It is surprising that the United Nations Commission of Human Rights recently passed a non-binding resolution against the “defamation” of religion, specifically, Islam. Although 16 countries voted against it, and 7 abstained from voting (that includes India) the resolution was passed with 29 votes.

The Resolution was called Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions. Yet, the aim of the resolution is to protect Islam from defamation. It expressed “deep concern that Islam was frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.” This resolution interestingly was proposed by the organisation of Islamic countries – the 56-nation Organisation of Islamic Conference.

This raises several interesting questions. First, how can just Islam be protected against defamation when other religions are not protected against similar “defamation” by followers of Islam or other religions? There are Islamic schools that inject hatred in the minds of their students in many parts of the world. Unless the resolution covers the dismantling of such infrastructure, how would this resolution improve peaceful co-existence of people with diverse beliefs? Therefore, the United States was right when it opposed the resolution on these grounds: “While some of the tenets of the resolution were agreed with, such as the importance of respecting the values of all cultures, and the defamation of any religion was deplored, the Resolution was incomplete, as it failed to cover defamation of all religions, and more inclusive language would cover this. It should also include the need to change educational systems that fostered hatred of other religions.”

Second, if people in various countries associate Islam with human rights violations or with terrorism, let the Islamic countries provide evidence to the contrary! Are the nations of the world to be blamed for such an association? Let the UN or the OIC examine the religious affiliation of all terrorists in the world. India's claim in the UN that “there had been much negative stereotyping of the Islamic religion and terrorists as Islamic fundamentalists” and that “terrorists had no religion, but held hatred and intolerance as their creed” has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Turning a blind eye to the religious factor for the sake of political mileage is deplorable.

There may be terrorists who happen to be Muslims; and there are “Islamic” terrorists. The former group is driven by political convictions while the latter is driven by religious convictions.

Most terrorists in the world swear by their religion. They live and die for the hope that their religion will one day rule the world. The cult of the suicide bomber thrives on a religious belief in heavenly reward for those who achieve martyrdom. If innocent Muslims feel that their religion is slandered on account of the actions of some ‘bad apples’ in their midst, then they should deal with such ‘bad apples’ instead of asking the world to shut up.

It is deplorable that various religious and social organisations protested against the honourable Home Minister's use of the word “jihad” in his speech against terrorism. Mr Chidambaram had said, “Jihad employs terror as an instrument to achieve its objectives. Such terror is directed against all and sundry, its victims are usually innocent people, and its goal is to overawe and overthrow the established authority.” Mr Chidambaram was right. Terrorists from Pakistan and Afghanistan claim that they are waging a holy war against infidels. That's no secret. Why is no social or religious body protesting against the use of religious words by those terrorists?

Third, can religions enjoy “human” rights? Human rights are for human individuals not for religions or institutions. Germany voted against the resolution claiming that “defamation of religions” is not valid in the context of human rights. What will be the effect of the assertion of a religion's “right” on an individual's right? This leads us to the fourth question.

Fourth, by limiting the right of an individual to criticise a religion, is not his/her human right violated? The “right to criticise” should not be confused with the liberty to incite violence against any religious group. Inciting hatred and violence under any pretext is wrong; criticising is not.

Unfortunately Indian law does not differentiate between the two. Instead of being driven by reason, Indian laws that attempt to prevent hate speech is driven by ill-defined “feelings.” Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code says, “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.”

Anyone who hurts the “religious feelings” of any group of people can be prosecuted! What are these “religious feelings” and how can they be differentiated from other feelings? How can we objectively measure the quantum of hurt caused to someone's feelings? In the guise of preventing such hurts, legitimate criticism too is muted. (Let alone criticism of religion, criticism of political bigwigs too are a taboo in this land. Criticise Nehru or Gandhi; you can make it to the headlines of national newspapers!)

What is this use of the fundamental right - Freedom of Speech – if we are not supposed to hurt or offend anyone? We may as well scrap that right. Wes Clark’s summarise what I wish to say: “Of course freedom of speech covers insulting another's religion! That's what FREEDOM means! Expression of thoughts which are warm and friendly, gentle and comforting, doesn't NEED any protection. It is unpopular, unfriendly, provocative and hurtful ideas which require protection. While it is true that freedom needs responsibility, it is up to each of us to judge when to speak out.”

Religions make claims—truth claims, to be precise. On the basis of these truth claims, religious bodies and their representatives demand devotion of time, money and other resources from followers. Their actions affect not just the faithful but the society in general. Therefore, any person has the right to question or criticise truth claims and practices of religions.

Followers of religions that cannot stomach criticism belong to a bygone era, and are misfits in this age of scientific temper and free inquiry. Intolerance for criticism reveals a of sense of insecurity. Their campaign does not add prestige to their belief systems or practices; instead, by spewing venom and vendetta at their critics, they erode the foundations of their respective religions. A religion that welcomes the onslaught of criticism from followers and skeptics alike will grow stronger as the years go by.

The aforesaid resolution is not binding on member States. And let us hope that good sense will prevail in the august body to keep such ill-conceived resolutions ‘non-binding.’