From the Romesh Thapar episode of the early 1950s to the Salman Rushdie case of the late 1980s to the Wendy Doniger brouhaha of recent vintage, independent India has had a chequered history when it comes to defending freedom of expression in all its glory. Nobody knows this better thanSanal Edamaruku, an author and a rationalist, who himself has been a victim of intolerance of the worst kind. Now in Finland on a self-imposed exile following a threat to his life in the wake of the Mumbai ‘crucifix miracle,’ Mr. Edamaruku, in an email interview withVasanth Srinivasan, shared his thoughts on a wide range of issues including the circumstances that forced him leave India four years ago, religious extremism that seems to be scaling new heights every day and what is expected of the civil society in a deeply polarised world. Excerpts:
What prompted you to leave India in 2012? Don’t you think it’s time you returned?
When I left India in June 2012, I did not think I would be staying away for this long. Following the Mumbai crucifix miracle exposure over a TV panel discussion, the situation went out of my control. Apart from the cases that they tried to impose on me by misusing the archaic Section 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code, there have been direct and indirect attacks on me from the side of the Catholic Church.
As church sources later admitted, it was not only this “miracle” debunking that turned them against me. The list of my perceived ‘sins’ is long: I continued re-printing and circulating my father Joseph Edamaruku’s famous book Christ and Krishna Never Lived. In 2005, I exposed the miracle claim of the magical tumour cure with Mother Teresa’s picture and triggered a controversy. In 2011, I exposed the fallacy of the so-called shroud of Turin in a TV programme. I published critical articles on conversion strategies of the church. Then there was my initiative to defend P.M. Antony, the author of the banned theatre play ‘Sixth Holy Wound of Christ’.
So, following the TV debate with the Mumbai bishop, a group of goons were sent to the studio with sticks to attack me. After several hours, the studio crew had to save me by opening a new way out. As church panellists threatened in the TV programme, several complaints were filed against me in Mumbai police stations. There were calls to get me arrested for at least one night so that they could get rid of me by a co-prisoner.
All these forced me to go into hiding. And, protected by trusted friends, I gave interviews and appeared on TV programmes. In my last weeks in India, I was hiding in a hostel room at the Jawaharlal Nehru University. It was from there I left for Finland two weeks ahead of a pre-scheduled lecture tour in Poland.
Before leaving India, I talked to many top politicians of India whom I knew personally, including some of the Cabinet Ministers. I wrote to the Maharashtra Chief Minister and the Home Minister explaining to them the nature of the threat. I wrote in detail to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
The Indian Society of Authors, backed by several prominent writers, also wrote to the Prime Minister. I tried to get an anticipatory bail from the Delhi High Court and Mumbai High Courts. We decided to fight the law (Section 295 A), as it is violative of my fundamental rights. Even as an international petition seeking the intervention of the Indian government and signed by several prominent signatories including people like Richard Dawkins and many Nobel laureates went unanswered, the Archbishop set my apology as the pre-condition for withdrawing the cases. My answer was a clear ‘No’.
As soon as I get protection and a guarantee of safety, I will come to India. It’s been a long time. I need to meet my friends and people close to me. I hope the Maharashtra government will reject the complaints lodged against me by the Catholic groups to make it possible for me to come to India without intimidation and bullying.
Investigative agencies have made a few arrests in the Dabholkar, Pansare and Kalburgi murder cases. Isn’t that a good beginning?
In 2013, my friend Narendra Dabholkar called me and told me about his plans to protect me if I come to Mumbai. Four days later, he was shot dead!
However, it is relieving that at last some arrests have been made in the murder cases of Dabholkar, Pansare and Kalburgi. The solidarity expressed by Indian writers and artists is also very promising. But that is not sufficient. There has to be an atmosphere encouraging critical thinking and the spirit of reform. As I wrote in my articles after Kalburgi’s assassination, if the Prime Minister of India were to say that critical thinking, scientific temper and rationalism are part of our ethos, and that the attacks on rationalists will not be tolerated, it would be a good beginning.
What do you think of institutional attitude and response to incidents like yours? Has it improved?
The Indian social scene has suffered a big setback in the last three decades. The new climate of intolerance began with the ban of Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses . A climate change is needed in India. Tolerance is eroding so fast. Somehow we have to stop it. Recent stories are scary sometimes. We need a serious effort to re-establish confidence and restore an atmosphere of tolerance.
Has there been a change in the civil society’s mindset and response?
I think the Indian society has started responding seriously to the threats against freedom and tolerance. Social media is also playing a promising role. At the political level, statesmanship should take precedence over expediency and it should uphold the great values of dialogue, critical thinking and tolerance — the foundations of the idea that is India.
Even at the time of your leaving India, there were many who said you could have stayed back and fought the cases and that the courts would have protected you. So what are you wary of? The system, including the police, or the mobs?
There can be several views about how it could have been better handled. I have a clear judgment about the situation. I did not take any hasty decision. I remained in India three more months after the threats started escalating. I could have tried my ‘luck’ by remaining in India. But I am not comfortable with the cynical view that Socrates has to drink his cup of poison. I preferred to continue with my mission of spreading scientific temper and tolerance instead of becoming an easy target and a quick martyr. I wish to survive as long as possible so that I can do meaningful things.
The Madras High Court’s verdict in Madhorubagan case deals with both Article 19 and Section 295A of IPC. What’s your reading of it given your own case?
In my view, Article 19 dealing with freedom of speech and expression has to be respected absolutely. To what extent a society practices and tolerates free speech shows what level of civilisation that society has. The Madras High Court’s verdict on Perumal Murugan and Madhorubagan case is therefore very important. It is a ray of hope and quite relieving.
As a rationalist who is facing a life threat, what do you think of the emergence of outfits like IS and the terror campaign that it has unleashed?
ISIS and other terror groups are inspired by the Quran. There are several verses in the Quran and the Hadith that justify all that they do.
The wrong notion that all religions fundamentally stand for peace stems from ignorance and opportunism. Quran, The Bible and Bhagavad Gita have verses that justify violence. Also, there are some verses that could be projected as peaceful. Sanctifying religious texts focussing on the peaceful set of verses will sanctify the other verses that advocate violence also.
