Church misuses Blasphemy-law

An Interview with Sanal Edamaruku – Relevant parts 

sanalSanal Edamaruku is a world-renowned author and rationalist currently facing a maximum sentence of three years in prison plus fines for criticizing the Catholic Church. As president of the Indian Rationalist Association, he is a fixture on Indian television where he provides a skeptical view about alleged miracles and paranormal claims. In 2012 Edamaruku investigated what was being called a miracle: a crucifix dripping water at Our Lady of Velankanni Church in Mumbai. He quickly discovered the dripping was actually caused by water seeping through the wall onto the crucifix. Edamaruku reported his results on TV-9 and criticized the Catholic Church for “creating” the so-called miracle and being “anti-science.” In response, the church demanded an apology and its supporters filed official complaints against Edamaruku. He was charged with violating 295(a) of the Indian Penal Code, also known as the “blasphemy law,” which prohibits “deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.” His lawyers are arguing that the law infringes on free speech and are requesting the courts declare the law unconstitutional. Meanwhile, he was refused bail and fled to Europe. In this interview he speaks about his work, his family, the criminal charges, and the dangers of the “blasphemy law.”


The Humanist: Turning to your own activities, one of the things you do is visit rural regions and encourage skepticism for the gurus, “miracle workers,” and spiritual leaders collectively known as godmen in India. Have you been successful in teaching critical thinking?

Edamaruku: Our village campaigns are very successful. One of the techniques we’ve developed to break the spell of superstition is what we call Rationalist Reality Theatre. We create an illusion of a godman’s supernatural powers at work, then we take the audience by surprise by exposing the tricks behind the “miracles.” Many feel spontaneously relieved and laugh before they notice there’s a problem: their sudden realization of the absence of supernatural forces is contradicting their ironclad, fear-burdened beliefs. But with some encouragement, it can be made fruitful and open their minds, enabling them to start questioning the “unquestionable.” Of course, there are people who are too fearful to leave their mental prisons. One has to consider that there are many forces on the other side working actively and relentlessly against reason.

Generally, though, once triggered, critical thinking multiplies. This is especially true for television viewers from all walks of life who simultaneously experience a flash of reason in their homes. Some years back it was reported that after one of my TV appearances, an early morning bus in Mumbai had to stop because the driver got afraid when more than one hundred passengers indulged in a passionate discussion about the previous night’s program, on which a Hindu tantric had tried to kill me with mantras.

The Humanist: What exactly happened on the show?

Edamaruku: The program started with a superstitious politician claiming that her political enemies were using tantric powers to inflict harm on her. TV tantric Pandit Surinder Sharma, who was my opponent in the discussion, used the opportunity to boast that with his alleged powers he could kill any person within three minutes just by chanting special mantras. I spontaneously offered myself as a test subject, and Sharma agreed hesitantly. Nothing happened after three minutes. On the tantric’s demand, the show was continued into the night under the open sky, where he performed his great destruction ritual against me. Not only did he chant mantras, he opened his bag of special tricks to make me lose my balance, which included brandishing a knife in front of my face. After hours the anchor officially declared Sharma a failure. He looked depressed, but still insisted that I was to die the next day or at least within a week. I think he must have been used to people fainting in fear when he chanted his mantras and was really thrown by what was happening; to some degree, he must have believed he had special powers.

The Humanist: Have you ever heard a guru admit he was wrong or that he or she may not have special powers?

Edamaruku: No, and it’s unlikely to ever happen; it would be personal, social, and professional suicide. After all, what is the future of a holy man who admits he’s not holy? There are thousands of holy men and women in India who are, on one hand, clever professionals who know they’re betraying the gullible; on the other hand, some are psychopaths to a certain degree who believe their own claims. This mixture seems to be the secret of the trade. What can we do with these people? I don’t have much hope in educating them. But we have to discourage young people from following in their footsteps.

The Humanist: You’ve been charged for blasphemy under Section 295(a) of the Indian Penal Code, which makes it illegal to “outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.” Can you talk about the origins of this law?

Edamaruku: Indian blasphemy laws are relics of colonial legislation and have a long history of abuse. In the decades since independence, they’ve been regularly used to hound and silence intellectuals and artists who question religious beliefs. What’s dangerous is that anybody can easily launch a complaint against whomever he wants for violating his religious feelings. And on the basis of such a complaint, the police can arrest and hold the suspect until he’s acquitted by a court of law, which can take years. So the real danger isn’t so much the verdict as the pre-trial “punishment.”

The Humanist: Has anyone been successfully found guilty under 295(a) since independence?

