Posts Tagged ‘blasphemy’

Whether the complaint made against Lazarus, FIR filed etc., have been stage-managed or really meant for persecuting the rabble riser evangelist who abused and even blasphemed!

November 23, 2019

Whether the complaint made against Lazarus, FIR filed etc., have been stage-managed or really meant for persecuting the rabble riser evangelist who abused and even blasphemed!

Lazarus calling temple as a place of satan The Hindu

Complaint registered based on video circulated in the Social media: Mohan C. Lazarus has been notorious for making anti-Hindu comments during his evangelization discourses. Though, he reportedly makes such tirade in his church, the videos have been in circulation. Evidently, he has contacts with the politicians, as he used to claim and declare that so and so has been Christian, or become Christians, soon he would declare so in the public. About Vaiko, he made such comments. In the same tone and tenor, he was seen declaring that the Hindu gods are satan and so on. Thus, the Hindus, after watching the videos started registering their protest and urging to take legal action against such rabble-rouser. According, the Hindu organizations have lodged complaints with police stations. The case was registered after a video of Mohan preaching went viral on social media[1]. In the video, Mohan, while referring to temples in South India, says[2], “Tamil Nadu has the most number of temples in India. These temples are in the grasp of Satan. The temples in Kumbakonam district are the habitat of devils.”

Lazarus petion filed dismissed- Indian Express

High Court ordered for providing details about the speech made, the place, date etc: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday 10-10-2018, directed the Nagercoil police not to file a charge sheet against evangelist Mohan C. Lazarus until further orders after it was established that the FIR registered against him for his remarks against Hindu gods carried no particulars of place, time or date of the alleged occurrence[3]. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, hearing the plea of Mohan Lazarus, who sought to quash the complaint filed against him, questioned if a case could be booked under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) after it was alleged that the speech was made in a closed event[4]. The court sought an explanation to ascertain the facts of the event. Immediately, the police and the applicants should have submitted the details to the court, but, obviously, they did not do that. So actually, one cannot divine who helped him or gave room for such lacuna, so that the petitions could be quashed easily.

G K Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the petition against Mohan Lazarus

The media played hype role, instead of pointing out the lacuna: However, the media had been gleefully carried on the news that more complaints were made against the evangelist and so on. The action was taken against him based on three separate complaints lodged against him with three different police stations[5]. In the first instance, BJP functionary R Jaihind Murugesan, 43, of Uthupalayam near Arasur, lodged a complaint against the preacher with the Sulur police[6]. Based on the complaint, Sulur police inspector Thangaraj registered a first information report (FIR) against Mohan C Lazarus under Sections 153 (A) (1) (a) (b) and 295 (A) of the Indian Penal Code[7]. Likewise, the Karumathampatti police registered a case against the Christian preacher under Sections 153 (A) and 295 (A) of the Indian Penal Code based on a complaint lodged by another BJP functionary, whose identity couldn’t be ascertained[8]. In another instance, VHP district deputy secretary R Manoshankar, 35, of Pollachi, lodged a complaint against Mohan Lazarus with the Pollachi west police, who registered a case[9]. Further investigation is on[10].

Lazarus - Judge Anand Venkatesh

How the court gave hint that the speech made in public should be taken cognizance and so on: Justice N Anand Venkatesh[11], while hearing the petition filed by Lazarus seeking to quash the FIR registered based on a complaint by Hindu Munnani functionary Namburajan, observed that, “Any complaint must have certain preliminary requirements to make out an offence. However, the complaint, in this case, does not satisfy the requirements to attract section 295 (A) of IPC (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious beliefs).” He stated that in order to make out a cognizable offence under the above IPC section, the statement should have been made in a public meeting[12]. If the said statement had been uttered in a closed gathering in the nature of a private meeting, it cannot be cited as a cognizable offence under the above section, as the same would imply that no two persons can freely express their ideas or sentiments to each other in fear that they may be punished if it gets published in social media, the judge added. Criticising the Kottar police for filing FIR on a complaint that lacks the most important details as to where, when and on what occasion the alleged statement had been made, the judge directed the police to explain on what basis the FIR was registered by them.

Difference among the IPC sections

Details of IPC Sections 153A, 295 & 295A SECTION 153 A: The purpose of the Section 153 A is to punish persons who indulge in wanton vilification or attacks upon the religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc of any particular group or class or upon the founders and prophets of a religion. The jurisdiction of this Section is widened so as to make promotion of disharmony, enmity or feelings of hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities punishable. Offence on moral turpitude is also covered in this section. The offence is a cognizable offence and the punishment for the same may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. However, the punishment of the offence committed in a place of worship is enhanced up to five years and fine.

