Blasphemy law in India

Published: August 25, 2012
The writer is a columnist. He is also a former editor of the Mumbai-based English newspaper Mid Day and the Gujarati paper Divya Bhaskar

The writer is a columnist. He is also a former editor of the Mumbai-based English newspaper Mid Day and the Gujarati paper Divya Bhaskar [email protected]

On May 27, 1953, the Tamil reformer EV Ramaswami Naicker smashed an idol of Lord Ganesha in public at the Town Hall maidan in Tiruchirapalli. Naicker, who was angered by Hinduism’s caste system, made a speech announcing his intention to do this before breaking the idol. Veerabadran Chettiar, an offended Hindu, filed a case under two laws.

Section 295: Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years,

Section 295-A: Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

The Tiruchirapalli magistrate dismissed the petition. On the first charge, he said that simply because the mud figure resembled Lord Ganesha it cannot become an object held sacred. He accepted an offence was made out on the second charge (295-A), but that law required government sanction for the case to be registered, which had not come. He dismissed that also. The petitioner appealed. The sessions judge dismissed the appeal. He agreed with the magistrate, saying the idol was the private property of those who broke it.

The matter went to high court. The judge said the idol broken did not come within the scope of  “any object held sacred by any class of persons”. An idol in a temple or one in a religious procession would, he clarified, but not any object resembling a diety. Even a toy in such a shape would otherwise qualify as being sacred. No offence was made out, the judge said, and dismissed the appeal. On to the Supreme Court. On August 25, 1958, Justice BP Sinha said the high court was wrong to have imported meaning into the words “held sacred”. It was not necessary for the object to have been worshipped for it to be sacred. For instance, the Bible, Holy Quran and the Guru Granth Sahib were also objects held sacred. Sinha asked the judiciary to be circumspect in such matters and consider the feelings and religious emotions, irrespective of whether or not they share those beliefs, or whether they are rational or otherwise, in the opinion of the court.

However, after making these observations, Sinha then dismissed the appeal saying the matter had become “stale” since five years had passed. What his observations did was not to set a precedent, which would have happened had the case been dismissed on merit.

Two aspects are important here. First, a tolerance for offences against god shown by India’s lower judiciary. Second, and this is from Sinha, a reminder that such offences are likely to have consequences and, therefore, should not be encouraged. On April 20, 1960, the Allahabad High Court fined a man, Khalil Ahmad, for costs of Rs1,200 after he sued for getting his books released. He had written texts praising Yazid and Muawiya, saying they had a place in heaven according to Hanafi consensus. The state then seized his books. The judges cited Justice Sinha’s observation in ruling against him.

There are not many blasphemy cases reported in India. In my years as a sessions court reporter in the 1990s, I came across none, and most of the case studies in legal volumes refer to events that happened 50 years or more ago. I would attribute this to a generally high tolerance in the population for the other’s faith, and a pragmatic and alert police force and judiciary. What is different in Pakistan? We’ll see that tomorrow. Incidentally, Naicker, the idol-smasher was also the founder of the Dravidian movement that produced both of Tamil Nadu’s main political parties, DMK (Karunanidhi) and ADMK (Jayalalitha). Naicker’s successors converted an anti-Brahmin movement into a powerful political force that now does not seek to offend. The ADMK chief, Jayalaitha, is a Brahmin and both parties are inclusive. Naicker’s act is all but forgotten today and seen as political not religious.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 26th, 2012.

Facebook Conversations

Reader Comments (59)

    Aug 25, 2012 - 10:15PM

    The Pakistani nation is held hostage to a tiny bunch of religious zealots, who can only get 2% vote in general elections.


  • Arifq
    Aug 25, 2012 - 10:16PM

    When majority imposes their ideas on minority they take away human dignity and show lack of compassion. All religions can be imposing, their followers guilty of tunnel visions that’s why civil society, judiciary and intelligentsia must play their role in protecting humanity.


  • Max
    Aug 25, 2012 - 10:47PM

    Kudos to Indian secularism. Judicial decision was quite logical at both levels of the court system. Pakistan’s black coat yahoos need to learn the spirit of the laws and philosophy of human actions.
    Both section 295 and section 295A depict the secular nature of the Indian polity. Will Pakistan, please, learn from legal and secular nature of the Indian polity?


  • sidjeen
    Aug 25, 2012 - 10:48PM

    the difference between india and pakistan is the difference between a religious state and a secular state.


