Get religion off its high horse
Allow ridicule, insult and critique of religious ideas - same as any other idea, like the flat earth theory
Authors
India needs to amend its constitution and its laws to remove religion from the high pedestal that it now occupies in public life. Religion needs to be considered on par with any other belief, and should get all protection available to freedom of any expression and none more. It should be as open to ridicule, insult - yes, even insult - and critique as any other belief system. There should be no holy cows when it comes to religious discourse, otherwise it leads to a climate of fear and harrassment, and, consequently, self-censorship, which is not good for a rational society - this is assuming that we all agree rationality is good. That further has its other attendant consequences like disempowerment of women and other marginalised sections of society, entrenched caste beliefs, untouchability, and other disgusting ideas.
First, therefore, to go should be Section 295A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code which, in a blast straight from the middle ages, prohibits blasphemy against all religions in India. Second, we need a rethinking on the restrictions on fundamental rights in India, insofar as they pertain to ideas and not rights of another person. For instance, restrictions based on decency or morality should go to the extent that they relate to religious ideas, but not maybe when it comes to indecent representation of women against their consent. Note that these restrictions should not even apply to right to dress as one wishes. Even nudity should not be proscribed. The principle to be established is that ideas are not sacrosanct, human agency is.
And lastly, what necessarily follows from the above changes is that the whole lot of laws protecting the right to not be offended on religious beliefs should go. Nobody has a right to not be offended on a public platform or in public interactions, by expressions that are based on truth or are opinions, whether logical or not. In a private or one-to-one interaction, this right should, however, exist, because there it devolves into direct harrassment without being able to ignore - that would be a direct invasion of private space and consent. For every other interaction, it should go. There should be no protection to those feeling incited by ideas. We penalise the one inciting, but not the one getting incited enough to damage property. The penalty should be on damaging of property or impinging of someone else’s rights, not on expression of ideas, even by the one who is supposedly inciting. Inciting should be allowed - getting incited also should be allowed, but not acting violently. India has got it all wrong - stems from the “na rahega baas, na bajegi bansuri” theory.
There is a case to be made to expand these for the larger idea of freedom of all ideas, but for now, atleast, the laws on religious beliefs should undergo this change.