Ingredients of Section 153A:

  • The act of promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, community or any other group.
  • Acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different groups or castes or communities, if the acts disturb public tranquillity.
  • Acts causing fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community by use of criminal force or violence against them.

IPC and cyberlaw, Defamation law, effects

SECTION 295: Section 295 of the I.P.C makes destruction, damage, or defilement of a place of worship or an object held sacred, with intent to insult the religion of a class of persons, punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with fine , or with both. This section has been enacted to compel people to respect the religious susceptibilities of persons of different religious persuasion or creeds.

Ingredients of Section 295:

  • The accused must do such an act with the intention of insulting the religion of any person, or with the knowledge that any class of person is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion.
  • The accused must destroy, damage or defile any place of worship or any object which is held as sacred by any class of persons.

 SECTION 295-A: The object of Section 295-A is to punish deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or the religious beliefs. This section only punishes an aggravated form of insult to religion when it is perpetrated with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of a class.

Ingredients of Section 295-A:

  • The accused must insult or attempt to insult the religion or religious beliefs of any class of citizens of India.
  • The said insult must be with a deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of the said class of citizens.
  • The said insult must be by words, either spoken or written, by signs or by visible representation or otherwise.
  • The offence under Section 295-A is cognizable and a non-bailable and non-compoundable offence.
  • The police have a power under to arrest a person charged under Section 295-A without a warrant.

However, the police did not arrest him.

IPC and cyberlaw

Lazarus gave a clarification that he made such speech in a pastors conference in 2014: Lazarus, in his petition, said the case of the prosecution was that he had spoken against Hindu gods and referred to them as Satan. He claimed that he did not intend to hurt anyone and the complaint was based on a speech delivered in 2014 at a pastors’ meet in Chennai, which was a closed event. Therefore, how and why the rel hate-speech made in 2014 in Chennai was not noticed and suddenly, it was circulated in 2019 is not known. As it was a private and closed event, as claimed and submitted before the court, how the video suddenly came out in 2014. The source could have been known to him or the persons involved in taking video or the church. As without which, it could not have been made available in Cyberspace. So if at all, anybody wanted to create trouble between two communities, it was the person who uploaded the video first in the internet. Even if it was done for publicity, then, Lazarus is responsible. Thus, instead of investigating in that way, the complaint made, FIR registered etc., were done mechanically, without application of mind or understand the legal provisions.

Mohan Lazarus clarification-1

Mohan Lazarus tactfully clarified that he was talking in a pastors meeting, according to his belief in a closed hall

Mohan Lazarus clarification-2

Mohan Lazarus tactfully clarified that he was talking in a pastors meeting, according to his belief in a closed hall

Lazarus petion filed dismissed- The Hindu

The petition has been dismissed with the provision of appeal: The Nagercoil police had booked him based on a complaint filed by Nambirajan of the Hindu Munnani under Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) and Section 295A of the IPC. Hearing in the case has been adjourned to October 24, 2018. Lazarus filed a petition explaining his stand and requesting to quash the FIR and further proceedings[13]. Accordingly, Judge G. K. Ilanthiraiyan allowed the petition filed by him and quashed the FIR filed by the Nagerkoil police[14]. The police has to file the closure of complaint to the applicant and the applicant, if has any grievance, he could approach appropriate court for getting redressal. Earlier, Lazarus also explained his position through a video uploaded as a clarification against the accusations made against him[15]. The whole affair exposed as to how the Hindutw forces have badly handled the case and cut a sorrow figure before the public, in spite of having contingent of lawyers and advocates.

© Vedaprakash

23-11-2019.

Lazarus petion filed dismissed- The Dinamalar

[1] India Today, Christian preacher booked for promoting enmity after video goes viral on social media, Lokpria Vasudevan , Chennai, October 3, 2018; UPDATED: October 3, 2018 18:02 IST

[2] https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/christian-preacher-booked-for-promoting-enmity-after-video-goes-viral-on-social-media-1354822-2018-10-03

[3] The Hindu, Explain basis for registering case against evangelist: HC Says FIR against Lazarus lacks details, STAFF REPORTER, MADURAI, OCTOBER 10, 2018 01:03 IST, UPDATED: OCTOBER 10, 2018 01:03 IST

[4] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/explain-basis-for-registering-case-against-evangelist-hc/article25173085.ece

[5] Times of India, Hate speech: Christian preacher booked in Coimbatore, TNN | Updated: Oct 3, 2018, 10:59 IST

[6] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/coimbatore/hate-speech-christian-preacher-booked/articleshow/66046126.cms

[7] TheNewsMinute, 3 cases against evangelist Mohan C Lazarus for ‘promoting enmity between religions’, Priyanka Thirumurthy, Wednesday, October 03, 2018 – 16:18.

