The Arrest of Sharmistha Panoli and the Illusion of Equality Before Law
The arrest of Sharmistha Panoli, a 22-year-old law graduate and content creator on Instagram, by the Kolkata police over her hateful comments against Islam and Muslims has started yet another debate on the freedom of speech in India.
Before we get into the arguments of different sides, let's have a quick look at her content.
Panoli was creating videos supposedly attacking Pakistan after the Pahalgam attack. Her ‘patriotic’ videos, however, were filled with sexualised slander and Islamophobic slurs directed at all Muslims in general – words that would still be unjustified and crude no matter who it was directed at. She was ignored even as some Hindutva influencers kept making her videos go viral.
At one point, like the ones who made her go viral initially, she conveniently blurred the line between Muslims in India and Pakistan. In another video, the one that finally led to her arrest, she abused Prophet Mohammad. Initially, Hindutva influencers ran hashtags to show support while many Muslims demanded her arrest. Mind you, this was happening during the conflict between India and Pakistan, so her videos also went viral globally, leading to arrest demands from influencers world over. First information reports were filed across the country, according to some reports. She also received a string of violent threats. As the outrage mounted, she deleted her videos and issued a public apology. However, the outrage didn't die there. Her videos were reshared. She was arrested.
Who were offended?
Following her arrest, all sorts of commentary has poured in. Many woke up overnight to the horrors of a blasphemy law in India. This includes handles who claim to have led campaigns causing the arrest of 272 Muslims and Dalits in just one year for allegedly abusing Hindu deities. Then there are the BJP leaders who decried the arrest. They said that West Bengal is turning into North Korea. They forget that unlike North Korea she has not been arrested for criticising the government. She has allegedly committed the crime of abusing Prophet Muhammad and for her other posts spreading hate against Muslims.
Those who take joy in getting Muslims and Dalits arrested even on spurious charges were also offended by this arrest. So, their argument is that in India it is only Hindu sensibility which, if violated, deserves to be protected by law. Any other community’s claim to dignity and respect is therefore uncivilised and undemocratic by default.
It was amusing to see some people fuming that in a civilised country like India, there should not be any place for blasphemy laws. But the laws under which Panoli has been arrested are used daily against Muslims and we never hear people, at least in such overwhelming unison, say that we need not have laws like these.
Also, when we talk about blasphemy laws, how can we forget that there are several laws in India which serve the same purpose: the laws against cow slaughter and 'love jihad' or 'conversion'. These laws are used in the same manner and under their cover, Muslims are murdered on a routine basis in India.
There was another set of observers like us who are called seculars.
We reacted quickly saying that she's a 19-year-old and urged people to let go since she's already faced enough backlash and threats for what she said. She has also deleted her posts and apologised. She has realised her mistake. We felt that Panoli was not an aberration. Today, young people often get swayed when radical elements give them a false sense of impunity.
Why the liberal stand does not hold
We were criticised for our stand. There is some strength in the critique. Some valid criticisms to our reaction are:
1. She is a law student. She is 22, not 19. She is old enough to realise the legal consequences of her actions. She is also a content creator. She chooses her content for a specific audience and it has an objective. We can say that she did what she did after being provoked by extremist influencers and her own hunger for popularity but she was doing it not in fit of anger or frustration. It was intended to mock and humiliate Muslims and Islam. Her apology is also not sincere as she still does not realise that what she did was wrong. It is only the fear of penal action that has forced her to delete her posts and apologise. Her reaction at the time of her arrest also shows that she feels that it was her democratic right to do what she did.
2. She's been legally arrested after due process. To say the law is archaic is disingenuous because there's pin drop silence when the same law is widely misused against others, especially those belonging to minority and Dalit communities, without protest. Consider the case of Talib Husain, a small eatery owner, who was arrested for wrapping chicken in a newspaper which had the image of Hindu gods. There are several cases of people being arrested over hurting religious sentiments – simply for praying on a footpath or for sharing a certain post or an emoji.
All these responses are valid. But young people like Panoli are not the same as Yati Narsinghanand, Monu Manesar, or Raja Singh who are part of a larger political project to attack and intend to solicit certain public reactions with their words and actions.
They are rather a product of a society that's divided and where hate-mongers are rewarded. They are not free speech martyrs either. They are celebrated widely after making such hateful posts. They also see political leaders who are openly spreading hate rewarded by the electorate. When elites indulge in hate mongering, hate becomes respectful. Ultimately, it's this ecosystem that needs to be questioned for bringing out the worst in our youth.
A difference at play
At the same time, we also think that there's a problem with this approach or thinking that the law to protect religious sentiments is a law made to protect citizens and applies equally to all people.
The fact is that for one Sharmistha Panoli, 50 people from the Muslim community will be targeted – legally, of course. This is not a biased guess but an open declaration by those who misuse this law for their arrest campaigns. That's the design of such laws. These draconian laws will always be used disproportionately against marginalised communities, particularly Muslims and Dalits.
Some may argue that this already happens – so why should we refrain from using the same law? The fact is that the law that protects against deliberate hurting of religious sentiments is very close to the sedition law that protects against those hurting national sentiments. The case of Ali Khan Mahmudabad or fact-checker Mohammad Zubair tells us how these laws are abused even against relatively influential members of minority communities. The ultimate demand should be to take a hard look at how these laws are designed to help in crushing dissent and perpetuating majoritarian sensibilities over others. These are bad laws that must go.
The problem with India's liberals is their disproportionate reaction and unequal outrage on cases where they want to appear likeable to the right-wing.
Some of them think that if they oppose it, they would be heard when they stand against the persecution of Muslims. But the hard fact is that they are not heard even after doing this. On the other hand, if this was a principled opposition then would have seen a similar reaction whenever Muslims and Dalits are rounded up after co-ordinated arrest campaigns for their comments. But that, unfortunately, is seen as routine and normal in India. Hence, even secular and liberal friends ignore such arrests. Perhaps, this is just too common to elicit a reaction each time. Yet a Hindu arrested under this law is seen as extraordinary and abnormal, and attracts disproportionate attention or condemnation.
What then should be our approach in this matter?
Should only the feelings of Muslims be ignored? Should they not use the law when they feel wronged – the same law when used by others is totally civilised? Would the same commentariat stand up for a Muslim woman if she had abused Shri Ram or Shiva in the same way? Muslims are asking those who find the arrest outrageous if they think that it is their democratic right to abuse them. They are also asking if Indians realise that is not civilised to constantly mock and abuse one community.
We've seen the same kind of response where radicalised young men and women mock dying children in Gaza. What would this generate except a cycle of hate, distrust, and disgust?
Perhaps some of us feel that the only way to move forward as a society is to forgive. Prophet Mohammad forgave those who insulted him and we know that forgiveness is the quality of the strong. But as a friend wrote, "Kshama shobhti us bhujang ko, jiske paas garal ho, uska kya jo dantheen, vishrahit, vineet saral ho (forgiveness suits a cobra with potent venom and not an ordinary snake without teeth or power)."
Can the goodness of a few can lead to reconciliation with those whose full-time job is to get people incarcerated for hurting sentiments? Can there be reconciliation without mutual agreements to show basic decency to each other? There are no easy answers. This change cannot obviously be brought about by citizens alone. At some point, it has to be done by the state, if not for the dignity of its citizens then for the sake of its own future. And that will only happen when the politics of hate mongering and communal baiting will be countered and disincentivised.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