  • nomi
    Aug 25, 2012 - 11:01PM

    Funny, India is a leading country in religious intolerance according to pew research.


  • suraj
    Aug 25, 2012 - 11:18PM

    To have religious and ethnic tolerance in this country is mere a dream.. The society is completely caught in a cobwebbed psyche of intolerace that is taking it to irreversible lows both ethically and morally..


  • Sidewinder
    Aug 25, 2012 - 11:27PM

    Aakar,things in Pakistan have moved beyond salvation point.any amount of well hear-ted advises are not going to bear any fruit.


  • Aug 25, 2012 - 11:29PM

    atleast it doesnt have backing of the state and blasphemy laws.Recommend

  • Aug 25, 2012 - 11:46PM

    Was waiting for a piece on blasphemy law in India to get published. Would be great to find out if there were any examples of Indian muslims moving motions in this respectRecommend

  • MSS
    Aug 25, 2012 - 11:50PM

    Nomi is right. However, the difference here is that Pakistan has only one religion and Hindus, Christians, Ahmadis and Shias are as they say ‘atte mein namak ke barabar’. India has huge populations of Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jains and some more. Many acts of one sect could be seen as hurting the feelings of others. If the nation followed the path of going to court on every occasion, chaos in courts and in life is likely. Also Hindus, Siks, Christains and Parsis and others show a whole lot more tolerance than do Muslims of Pakistan.

    In all this where do atheists fit in? Every time there is an azzan or bells ring in a temple or religios processions are taken out atheists feelings are hurt. Who do they turn to?


  • amit
    Aug 25, 2012 - 11:58PM

    bro u are wrong mostly indian(specially hindus/sikhs/christen) are not vary religious .and how many indian hindus u know who are religious like muslims.and mostly survey say india is average religious country .by the way in south asia india is only average religious country and other countries in south asia are very religious countries .and mostly religious people in india is old generation and today young generation indians (specially hindus/sikhs) are vary less religious and day by day it is increasing.see the map IMPORTANCE OF RELIGION


  • Giri
    Aug 26, 2012 - 1:05AM

    There was an outcry when a NCERT book for children depicted a picture of Muhammed in a children’s book in story on Prophet Muhammed. Can the author tell if that is against our blasphemy laws? How is that different from idol breaking? How does a child understand a story without a picture? It may be good to ban such stories if they can inflame child like passions of adults.


  • Lala Gee
    Aug 26, 2012 - 2:23AM


    Thank you for writing a very informative article in an eloquent manner. Although I was aware of the existence of such laws in European countries, but I never knew their existence in India. It seems that Pakistan simply copied blasphemy laws from Indian constitution with minor changes. Even the Article numbers are same. However, I am happy to know that there was no abuse or misuse of these laws. In Pakistan, however, religious fanatics, perhaps less that 1% of population, have held the rest of the population hostage to their bigotry, and unfortunately this trend of intolerance is on the rise. God help us – but God help those who help themselves.


  • Observer
    Aug 26, 2012 - 2:54AM

    What the author forgot to mention is that unlike Christianity and Islam, there is no concept of blasphemy in Hindu religion. Hinduism does not advocate anyone to take up arms or resort to violence for being disrespectful or blaspheming their gods or religion.


  • Anonymous
    Aug 26, 2012 - 3:05AM

    @Mir Ali
    Agree with the held-hostage thought that you expressed, but it seems like 98% holding the 2% hostage; not other way around on percentage.


  • nomi
    Aug 26, 2012 - 3:41AM

    @ amit

    My dear friend.
    The issue here is of tolerance. Pakistan is a religious state and is in a horrific condition which should not be denied, but India a so called secular country is a top country in religious intolerance/discrimination.

    Not being religious does not mean one becomes tolerant to others.


  • Arijit Sharma
    Aug 26, 2012 - 4:59AM

    If Blasphemy laws were enforced, all Christian Missionaries and their Indian collaborators would be in prison for spewing filth against Hindus.


  • Mustafa Moiz
    Aug 26, 2012 - 6:10AM

    Forgive us for not bowing earlier to Indian superiority and greatness.


  • mr. righty rightist
    Aug 26, 2012 - 6:59AM


    Funny you don’t mention which research it is.


