumption of guilt"...So in a communal riot situation, if a hindu kills a muslim, it would be prsumefd that the ofence is because of the provisions defined in this bill rather than any other motivations under Sec 302..

I did not have the luxury of time to go through all the posts. A quick question I have is, if a Muslim kills a Hindu in a communal riot situation, will the proposed Act and its legal provisions still hold good? Or is it one way traffic? Next, who decides the charge of Sec 302 IPC applies or some charge under the new proposed Act applies? During a communal riot, a simple murder (a Hindu kills a Muslim for pure material/monetary gain, or vice versa) can still happen? Who takes the call?

EDIT: If we get more posts on the subject of the new law being planned to deal with communal riots, can we start a new thread to discuss the same? Some thing like the Ayodhya verdict thread? And this thread could be used to discuss existing Internal Security issues, dealt using the existing laws.

The traffic is only one way. A crime against is presumed to be a "hate crime" if the supposed victim is a minority individual or institution (under clause 74).

Yes, a new thread would be good. Posts from this thread and also a few from the Indian interests thread should be put into the new thread.

[chetak]

Are there any inputs on who the eminence grise is who piloted this slick effort through the NAC and beyond??

This would make clear and reveal the motivation as well as the direction from which the attack is being mounted.

Sure, see this post from this thread: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 6#p1098536

Sorry, missed that.

Many Thanks

[Arjun]

Here's an interesting summary of events relating to the UK hate speech regulation: Incitement to Religious Hatred. Comprehensively disproves Sommath's hypothesis that the Indian IPC code on the same subject and the UK law are broadly similar...

The sequence is that the British government had originally used the words 'threatening', 'abusive' and' insulting' as the required qualifiers in order for speech to be deemed as hate speech. Subsequently the words 'abusive' and 'insulting' were dropped - and only 'threatening' was retained. So any speech HAD to be threatening a group or individual on account of his religious status - in order to qualify as religious hate speech. In fact, the amendment went so far as to explicitly add a clause that states that abusive, ridiculing and insulting language about a religion or its adherents is completely kosher - and will NOT attract the provisions of this law.

And here is where it gets more interesting. This modification was agreed to based on widespread resistance and lobbying from a single source - the Christian churches who did not want their right to proselytization challenged. As this article makes clear, if the word 'insulting' in the definition had been retained - it would have been easy for non -Christians to make the claim in court that they were insulted by Christian preachers who insisted that the only way to God is through His Son, Jesus Christ.

So what is the situation in India now? India has the worst of both worlds. If India's regulation were similar to the modified UK law and only threatening language was disallowed - at the least open criticism of doctrinal dogma would be allowable in India. Now, India has not done that and 'insulting' language wrt religion is disallowed - However, has anybody filed a case against Christian and Muslim preachers who claim that their way to God is the only ONE ? No, and it is possible Indian courts might not take cognizance of Christian and Islamic preaching as an offence. Net, net - the worst of worlds yet again for India !!

[Arjun]

Regarding blasphemy, Section 295 A of IPC is known as India's own blasphemy law...When the Statesman of Calcutta published Johann Hari's article critical of Prophet Mohammed - there were riots in Cacutta in response. The editor & publisher were arrested based on a case filed under this act by the Muslim community.

[somnath]

No, 153A is about enmity between groups, this law is about minority individuals and institutions who may have been subjected to "hate" or to a “hostile” and “offensive environment”. Big difference

"Groups" are not anonymous collectives..For all practical purposes, an attempt to threaten or create hatred against a particular community is as prosecutable under 153A..But I am not a lawyer, hence wont know the minutiae (which is why I said that SD is partially right, my understanding) - it would be interesting to get a professional's perspcetive...

If police register a case for a non-bailable offense, it follows that the victim of the allegation must be jailed, no?

Police does not need to register a case in order to arrest..On the other hand, registration of a case is not a necessary condition for arrest either, AFAIK...Arrest is a "privilege" that is anyway with the police in India, for 48 hours without any court proceeedings...the issue of bailability is w.r.t the court - most (if not all) IPC offences are non-bailable...

As was pointed out earlier, there is no requirement that there be a communal riot situation. The presumption is that any "propaganda" against a minority individual or institution is a "hate crime

Not saying that..Its about the point of "presumptive guilt" that is being peddled, whcih is plain wrong..What this bill states is that a "hate crime" will be tried under this new law, even if the crime can be otherwise charged under existing laws...So its a question of "presumptive offence", not guilt...

Here's an interesting summary of events relating to the UK hate speech regulation: Incitement to Religious Hatred. Comprehensively disproves Sommath's hypothesis that the Indian IPC code on the same subject and the UK law are broadly similar...

It is a good find...It does mean that the UK law went through a tighter deliberative process...However, that still doesnt mean that the Indian law becomes similar "in letter" to the Paki blasphemy law..Nor does it mean that other countries do not have similar semantics..

From the Irish law posted earlier..

2.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person—

(a) to publish or distribute written material,

(b) to use words, behave or display written material—

(i) in any place other than inside a private residence, or

(ii) inside a private residence so that the words, behaviour or material are heard or seen by persons outside the residence,

or

(c) to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds,
if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred

Australia's federal Racial Hatred Act..
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2004A04951

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
"18C.(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in
private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend,
insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people

I am sure somehow sections of the Aussie and Irish laws too would have similarities with the Paki law!

Unfortunately, what gets lost in the din of rhetoric is the substantive point..Which is of the political will of the state...In India, that is what has been lacking, not a law, or absence of it...Hence, we have selective interpretations and actions depending on expediencies...

[Pranav]

The sequence is that the British government had originally used the words 'threatening', 'abusive' and' insulting' as the required qualifiers in order for speech to be deemed as hate speech. Subsequently the words 'abusive' and 'insulting' were dropped - and only 'threatening' was retained. So any speech HAD to be threatening a group or individual on account of his religious status - in order to qualify as religious hate speech. In fact, the amendment went so far as to explicitly add a clause that states that abusive, ridiculing and insulting language about a religion or its adherents is completely kosher - and will NOT attract the provisions of this law.

I think this law might be a good opportunity to insert similar clauses in India, explicitly saying that abuse, criticism and ridicule of historical and religious figures is not a violation. Also, interpretation and discussion of historical events, and criticism of conduct of minority individuals and institutions should be explicitly allowed, unless it violates existing defamation laws.

1. Can a party file a case under Indian law for the same grievance that he/she is seeking to redress under the Pakistani blasphemy law (not counting the provisions relating to Ahmadis) and have some chance of winning the case? Given the loose definition of what constitutes hate speech or 'generation of communal disharmony' in India, the answer seems to be yes. If anybody has a legal answer to this very pointed question and can present legal facts - would be glad to hear from them.

A very valid question which Somnath chose not to answer. Despite all our pretensions, we're not that much better than the Packees when it comes to anti-blasphemy laws.