Here’s Soli Sorabjee displaying his retardation in full glory. The substance of his argument: it is right for India to not publish the Prophet’s cartoons. He makes his case in a typical magistratish fashion, peppered with precedents, legalese and jurisprudence that leaves you dazzled but contains a huge void by way of substance. In the end, he sadly forces himself inside the hallowed portals of the club of Pseudo Secularists.

The trend of judicial decisions is that one may legitimately criticise the tenets of a particular religion as irrational or historically inaccurate but it is not permissible to revile the founder of a religion or the prophets it venerates as frauds and charlatans or to expose them to scorn. Courts would in such cases infer ‘‘deliberate and malicious intention’’ to insult the religion.

As crappy as Soli’s thoughts are, a history of judgments delivered in India also tell us to be wary about the courts themselves: we wouldn’t have Manu Sharmas and Salman Khans roaming around in full freedom to search for the next victim. Soli’s sentence presents problems: the tenets of a religion are, one may reasonably suppose, those given by its founder/prophet. So, when one says that the religion’s tenets are fraudulent, does it also not prompt us to think there must be something terribly wrong with the person(s) who preached them? But Soli’s retardation has more to it.

Whose religious feelings have to be considered for determining breach of Section 295(A)? Obviously it must be of persons belonging to the religion which or whose founder and prophets have been vilified. Take the case of the outrageous cartoons of the Prophet. It would be fallacious to judge the matter from the perspective of a non-Muslim or an agnostic….The yardstick is not the standards of hyper-sensitive and volatile minds but those of ordinary persons of normal sensibilities. In this exercise one should never forget that Muslims have deep and abiding reverence for the Prophet. And remember that freedom of religion, in the words of Lord Scarman, ‘‘by necessary implication imposes a duty on all of us to refrain from insulting or outraging the religious feelings of others’’. Therefore freedom of expression cannt be invoked in India for publication of the cartoons. Nor can freedom of religion justify excessive violent reaction.

Note the usage of “outrageous cartoons.” Does Soli’s own conviction permit him to call them “outrageous,” has he merely gone with the flow, or is there something else? As he says himself, non-Muslims cannot understand why the cartoons are offensive to Muslims. Unless he converted to Islam, I guess I’m right if I question what Soli finds outrageous in those cartoons? Maybe it’s a case of “emphatizing” with brothers of other religions. But this brotherly love presents problems, too.

When Soli makes a fierce case for mutual religious respect/tolerance, does it stop at only Islam? Instead of the cartoon controversy, he could have substituted Mian Hussain’s regular expressions of artistic perversity in painting Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Hindus hold Saraswathi, Hanuman and Krishna in equal, “abiding reverence.” When Varanasi/Akshardham were bombed by the adherents of this same religion, where was the yeoman service he has now rendered without being forced?

Soli needs to learn enjoy his retirement instead of exposing his advanced senility.