  • Feroz
    Aug 26, 2012 - 8:29AM

    Brother, you are trying to compare Apples with Oranges. Pakistan is a country searching for an answer for a reason to exist. The creation of the country was an act of intolerance and researchers trying to fathom the reasons still remain at a loss. No wonder they can come up with some speeches that sound secular, opposite side can rewind to speeches that were very communal. What else to expect other than total confusion.
    In India space exists for another dozen Religions and hundreds of additional Gods – there is enough space for it without running down any existing philosophy or religion. The idea of openness to new ideas and fresh thinking and acceptance makes India a country without comparison. Another country staunchly Christian or Buddhist should have been taken for comparison to Pakistan to have been fair to it.


  • Aug 26, 2012 - 9:06AM

    People who say people of India and Pakistan are the same, they are clearly wrong.

    We are not the same. A population overwhelming majority of Hindus does not impose its codes and ethics onto others. The same cannot be said of Pakistan.

    India is secular not because the minorities want it, but the majority wants it to be so.

    To add onto Aaker’s point, an Atheist was the Chief Minister 2 years ago in Tamil Nadu, one of India’s Religious states, which also has the highest number of Temples in the World.


  • Zalim Singh
    Aug 26, 2012 - 9:11AM

    Blasphemy does not exist in Hinduism. Period. We can criticize our gods. Nothing wrong in that.


  • Zeeshan
    Aug 26, 2012 - 10:21AM

    “I would attribute this to a generally high tolerance in the population for the other’s faith, and a pragmatic and alert police force and judiciary.”

    what?? Here is your tolerance, recorded by your own media:


  • I-Slamic
    Aug 26, 2012 - 10:24AM

    The Blasphemy law in Pakistan may have a religious significance, but it’s use is just not for religious purposes. This law is used to settle personal scores, usurp property of non muslims and use the platform of religion for personal gains. Pakistans are religious goons.


  • Just another guy
    Aug 26, 2012 - 11:25AM

    What is the need to mention the caste of Periyar (E.V.Ramasamy) who spent his entire life fighting against caste system. I hope you will answer.


  • Tanveer
    Aug 26, 2012 - 12:08PM

    and what about the Gujrat riots? what about Babri Mosque and what about many other incidents and what about the Sikh’s killings in India? dont portray what you are not…


  • Saeed
    Aug 26, 2012 - 12:54PM

    It is not the question of Less Religious OR More religious ! Our prophet (p.b.u.h) was the most religious person…but he was the MOST KIND PERSON THE WORLD WOULD EVER SEE……….. It is the illogical, Incorrect, barbarianism which have been part of the religious teachings in most of the Madrassa’s of Pakistan…Recommend

  • Bala
    Aug 26, 2012 - 1:04PM

    @ patel

    I am a tamil, I would like to point out that Dravidian movement must not be simplified as “anti-brahmin movement” or “anti-hindi movement”, It was a rational movement which emphasized that humanity is bigger than superstition, that lower caste ppl like dalits deserve to enter temples and perform all religious ritesRecommend

  • gp65
    Aug 26, 2012 - 1:32PM

    @Tanveer: “and what about the Gujrat riots? what about Babri Mosque and what about many other incidents and what about the Sikh’s killings in India? dont portray what you are not…”

    What does Gujarat riots have to do with blasphemy law? Muslims burnt a coach full of Hindu pilgrims. This triggered riots in Gujarat where 790 Muslims and 250 Hindus died. On the 3rd day army was called in by Gujarat CM Narendra Modi which stopped the riots. This happened in 2002 and there have been 0 communal riots in Gujarat in over 10 years. Where the law is concerned it has convicted several people with respct to the riots and the Godhra carnage. Several people have been convicted inluding 33 Hindus.

    Please review the petition by Muslim law board on Babri. Even they do not claim blasphemy occurred. You know why? No namaaz had been read in that structure since 1949. Apparently if no namaaz is read in a structure, it cannot be called a mosque.

    Indian judges can only rule that blasphemy has occurred when a petitioner alleges blasphemy. No petitioner as done that. Mercifully the Indian CJs are not addicted to suo moto notices.Recommend

  • nomi
    Aug 26, 2012 - 1:49PM

    @ amit

    Please read the Pew research reported by one of your own news papers. Type religious discrimination ( your country’s name and pew research) and please search.

    Mr. rightly activist

    There is no cure for Indian blindness. Read my comment again, it is a research conducted by PEW.

