Opinion It’s a shame

The hounding of Shirin Dalvi, editor of the now-defunct Urdu newspaper, Avadhanama, for illustrating a report on the Charlie Hebdo controversy with a title cover from the magazine, must end. A day after the newspaper printed the visual, Dalvi had issued a clarification and published a frontpage apology, pleading it was a mistake and the newspaper had not meant to be disrespectful to Muslims. She also wrote an editorial upbraiding the French magazine for provoking Muslims, even as she advised the latter to respond with perspective and wisdom, not violence. Though a large number of Muslim groups and leaders accepted Dalvi’s apology, there seems to be no closure in sight.

Fringe groups have filed a slew of FIRs in police stations in Mumbra, Malegaon and Mumbai. On Thursday, two vendors who had distributed the controversial issue of the newspaper were arrested, nearly three weeks after the cartoon was published. Dalvi, who has got bail in two cases, has been booked under Section 295(a) of the IPC, which accuses her of “deliberate and malicious acts” aimed at “outraging… religious feelings”. The former editor and her family have been forced to leave home and stay with friends. Though the newspaper owner has sacked all 15 employees, including Dalvi, and shut down the paper, radical Muslim groups accuse her of instigating the controversy for professional advancement and at the behest of the Sangh Parivar.

Advertisement

What is most alarming in this case is that the state seems to be complicit in her harassment — the police resisted giving Dalvi bail, claiming law and order would be affected if she wasn’t behind bars. India’s hate speech laws are stringent and impose more than “reasonable” restrictions on the freedom of expression. The authorities tend to err on the side of caution when complaints invoke charges of blasphemy.

So political and community organisations intolerant of criticism, and even humour, increasingly find the hate speech provisions convenient weapons against dissent. The police should apply provisions like 295(a) only after due diligence, so that they are not turned into instruments of harassment. A bit more scepticism about fringe groups that claim to speak for the community is also in order.