A small group of writers to this office claims that The Hindu has been partial in its criticism of the excesses of religious groups, and that it focuses only on the fringe elements of Hinduism. Their contention is that the newspaper tends to overlook the illiberal tendencies of other religions. Is this criticism valid? Is there any preference for one religion? Does the newspaper adhere to its commitment to a liberal, plural worldview? To answer these questions, I embarked on a content analysis of this newspaper, and what emerged from the exercise is that the newspaper has been consistent in its opposition to all forms of obscurantism and it has spared no illiberal group, irrespective of its religion, when the actions of that group threatened the peaceful coexistence of religions and people.
Governing code and policy In some of my earlier columns, we have looked at the salient features of the governing code of this newspaper: “ >Living our Values: Code of Editorial Values .” This public document talks about the policy of the newspaper since its founding >editorial of September 20, 1878 , which announced “the aim of promoting ‘harmony’ and ‘union’ (unity) among the people of India.” My content analysis covers a span of 30 years — 1985 to 2015. It looked at how the newspaper performed during this period in matters pertaining to religion. I did not find any exception.
>
>Download PDF of September 20, 1878 editorial here
First, the consistent stand taken by the newspaper against the blasphemy laws of Pakistan and its clone in Bangladesh. The Hindu had opened its pages to innumerable critical voices. Scholars like Asma Jahangir, I.A. Rehman, Asghar Ali Engineer, Haroon Habib, Beena Sarwar, Pervez Hoodbhoy and Hasan Suroor have written unsparing articles on how this law undermines the human rights of non-Muslims and its intrinsic coercive characters. For instance, in his article titled “The law of blasphemy” (March 17, 1995) Asghar Ali Engineer talked about the clout wielded by the conservative ulema in Pakistan and their role in enacting these laws. The newspaper’s own correspondents in Islamabad — produced innumerable stories on the draconian nature of this law. From Amit Baruah’s “Christians at the crossroads” (May 17, 1998) to Meena Menon’s “ >Life on the razor’s edge ” (February 2, 2014), I came across a number of articles that were sharp and incisive and documented the fatal consequences of this law.
The editorial, “Obscurantism to the fore” (June 17, 1994), on Bangladesh, was searing in its attack: “A fallout of the third holy war: editors have been arrested and denied bail for engaging in alleged anti-Islamic propaganda and on the charge of blasphemy. Offices of newspapers speaking up for secularist principles have been ransacked and torched. Free within parameters set by the establishment, the press has been bearing the brunt of the fanatics’ fury and the beleaguered Khaleda Zia Government, rather than put down such attacks on the freedom of the press, has shown every sign of succumbing to pressure.”
Freedom of expression How this newspaper treated the assault on Salman Rushdie stands testimony to its commitment to freedom of expression and artistic exploration. His novel “The Satanic Verses” was released on September 26, 1988 in London, and the Government of India decided to ban the import of the book on October 5, 1988. The Hindu not only opposed the self-defeating move of the government in its editorial, but also was the first Indian newspaper to interview the author. It was the first lead story on October 10, 1988 (“ >My book being put in jail: Rushdie ”). Talking to N. Ram, Mr. Rushdie rightly warned of the dangerous consequences the ban on books may have. What Mr. Rushdie said then remains valid even now: “It seems to me an act of colossal illiberalism, great philistinism and I think, great stupidity… I think, first of all, it indicates a colossal weakness of vision on the part of the Indian Government and a corresponding growth in the power of religious groups to have their way in India… Now to have this fiction treated as if it was absolute fact and then called blasphemous is an indication of how naive the attack is. We are not here talking about some kind of work of scholarship or history. We are talking about narrative fiction which uses, as its starting point, certain historical events. If we are to be now told that in India a fictional discussion of the theme of religion is no longer to be permitted because it offends certain sentiments, then we have arrived at a very, very extreme condition.” This was four months before the Iranian fatwa against the author. Since then, the paper has not wavered in its commitment in defending the author and finding fault with those who want his life.
>
>Download PDF of N. Ram's interview with Salman Rushdie here
Another example is that of Taslima Nasreen. Never once did the newspaper carry anything that justified the acts of religious right who demanded her death for “dishonouring” the Koran and Islam. On the other hand, it exposed the role of the religious right; it carried a series of articles on the humiliation of gender-dictated domination with religious sanctions. There have been reports from various parts of the country — lead articles, >editorials and >special magazine features — on her plight.
I would like to draw the attention of the readers to this newspaper’s coverage of the >killing of Salman Taseer , Governor of the Punjab Province of Pakistan, who waged a battle against the religious right to defend the victims of the blasphemy laws. It is an oeuvre in itself. It provides a deeper understanding of what is wrong with the Islamist right.
The examples from closer home are too many. Let me confine myself to one editorial: “ >An antidote for pure poison ” (January 4, 2013), on the rabble-rousing speech of Akbaruddin Owaisi, leader of the Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul Muslimeen. It said: “Civil society needs to make it clear that those who incite hatred and violence against people on the basis of their religion or any other identity ought to be punished one way or another.” The conclusion I can draw from the content analysis is that The Hindu has stood by its value of “a secular editorial policy of maintaining the ‘strictest neutrality’ in matters relating to religion while offering fair criticism and comment ‘when religious questions involve interests of a political and social character.’”
readerseditor@thehindu.co.in
