Topic 1 : A narrow resolution
Introduction: In 2022, Pakistan moved a resolution at the United Nations calling for the establishment of an “International Day to Combat Islamophobia”. Despite its objectionable nature, the resolution was passed and UN declared March 15 as the day to combat Islamophobia.
The History of Islamophobia
- In recent history, the word “Islamophobia” was first used by a French editor in the colonial ministry, Alain Quellein, in his work The Muslim Policy in West Africa, while castigating the colonial officials for the prevalence of it.
- Maurice Delafosse, another colonial official living in Dakar, wrote about the same, commenting that “Islamophobia serves no purpose in West Africa”.
- The word became a potential political weapon in the hands of the Islamists after the 1980s.
- Ayatollah Khomeini used this argument to issue a Fatwa against Salman Rushdie for the publication of his book The Satanic Verses.
- From then to now, Islamists have been using this bogey to subject their own co-religionists and others to horrendous crimes including executions on the flimsy premise of blasphemy.
- In 2013, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (formerly the Organisation of Islamic Conference), whose member countries regularly indulge in the persecution of religious minorities, even demanded that freedom of expression must be put an end to where Islam was concerned.
Pakistan’s demand to appoint special UN envoy
- Having established Islamophobia as the UN’s concern, the Pakistani representative returned with a new demand this year that a “special envoy” be appointed to “initiate specific actions to combat Islamophobia”.
- Many countries raised objections this time also.
- But the resolution was adopted by a majority vote, and the UN decided to make a massive budgetary allocation for the office of the special envoy
The underemphasis of the UN on non-Abrahamic religions
- The UN is expected to be religion-neutral.
- That’s why India and several other European nations suggested that the scope of the resolution may be enlarged to include discrimination against all religions.
- In 2022, the Permanent Representative of India, Ambassador T S Tirumurti vociferously argued that while there was a global rise in sectarian violence, anti-Semitism, Christiano-phobia and Islamophobia, anti-Hindu, anti-Buddhist and anti-Sikh examples abound as well.
- He insisted that it was time to acknowledge that there exists an “abundance of phobias”, rather than thinking that only one phobia, Islamophobia, exists.
- He also reminded those present that there was already a UN-designated “International Day of Tolerance” on November 16 and underscored that the important word “pluralism”, a principle which India firmly upholds, was missing in the entire resolution.
- Such rational arguments, reiterated once again by the current Permanent Representative Ambassador Ruchira Kamboj this year fell on deaf ears of the declining institution.
- Holding the bull by its horns, Kamboj categorically told the member countries that clear evidence existed to prove that “over decades, followers of non-Abrahamic religions have also been affected by religiophobia” through a systematic spreading of hatred and disinformation against them in many countries.
- Showing a mirror to the champions of the discriminatory resolution, Kamboj stated that the “destruction of the Bamyan Buddhas, violations of gurudwara premises, massacres of Sikh pilgrims in gurudwaras, attacks on temples, and the glorification of breaking idols in temples” are all the contemporary forms of religiophobia against non-Abrahamic religions.
Pakistan is the worst violator of religious freedom
- Pakistan has indulged in systematic cleansing of not only religious minorities like Hindus, Sikhs and Christians but also various sects that had origins in Islamic lands or its theology.
- Brutal persecution of the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan is well-known.
- The Second Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan declared Ahmadis as non-Muslims and hundreds of them were killed and dozens of their mosques and graves destroyed.
- So is the plight of the Baha’is, a community that has origins in Iran and believes in the universality of God’s teachings and plurality of prophets.
- The community too faced similar persecution in Pakistan, Iran and elsewhere.
Some more suggestions for the UN against religious discrimination
- The UN should have heeded the suggestions of India and others that the need of the hour was to rise against all forms of intolerance and religious violence.
- For example, Belgium had proposed a broad-based amendment to the resolution that the UN “condemns the incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence against persons based on religion or belief, including against Muslims, as well as the increasing number of attacks on religious sites and shrines and expresses concern at other acts of religious intolerance, negative stereotyping, hatred and violence”.
- There was another suggestion that instead of appointing an exclusive envoy for Islamophobia, the current focal point against antisemitism, the High Representative for the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, Miguel Moratinos, could also serve as a focal point to combat Islamophobia.
- But Pakistan, supported by several other Islamic countries like Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Malaysia and Türkiye, vehemently opposed any such inclusive amendment insisting that “Islamophobia is as old as Islam itself”.
Conclusion: UN should have heeded the suggestion that the need of the hour was to rise against all forms of intolerance and religious violence, not just Islamophobia.
Topic 2 : Free speech check unit
Introduction: In April 2023, the Ministry of IT and Electronics first notified the amendments to the 2021 IT Rules to enable the creation of a Fact Checking Unit (FCU) that could effectively censor online content related to “any business of the central government” deemed as “fake” or “misleading”.
Why court has stayed the FCU
- Earlier this week, as the Centre sought to notify the FCU as a statutory body under the Press Information Bureau.
- The Court has stayed the government’s move but the fundamental problem with granting a body under the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting the power of censorship remains.
- The FCU makes the government judge, jury and executioner.
- There is little clarity in the Rules about terms like “fake”, “misleading” and “false”.
- Once a piece of news is deemed misleading, it must be taken down by the “intermediaries” — social media and media platforms, and internet service providers.
- Fake news is indeed a problem, especially when it incites violence.
- But the determination of liability, of truth and falsity, cannot be done by the government alone.
What is Fake News?
- Fake news is news, stories or hoaxes created to deliberately misinform or deceive readers.
- Usually, these stories are created to either influence people’s views, push a political agenda or cause confusion and can often be a profitable business for online publishers.
The existing mechanism to tackle fake news
- Indian Broadcast Foundation (IBF): This body was created in 1999 to look into the complaints against content aired by 24×7 channels.
- The Press Council of India: It is created by an Act of Parliament, is a statutory body and keeps vigil on fake news. It can warn, admonish or censure the newspaper, the news agency.
- IPC Sections 153A and 295: Under this action can be initiated against someone creating or spreading fake news if it can be termed as hate speech.
- Broadcasting Content Complaint Council (BCCC): A complaint relating to objectionable TV content or fake news can be filed to the Broadcasting Content Complaints Council.
- Defamation Suit: IPC Section 499 makes defamation a criminal offence. Section 500 provides for punishment for criminal defamation.
- The Information Technology (IT) Act: It imposes an obligation on intermediaries such as search engine giant Google to remove any objectionable content pursuant to takedown notices by law enforcement agencies.
- Contempt of Court laws: False stories about judicial proceedings would be covered by contempt of court laws and false stories about Parliament and other legislative bodies would violate privilege.
The apprehension about the timing
- The amendment in Rules was challenged before the Bombay High Court and a division bench delivered a split verdict on January 31.
- A larger HC Bench refused to grant an interim stay order.
- Before the Supreme Court could weigh in on the appeal, the government — with elections around the corner — decided to grant the FCU statutory status.
- On the face of it, the FCU is violative of Article 19 of the Constitution — the right to free speech.
- Democratic politics is an open contestation of ideas and personalities.
Conclusion: In the matter of fake news, government wants to play judge, jury, executioner. The Centre must heed the words of Justice GS Patel, who delivered the dissenting judgment in the Bombay HC: “…[The] state cannot coercively classify speech as true or false and compel the non-publication of the latter. That is nothing but censorship”.