    @ Vishnu Datta

    Pakistan is a mess which should be accepted; however, the sham secularism that you maintain is a shining example of your matchless hypocrisy. Recommend

  • R.A
    Aug 26, 2012 - 1:54PM

    It means
    India is following true Islamic teachings

  • Bala
    Aug 26, 2012 - 2:07PM

    Pakistan must be compared at best with Israel …also I am curious what about the blasphemy laws & practice in Bangladesh?


  • BlackJack
    Aug 26, 2012 - 5:06PM

    There is one moderator who has a personal dislike for me. I cannot fathom any other possible reason for rejecting the comment below.
    First of all the anti-Hindi movement is separate from the Self-respect movement of EV Ramaswamy Naicker (Periyar) that Mr. Patel alludes to – and he is correct that it had strong anti-brahminical undertones because it was essentially aimed at providing self-respect to backward classes who were perceived to be inferior by the Tamil brahmins; this also ultimately resulted in an a partial exodus of Tamil brahmins from Madras state. You are also confusing the temple-entry satyagraha in neighboring Kerala with the Self-respect movement, which did not care about worship at all – it did not however want marriages or pujas to be officiated by brahmins. Later on, Periyar’s movement became the foundation for the larger Dravidian movement, first under his own party (Dravidar Kazhagam) – again with a strong anti-Aryan stance, and later off-shoots like the DMK and ADMK. You are right that Periyar was a rationalist and did not want society to be fettered by superstition, but he was unable to delink casteism from race and ended up with a racist ideology that defeated its very purpose in the long run.


  • Mahesh Patil
    Aug 26, 2012 - 5:09PM

    @Lala Gee:
    Thanks.You are talking sense today.


  • Robert
    Aug 26, 2012 - 6:32PM

    @nomi Pew is measuring what people feel. Last time I checked, that’s not illegal. The legal system cares about groups or the state blatantly curtailing rights of others. In India, you will never get the police to apply black paint to islamic verses on peoples’ graves no matter who they are.


  • kabir
    Aug 26, 2012 - 6:56PM

    ET why are you not publishing my comments? Where did I say anything offensive?

    @author: You ask “Why is Pakistan different?”. It doesn’t take a genius to answer that question: Pakistan is an Islamic Republic and India is a secular state. As an Islamic Republic, Pakistani law is obviously concerned with blasphemy against Allah and the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). This does not mean that these laws cannot be abused and should not be amended.

    In my opinion, it is misplaced to compare a religiously-defined state with one that aspires to be secular. However, even secular India has banned “The Satanic Verses” which shows that they do have some limits on free speech. (Whether this was done to appease Muslim votebanks is another matter).


  • Satya S issar
    Aug 26, 2012 - 7:02PM

    The point which many people fail to understand is that all religions are, (should be), based on personal beliefs which are private to us. I like my beliefs but I have no quarrel with you if you disagree with me. I am a Hindu but I question many tenants of Hinduism and have lively debates with my friends or in any forum. It does not alter my own beliefs because I accept my beliefs but am not offended if someone disagrees. It, enhances my religion and makes me a better believer because, surely I learn from others’ points of views.


  • S Quershi
    Aug 26, 2012 - 9:06PM

    @Satya S issar

    Islam is a total way of life. It is not personal thing. It must be folowed without question. No ands, ifs, or buts.


  • Sobriquet
    Aug 26, 2012 - 9:07PM

    @Zalim Singh:
    Here is something to think about: If a religion needs protection from mere humans under blasphemy or any other law, it (that religion) cannot be very strong.


  • Feroz
    Aug 26, 2012 - 9:35PM

    @Mustafa Moiz:
    Brother, no human being is superior to another. Some of us have an advantage of a better environment or education but all of us have the potential to do a lot better than we have done so far. Even though I am an Indian there is nothing superior about being Indian, Chinese, American or anyone else. God has given all of us the potential to rise to higher levels, some of us succeed sometimes we fail. Let us try to be good human beings first and foremost before we start looking for differences between different groups of people. My belief is that currently human beings have not tapped even 10% of our real potential, being held up by our own egos and prejudices. If we realize it we have the potential for miracles.


