Context often holds the key to analysing a particular phenomenon. The centrality of context was reiterated in reference to a recent development in the Supreme Court. Earlier in the week, the Supreme Court had sought the view of the government of Karnataka on whether the chanting of the slogan, ‘Jai Shri Ram’, inside a mosque would be tantamount to a criminal offence — on the grounds of hurting the religious sentiments of a particular community. Under ordinary circumstances, in a country like India, citizens of all religious denominations ought to be free to chant a slogan of their choice. Such sloganeering is likely to fall under the ambit of free speech. But freedom of speech operates within reasonable restrictions. In response to the Supreme Court’s query, legal experts have opined that what needs to be borne in mind in the case of religious slogans is the larger context as well as the motive. Therefore, issues such as the manner of sloganeering, the place of its occurrence, as well as its impact on the prevailing atmosphere assume important dimensions in this regard. For instance, an act of aggressive sloganeering inside a religious place of another faith with the intention of intimidating its worshippers would certainly count as an offence. The slogan may not be a matter of concern but the manner of its delivery and the consequence of such sloganeering would merit scrutiny. Slogans by any religious community when delivered with a mischievous intent deserve to be censured. That should be the guiding principle in such cases.

There is another relevant aspect that must not go unnoticed. Deliberations on issues such as the one that the Supreme Court has been saddled with need to be seen in the larger context. Unfortunately, that context is the fractious social ambience that New India finds itself in today. This polarisation is the consequence of the weaponisation of religion and its rituals by the politics of the day. The majoritarian tilt of the republic is likely to get a further fillip if sloganeering with dubious motives gains legitimacy: the religious identity of the provocateur is immaterial. The matter that the highest court is seized with transcends the ethical sphere. It is an expressly political question masked in the garb of faith.