Edamaruku: Yes, there have been many convictions. Take the famous case against E.V. Ramaswami Naicker, a rationalist leader and politician from Tamil Nadu. After being acquitted by the lower courts, he was finally convicted by the Supreme Court because he broke a clay idol of Ganesh (a Hindu god) in 1958. There are recent cases as well, and many books have been banned for blasphemy, most famously Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses.

The Humanist: In March 2012 you investigated a crucifix that was dripping at Our Lady of Velankanni church in Mumbai, and you identified the source of the drip as resulting from a clogged drain. Did the church dispute that this was the source of the water?

Edamaruku: They angrily refuted the facts without being ready to have a closer look. On the controversial TV program, Catholic leaders even disputed the scientific validity of capillary action. In the face of our documentation, they later found it prudent to modify their position, ignoring the facts and customizing it as a political weapon.

The Humanist: Has the Vatican in Rome made any statements about this?

Edamaruku: The Vatican keeps mum even though more than 10,000 signatories to a London-based human rights petition—some of them prominent personalities—have demanded a clarification from the Vatican as well as from the Catholic Church of India. However, the auxiliary bishop of Mumbai made official statements in the press saying that he publicly “rejoiced” and praised the “courageous” Catholic laity leaders who had filed police complaints against me.

The Humanist: Why did the police raid your home in early July? Was this expected?

Edamaruku: Starting in April, I received regular phone calls at night from one officer at a Mumbai police station who pressed me to come to Mumbai to face arrest. He refused to give details about the case against me. Strangely, I had never received any written notice, so I had no chance to file an answer. According to the police officer, there was no need for any answer, as he had orders to arrest me under any circumstances. Frankly, I didn’t take those calls very seriously. It was only when the pressure increased and media people confirmed that they’d seen the charge sheet that I engaged my lawyer. Still we didn’t really expect that I could be arrested. It seemed too absurd.

The Humanist: What’s the current status of the case?

Edamaruku: The trial has yet to begin, and the Delhi and Mumbai high courts have refused on technical grounds to grant me anticipatory bail. I’ve  received no invitation to give my statement. Of course, in this case all the proof is public. The “corpus delicti” is the TV program posted on YouTube. When the trial opens, we wish to see the representatives of the Indian Bishops’ Conference in the witness box. It may become an interesting historic event.

The Humanist: Law enforcement in India has come under scrutiny recently following the gang rape and death of a young student on a Delhi bus. The police were criticized for their slow response and inadequate investigation, and there have been calls for reform. Meanwhile, Delhi police have used government resources to investigate you, press charges, and have made multiple visits to your home. Given your own experience with the police and courts in India, do you think law enforcement needs to be reformed?

Edamaruku: There is an urgent need to reform the police functioning and law enforcement in India. When there is pressure from politically or religiously powerful interests, police action is unusually hasty and senseless. In my case, the police collaborated with the fanatics and religious zealots to investigate and harass me for exposing a homemade miracle, for telling some well-known historical facts, and for using my faculties of critical inquiry.

Unbridled power given to police to enforce the Indian blasphemy law is unsuitable for a country that respects human rights. Proper monitoring of police functioning and control by a wiser body in cases like this are necessary. At the same time, it’s sad when police are inactive in countering real crimes and violations of human rights in India, as happened in the recent notorious cases.

The Humanist: Should the government have any role in protecting religion in India, which has suffered from religious conflicts throughout its history?

Edamaruku: The government has the duty to protect religious and nonreligious citizens, but not religion. Religion is a private matter.

History shows that most people in India are ready to tolerate others’ religions, to live and work peacefully together. But religious conflicts have always been created to play politics, and there’s no strong political will to end this old game as politicians of all parties prefer to reap its fruits. In short, the blasphemy law encourages abuse. It even offers a legal cover for crimes against the Constitution of India, Section 51A of which states “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India …(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.” Our aim at the Indian Rationalist Association is to encourage and support people to fulfill this very duty, and it’s exactly what I did in Mumbai.

For the full Interview – visit…/blasphemy-free-speech-and-rationa…/

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. almayasabdam says:

    It is sheer arrogance on the part of the bishops of Mumbai to persecute a man for telling the truth. Who are they to decide what is blasphemy and what not? The idolatry they support by word and deed is indeed blasphemy to any rational mind and it is they who ought to be punished by expulsion from the church which forbids idolatry and untruth. What they do and make the Government machinery to do against those who stand for truth is totally unchristian and inhuman.
    Such idiots and terrorist leaders are everywhere and it is the common man who ought to fight against them and stand by truth as Mr. Sanal Idamaruku has done. The situation has already become unbearable in many countries especially in the Islamic regions. The world is not civilized at all. And if we don’t keep watch, it is going to end up in an irreligious explosion. Zacharias Nedunkanal

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.