  • kabir
    Aug 26, 2012 - 9:38PM

    @Satya S issar:

    You are right that there is nothing wrong with disagreement or lively debate. Yet, you wouldn’t like it if someone killed a cow and left its body in front of a mandir. Would you not find this blasphemous? Similarly, Muslims don’t like it when the Koran is burned or the Prophet is insulted. Insulting someone’s god is worse than insulting someone’s parents and we all know how emotional people become about their family honor….


  • James
    Aug 26, 2012 - 10:30PM


    But you won’t see laywers showering rose petals on the killers of Gujrat riot. Most of them are cooling their heels in the prison now.


  • sabi
    Aug 26, 2012 - 11:22PM

    It is clear from your narative that indian judiciary enjoys complete freedom and protection from indian state.Therefore credit must be given to the state
    In pakistan situation is however different and sad where state of pakistan has completly raised it’s hand up against religious zealosts.Harassment,threatining ,physical assaults pressurisng by angry mob to judges has become a daily norm.In other words state has succumb to crimminal minded religious fanatics.How can a state function without an efficiant and impartial judiciary .the example is there-Pakistan.


  • Haider
    Aug 26, 2012 - 11:48PM

    I hope that one day Pakistan can become like India!


  • gp65
    Aug 27, 2012 - 1:13AM

    @Sobriquet: “Here is something to think about: If a religion needs protection from mere humans under blasphemy or any other law, it (that religion) cannot be very strong”.
    I certainly agree with that proposition. I am unclear why I was amongst the people that you addressed the statement to. I have not advocated blasphemy law and simply explained to someone why blasphemy law did not apply to Gujarat riots and Babri case.


  • gp65
    Aug 27, 2012 - 1:24AM

    @kabir: “@Satya S issar:
    You are right that there is nothing wrong with disagreement or lively debate. Yet, you wouldn’t like it if someone killed a cow and left its body in front of a mandir. Would you not find this blasphemous? Similarly, Muslims don’t like it when the Koran is burned or the Prophet is insulted. “

    You ahve asked a hypothetical question to Satya. While I am not Satya I would like to respond with a real example.

    M F Hussain painted one Hindu goddess naked. HE pained another Hindu goddess as having sex with a tiger. Were some Hindus offended? yes. They even sued him and he left the country because he did not want to face the suit. But NO Hindu actually threatened to kill him. Secondly I say some Hindus were offended because others like me were not. I do not think that my Gods and Goddesses are so weak as to need me to protect them- I think it is the other way around. With their grace and blessings they protect me. Also they are not politicians who need votes from humans. If M F Hussain does something like that it brings down my respect for his decency and maturity but I don’t see it as an attack on Hinduism which is an idea that has lived for 5000 years – since no individual has the power to do so.


  • kabir
    Aug 27, 2012 - 4:38AM


    I agree with you. But as your very example shows, MF Hussain’s paintings caused him to be hounded out of his own country. Isn’t it shameful that one of India’s greatest artists has to die in Qatar (Dubai?).

    Did not the Shiv Sena threaten Hussain into leaving the country? Point is, that no one (Muslim or Hindu or Christian etc) likes their religion to be insulted. The difference in India and Pak is that one is a secular state and the other defines itself as an “Islamic” state.


  • Aug 27, 2012 - 8:49AM

    @ Feroz. Thumbs up to your comment.


  • manoj
    Aug 27, 2012 - 9:06AM

    Have you seen the paintings that MF Hussian was getting hounded for? NO.
    Do you realise the difference between freedom of expression for artists and cheap-exploitation of religious iconic figures for the sake of publicity? NO.
    Please do not get into (sensitive) issues you know very little about from across the border. India has plenty of bleeding-heart liberals of its own for that.


  • Bala
    Aug 27, 2012 - 9:09AM


    I am a tamilian (a temple stands on our land to this day), whats your credentials?

    Please read history in case you have not lived through it. I am a living proof(history) of Dravidian movement. Wikipedia would be a good starting point.

    temple-entry satyagraha happened in kerala, i agree, but please go and check who headed the movement and who went to jail twice for it (hint: its periyar). Also first anti-hindi (or pro-mother-tonque) movement was started in 1937 by Periyar when C. Rajagopalachari(both are very close friends, BTW) made Hindi compulsary. In 1939, compulsorily Hindi education was removed.


  • gp65
    Aug 27, 2012 - 1:30PM

    @Zeeshan: I clicked the link you provided. It talks about 7 people being killed in 5 riots over a period of 75 days. Please tell me how many Hazara Shias have been target killed in the same 75 days? How many people have been target killed in Karchi in the same 75 days?


