How does chanting Jai Shri Ram come under the category of Offence?
Here I commence by citing specifically Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, commonly acknowledged as the pioneer of Urdu journalism, was a well-known independence warrior. As editor of the Urdu newspaper Zamindar, he wrote extensively in support of the independence movement. He has written one of the finest stanzas on Bhagwan Shri Ram, praising him as the Cultural Icon and pillar of righteousness and truth for humanity.
Fasana Ram Chandra ji ka sab ko yaad hai azbar
Unhone kis tarah buniyaad-e-haq-o-sidq mohkam ki
“We all remember the story of Lord Rama, how he laid the strong foundations of righteousness and truth”
Recently the verdict was given by the High Court of Karnataka in the case against two men from Dakshin Kannad, chanting Jai Shri Ram near Masjid premises has shown a landmark judgement in terms of freedom of expression and speech. In their appeal to the High Court, the defendants in this case had maintained that the case contained no elements. A criminal trespass charge was filed under IPC Section 447. However, the lawyer for the accused contended that since the mosque is a public space, entering its grounds does not constitute criminal trespass but, the government attorney had argued that threats had been made inside the mosque and that “Jai Shri Ram” could not be chanted. In their appeal to the High Court, the defendants in this case had maintained that the case contained no elements. The court ruled that the act of chanting Jai Shri Ram did not constitute an offence under section 295(a), which penalises deliberate insults to religious feelings. The ruling reinforces the protection of speech by indicating that a religious slogan in itself is not automatically provocative or disrespectful.
Indian constitution under article 19(a) gives freedom of expression and speech. Freedom of the press too falls under Article 19(a). In a functioning democracy, all people should be able to engage in the political and social processes in whatever form (spoken, written, or broadcast).
The issue at hand now is how the accusations against Kirtan Kumar and N.M Sachin Kumar of Dakshin Kannada district under sections 447, 295(a), and 506 are applicable. Does chanting Jai Shri Ram in a public place come under a criminal offence?
India is a religiously diverse country with temples, churches, gurudwaras, and masques in close proximity. If one religious institution performs rituals, can it be considered an offence to other religious institutions nearby?
The celebrations of Hindu festivals like Dushara, Deepawali and Holi gave employment to millions of people in India irrespective of their religion. Beyond financial gain, the main contribution of Indian festivals is the social investment that keeps a society together and in turn develops the seeds for monetary investment. We purchase goods from everyone during the festivals, because this is a time of year when people rarely give any thought about someone’s background or faith, especially while making purchases. For instance, Pen is well-known in Maharashtra for creating Ganpati idols, and the idol-making industry sustains an entire town in Pali called Amrapur. Rajasthan provides the POP, while Karnataka provides the hay used to package the idols. Shadu clay itself comes in a different state. The business turnover of Amrapur village is 200 crores. For the ten days of Durga Puja, the food and beverage industry alone bring in between 40 and 50 crores in revenue. Only few examples are mentioned here but on larger picture we need to understand when a person of any faith can earn his or her livelihood from Hindu festivals then how does his or her feeling get hurt by the sheer chanting of Jai Shri Ram in a Public Place?
The Sanatan culture talks about “Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah” and “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” which means “The World Is One Family” then why a particular community always complain about getting religious sentiments hurt by Arti, Shobha Yatras and chanting of slogans of Jai Shri Ram. However, Hindus deal with religious extremism in so many forms. The recent horrible events in Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh, include the barbaric lynching and death of late Ramgopal Mishra. Ramgopal Mishra’s horrific murder in Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh, serves as a sobering reminder of the threats that religious fanaticism and intercommunal violence face. These kinds of incidents emphasize the importance of a united front to maintain justice, promote tolerance, and punish criminals responsible. In its various forms, religious extremism not only breaks societal harmony but also puts doubt on the principles of freedom and harmony.
The politics of the vote bank came back into play. The politics of appeasement to a certain community begins to play the victim card. Some political parties are concerned that this decision could ignite or worsen communal tensions. The complainant clearly states that the location of the alleged occurrence in Dakshina Kannada is known for its communal peace. However, it is critical to determine if the scenario of “communal harmony and peace” is being defined throughout India from “north to south” and “east to west” by labelling a certain street, crossroads, or region as sensitive and advocating to avoid conducting activity in sensitive areas. This may raise the question of whether such a narrative is being promoted via political appeasement, suggesting that shouting “Jai Shri Ram” or other religious chants in public might offend people of a certain group or faith.
As far as the question of hurting Dharmik sentiments is concerned, it is essential to first we need to understand ‘Dharma.’ Dharma for Rashtra, Dharma for Society, and Dharma for Humanity. Bhagwat Geeta (Chapter 3, Verse 20) teach us
Karmaṇaiva hi sansiddhim āsthitā janakādayaḥ
Lokasaṅgraham evāpi sampaśhyan kartum arhasi
“By performing their prescribed duties, King Janak and others attained perfection. You should also perform your duties to set an example for the good of the world. Whatever actions great people perform, common people follow. Whatever standards they set all the world pursues”
According to Daishik-shastra “मनुष्य के परस्पर प्रत्यर्थी सहज गुणों की साम्यावस्था की धारणा अर्थात मनुष्य में स्वाभाव से सन्निकर्षों के करण जो अनेक प्रतिद्वंदी गुण हो जाते है उनका साम्य बनाये रखना धर्म कहा जाता है”
“Manushya ke paraspar pratyarthi sahaj guno ki saamyavastha ki dharana arthat manushya me swabhav se sannishakarshon ke karan jo anek pratidwandi gun ho jate hai unka samya banaye rakhna dharm kaha jata hai”
In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court’s ruling addresses the ugliness of political appeasement and finds a balance between freedom of expression and religious sensitivity, ensuring that no false narrative can be placed. The verdict in the “Jai Shri Ram” case by the Karnataka High Court addresses the fine line that exists between religious sensitivity and freedom of speech, intending to prevent the misuse of religious sentiments. The court’s ruling highlights how important it is to preserve social peace while making sure that people’s freedoms of speech are protected. While expressions like “Jai Shri Ram” may have cultural and religious value, the ruling serves as a reminder that they shouldn’t be used as a tool to promote conflict among communities. The decision of the court aims to protect individual rights and maintain social harmony by defining the limits of free speech and addressing the possibility of abuse. This promotes a balanced approach to dealing with issues about religious expression.