[8] https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/3-cases-against-evangelist-mohan-c-lazarus-promoting-enmity-between-religions-89391

[9] The Hindu, More cases filed against evangelist Mohan Lazarus for his remarks against Hindu deities, Madurai bureau, IRUNELVELI, OCTOBER 03, 2018 19:28 IST; UPDATED: OCTOBER 04, 2018 01:36 IST.

[10] https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/case-filed-against-evangelist/article25114037.ece

[11] Indian Express, Madurai Bench slams Nagercoil police for registering FIR with

insufficient details, Published: 10th October 2018 09:30 AM | Last Updated: 10th October 2018 09:30 AM.

[12] https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2018/oct/10/madurai-bench-slams-nagercoil-police-for-registering-fir-with-insufficient-details-1883461.html

[13] The Hindu, HC quashes FIR against Mohan Lazarus, STAFF REPORTERNOVEMBER 22, 2019 21:32 IST, UPDATED: NOVEMBER 22, 2019 21:32 IST.

[14] https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/hc-quashes-fir-against-mohan-lazarus-madurai-nagercoil/article30053507.ece

[15] https://persecutionrelief.org/pr-mohan-c-lazarus-clarifies-about-the-allegation-made-against-him-by-religious-fanatics/

Dravidian liars and anti-Hindu atheists

July 16, 2009
Dravidian liars and anti-Hindu atheists
Published on October 20th, 2007 In Uncategorized, Politics |  Views 734
Earlier, Nandi posted in WordPress.com, in which he has made several mistakes. After pointing out (see below), now, he is coning out here with corrections made without acknowledging.

I am posting the following as a reply to Nandi”s posting appearing here:

My attention is drawn to your posting in WordPress.com.

I offer my comments to your post:

“India was an island nation surrounded by seas hence it had the name நாவலந் தீவு.

Is to so? Kindly tell me, where the expression நாவலந் தீவு is found in the ancient Tamil literature or “Sangam” literature?

“In such a scenario to claim that a Land Bridge built 1,750.000 years ago when no human being had inhabited the Earth”

In haste, you are mentioning as 1,750 years (1,750.000 = 1750).

Paula Richman wrote a book titled “Many Ramayanas” Yes the question before us is to accept which Ramayana as true story?.

You claimed youself as a rationalist / atheist etc. Then, you have to be careful in quoting from secondary sources, because, non-Hindus or anti-Hindus can write anything and quoting such biased ideas make you unbecoming of a “rationalist / atheist”. You should have read H. D. Sankalia also before jumping into the so-called “debate”.

Your mention about Jain / Buddha Ramayanas: As Ramayana has become so popular, even Jains and Buddhists had to imitate Ramayana by changing the story, just like Kulandai. Therefore, there is nothing new in it. As a researcher or scholar or historian, you have to demythologize and find out the truth, instead of relying upon “such myth on myth”, straightaway.

[The biblical Adam and Eve’s story and its resemblance could also be taken note of] Sita becoming a monket after eating a fruit: This shows that either you have not read the story properly or misquoting or rather drawing wrong parallel with the biblical Adam and Eve (don’t try to escape by telling that I am a rationalist and all). I do not know as to whether Eve became monkey to have such forceful comparison!

You furthering the above story: Here, you are perhaps nearing the biblical fables, as Jesus also reportedly married to May Magdelene. Perhaps, you decided to not stretch it.

According to Thais, Hanuman had many affairs and children: Naturally, if the wishes are horses, even blind can fly. Why Thais, even Annba did it. As you are a rationalist and atheist, you quote all these things, so enjoy.

