How Saudi’s blasphemy laws find a mirror in India

Blasphemy laws punish speech or actions considered insulting to a religion, its symbols, or its prophets. The article presents them as laws that turn religious offence into a criminal matter. It argues that such punishment is difficult to reconcile with liberal values such as secularism and free expression.

Saudi Arabia’s laws penalise claimed insults to Islam and Prophet Muhammad. Anojan Sivarasa, a 27-year-old Sri Lankan man, was sentenced to death over an allegedly derogatory comment. India does not have the same Saudi system, but many states restrict cow slaughter because cows are revered by many Hindus. In Gujarat, killing a cow can bring the same sentence as murder.

The comparison concerns the principle behind the laws, not identical legal systems. Saudi Arabia is a theocratic monarchy, while India has a secular Constitution. Yet the article says both systems allow majority religious beliefs to influence criminal punishment, raising questions about India’s constitutional promise of secular law.

The Indian court imposed one of the harshest available punishments short of death: life imprisonment with hard labour. The sentence was handed to three Muslim men convicted in a cow-slaughter case. The article presents the punishment as an example of religious belief shaping criminal law.

Their alleged offence was killing cows for meat. In India, cow slaughter is restricted in many states because cows are considered sacred by many Hindus. Gujarat has especially severe provisions. The article notes that killing a cow there can attract the same sentence as murder. The court also relied on religious reasoning when explaining its decision.

The case matters because the punishment affected people for conduct that is an ordinary food practice in many parts of the world. It also shows how cow-protection laws can have consequences beyond public debate. The article links these formal sentences to wider concerns about secularism, discrimination, and violence against Muslims.

Three Muslim men received life imprisonment in the Indian case. The sentence included hard labour, making it an especially severe punishment. The article describes this as a striking example of how cow-protection laws can impose extreme criminal penalties.

The men were convicted of killing cows for their meat. The court’s reasoning went beyond the facts of the alleged act. The judge cited Hindu religious texts, including the Vedas and the Manusmriti, and described the cow as central to Hindu faith. Gujarat’s legal framework is also severe: the article says cow killing can receive the same sentence as murder.

The case illustrates a broader conflict. Eating beef is a routine practice in many countries, but Indian law treats cow slaughter differently in many states. The article argues that life sentences, vigilante attacks, and official support for cow protection show how religious beliefs can shape both law and public violence.

Many Hindus consider cows sacred, and the article describes that belief as the basis for India’s cow-protection movement. The cow is presented not merely as an animal, but as a religious symbol. The judge called it the “axis” of faith and treated its protection as a matter of deep religious importance.

To justify the sentence, the judge cited Hindu texts including the Vedas and the Manusmriti. He said cows are “revered as the mother of the universe” and that “33 crore Hindu gods are believed to reside in them”. These claims supported the decision to sentence three Muslim men to life in prison with hard labour for killing cows for meat.

The article questions using such reasoning in a secular legal system. Religious reverence can motivate voluntary conduct, as Gandhi preferred. But when courts use it to justify severe punishment, majority faith becomes part of state coercion. That can endanger constitutional secularism and minorities.

Cow-protection laws have consequences beyond courtroom sentences. The article describes repeated waves of lynchings in which vigilante mobs hunted Muslims suspected of butchering cows. Some were targeted even for allegedly selling or eating beef. This turns a legal restriction into a source of public violence and fear.

The key mechanism is enforcement by people acting as cow protectors, sometimes with state support. The article gives the example of Monu Yadav, also known as Manu Manesar. He was accused of burning two Muslim men alive in 2023, yet was not in jail. A month before the article, he also threatened protesters seeking the chief election commissioner’s resignation.

This reality complicates claims that cow laws merely protect religious sentiment. Formal punishment and informal vigilantism can reinforce each other. The article warns that such violence represents a wider rollback of the secular decisions made by India’s Constituent Assembly in 1949.

Cow protection became part of India’s legal framework shortly after independence. Less than two years after Mohandas Gandhi was assassinated, a prohibition on cow slaughter entered the Constitution. It appeared as a Directive Principle, so it was not directly enforceable in court. Its inclusion still gave the issue constitutional importance.

States then began passing laws restricting cow slaughter. The article says courts initially watered down some bans. In 2005, however, the Supreme Court upheld a new and harsh Gujarat law enacted by Narendra Modi when he was chief minister. The judgment even claimed that one cow’s dung was worth more than the Kohinoor diamond.

This history shows how a non-enforceable constitutional principle became a foundation for criminal restrictions. The article contrasts Gandhi’s preference for persuading Muslims, Christians, and Dalits with later carceral punishment. It argues that these developments helped move India away from secular lawmaking and toward religiously grounded state power.

Secularism in a constitutional democracy means the state does not make one religion’s beliefs the compulsory standard for everyone. Laws should protect people equally and rely on public, constitutional reasoning rather than religious authority. India’s Constitution enshrines secularism, and the article says independent India intended lawmaking to be secular rather than religious.

The contrast appears in the cow case. A judge cited the Vedas and the Manusmriti, called cows the “axis” of faith, and imposed life sentences with hard labour on three Muslim men. The article compares this with Saudi Arabia’s punishment for insulting Islam. The systems differ, but both let majority religious beliefs shape criminal law.

Secularism does not prevent people from worshipping cows or choosing not to eat beef. It limits the state’s power to force those choices on others. The article warns that legal violence, vigilante attacks, and official support for cow protection may roll back India’s constitutional settlement.