  • Komal S
    Aug 27, 2012 - 2:31PM

    Talking about Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu, i remember a situation where the DK members would take Pictures of Hindu Gods and garland with the chappals and take it on procession near the temples. All of us going to the temple would just ignore these guys. We definitely hated it, also remember for every person doing this there were hundreds of us going to the temple. They were outnumbered, but nobody bothered to confront them. I am not sure if they can get away with a similar act today. Does it mean Hindus have become fanatics or there is less freedom of speech or people have become more responsible.


  • kabir
    Aug 27, 2012 - 3:47PM


    Manoj ji,

    Regardless of what one thinks of Hussain’s paintings, in a truly secular state artists don’t get hounded of the country for painting something that some find distasteful. There are many examples in Europe or the US of paintings that denigrate Christianity. People protested those paintings, but as far as I know, no artist had to leave the country.

    Freedom of expression is not absolute and has limits.


  • Satya S issar
    Aug 27, 2012 - 3:59PM


    You are missing the point of my argument. It is my maturity of thought that allows me not to violently retaliate if some one offends my sentiments. It is in fact their own weakness which will mock their own development of thought and makes them a lesser person. If someone killed a cow and left it outside a temple they are demeaning themselves. There will be , no doubt some who will be offended but if they became violent I will condemn them as much.
    Qureshi you may believe that Islam is a way of life, but I say that all religions are a “way of life” to those who adhere to those religions. There is no harm in that. Maturity of mind and thought should enable them to rise above such insults. If I recall correctly in one instance when Jesus Christ was being stoned by people , on his way to Crucifixion he said ” God forgive them for they know not what they are doing” . Not being a Christian myself I may be wrong somewhat in quoting on the incident, but what Christ said could very well be the maturity of his thinking process.
    We must rise above these pettiness if we want to become better persons.


  • BlackJack
    Aug 27, 2012 - 5:37PM

    Being a Tamilian is not an answer; it is like being unable to argue with any Pakistani on this forum if the final argument is that ‘I am a Pakistani and a mosque stands on my land’. I am but a student of history and everything that I have mentioned is easy to confirm (as you said Wikipedia would be a good place to start). The temple entry satyagraha happened in Kerala because the kind of casteism that was practiced there (number of feet distance from the temple based on caste) was one of the most virulent forms in the history of India – Periyar was jailed there (repeatedly) because of his inflammatory speeches that interfered with the peaceful satyagraha; his method of creating social upheaval for reformation in the context of the freedom struggle did not add significant value in this case; efforts by Gandhiji, Sri Narayana Guru and others were much more positive. Again, the anti-Hindi agitation was anti-Aryan in nature, which merely underscores the racial context of the movement.


  • Aug 28, 2012 - 5:48PM

    Sir you write “I would attribute this to a generally high tolerance in the population for the other’s faith, and a pragmatic and alert police force and judiciary.” Really?? 2,000 muslims burnt to death under the watchfull eyes of the ‘alert’ police, how many arsonists did the ‘pragmatic’ judiciary sentence? And the man behind these attacks, which many Indians shamefully admit, is now one of the most popular leaders in India and might even be a candidate for the Prime Minister’s office. That shows the level of ‘high tolerance’ in the population.
    Pakistan has its own problems which need to be rectified and I in no way condone the injustice being metted out to the young christan girl but please first look deep into the fabric of Indian society and then start comparing the two nations. There is a main stream media that many follow in which Indian society is garlanded for its tolerance, free speech and secularism but really the facts tell a different story where the Indian state is engaged in fighting dozens of insurgencies simultaneously most of which are fueled by secular and religious differences and the prisons hold up a disporportionate percentage of miniorities. I can site you other examples of injustices being carried out only if you are not blinded by the main stream media but I know I will probably be one of the lone voices.Recommend

  • Alok
    Sep 12, 2012 - 1:48PM

    I thought we were talking of state endorsed blasphemy law here, and not of some stray incidents of communal tension.


  • roger
    Sep 18, 2012 - 11:02PM

    u are like india…..u see our films…follow our customs…..what’s the difference???


  • Deb
    Oct 12, 2012 - 11:39PM

    I always agreed with my Pakistani brothers who say that we are different.
    Jinnah was right.


More in Opinion