Anna’s inconclusive debate on Kamba Ramayanam: “Navalar Somasundara Bharathiar and சொல்லின் செல்வர் R.P.Sethu Pillai debated with Anna and openly admitted they have lost the debate. This debate in Tamil Book “Let Fire Spread” தீ பரவட்டும் wants to illuminate Tamil hearts by symbolically burning Kamba ramayanam. Pulavar Kuzhanthai wrote  இராவண காவியம் . Ravana Kavyam  can be considered as Dravidian version of Ramayanam”.No, they were ashamed of the perversity and vulgarity erupted in the name of literary flow and hanged their heads. Any Tamil knowing or reading person would hang his head after reading as it is just like “yellow journalism” circulated under the “Dravidian” banner, that too, coming from Anna, wjo became Chief Minister of Tamilnadu taking oath under the Indian Constitution, that has been written by Ambedkar. Anyway, the facts are as follows:

N     The so called debate was held in the auditorium ofLaw
College, Madras on 09-02-1943 under Ramachandra Chettiyar.

N     Anna started speaking and took more than one and half hours leaving no time to others.

N     Pointing out the falsehood in his speech, R. P. Sethu Pillai openly spoke about his weakness in the argument. In fact, re ridiculed Anna for quoting from “Northern Nehru”, being a “Nakkiran” (one who always finds fault with others). Regretting that he could not speak for long time, he wound up his speech within ten minutes. He dared him that he would even come to Kanchipuram for another debate on the subject matter, if he would invite him.

N     Ezattu Adigal, who followed him, was asked to cut short his speech within five minutes.

N     Then Srinivasan started speaking, but he was prevented from speaking, as the DK activists created a riot-like condition. He had to stop his speech, because of the pandemonium created by them.

N     But, Anna was given a chance to speak again!

N     So that was the debate conducted with “freedom of speech” and respect for speakers!

N     However, winding up, C. M. Ramachandra Chetti concluded that he could not give his opinion, as the debate had been inconclusive.

The main point discussed was as to whether Ravana was an Aryan or Dravidian. Thus, the first debate had been the most undemocratic conducted under controlled conditions with rioters.

The second debate was conducted on 14-03-1943 at Devanga Padasalai, Sevvaipettai,
Salem. Salem College A. Ramasamy presided over Anna and Somasundara Bharathi spoke.

N     Anna spoke as usual taking full time.

N     Somasundara Bharathi pointed out that Anna spoke as an orator with brimming emotion not as a debater. He then, however brought out his points refuting Anna;s talk.

N     He left, as his speech was over and moreover, he had to catch his train, as plannede by the organizers.

N     But, after his departure, Anna was given a chance and he stressed upon Ravana’s race and concluded with the demand of burning “scriptures of Aryans”.

N     A. Ramasamy, though did not gave any result about the debate, he pointed out that there was “vulgarity” in Kamba Ramayanam.

In any case, such diverted reference has nothing to do with the “Ramar’s Palam”.

The question before us which of these versions is based on true historical facts. These are not days where everyone will accept anything with blind faith. If you place new facts to reopen a settled issue in history, you should place facts and prove it”.

Yes, yes. Nowadays, everybody can get information easily and they decide about truth behind it.  Even in those days (when Anna debated), the other scholars were not allowed to speak or threatened with dire consequences. In other words, they used their own type of terrorism in those days. Now, let us see, how truth is faced.

“Let us examine the falsehoods one by one. We from the Dravidian Movement are atheists but not Ravana; all know that Ravana as per epics is a devotee of Lord Siva. The doubt which arises to me is why should a reincarnation of God perform superhuman deeds to impress demigods? Does it mean that Demigods are more powerful than the Original God on reincarnation?”

Interestingly, the answer is there in the so-called above debate, as they debated only about the race of Ravana as to whether he was an Aryan or Dravidian! Rationalist or atheist has to deny such myth. Having believed it as a myth, why one should worry about it as to whether it works or not? Without Ramayana myth, there is no Ravana. If Ramayana is myth, Ravana is also a myth. Then, why debate about his “racist credentials”?

“There are many books on Indian Ocean. All these books give us evidences on the continental drift, the submerged lands of the Lemuria, which Tamils prefer to call as the Kumari Kandam”.

Yes, but note again, the western scholars do not believe in such hypotheses. Why them, even Indian eminent historians not only do not accept, but also dub them as myth.

Mr. Nandi Varman, go to Endo-eurasian group and other forums, where Tamil literature is misinterpreted and disrespected. Steve Farmer openly accuses that your friend R. Mathivanan is a foregerer. They go on debate even without knowing the fundamentals of Tamil and Tamil literature. I feel it is better spend your energy there instead of politicizing the issue.

VEDAPRAKASH,

Researcher,

Chennai.

vedamvedaprakash@yahoo.com