Backpage
THE recent killings of innocent civilians in a Dhaka cafeteria has once again fuelled a charged debate in India about appropriate ways to curb radicalization of Muslim youth by ‘interested’ ideologues spreading messages of intolerance, hate and revenge. In the eye of the storm is Mumbai-based televangelist, Zakir Naik and his Peace TV, ‘charged’ with ‘brainwashing’ the Bangladesh terror perpetrators. It is worth remembering that Zakir Naik’s sermons are in English as also that three of the five perpetrators were not poor, unemployed, disenfranchised youth who were radicalized in madrasas but children of affluent families who had studied in some of the most exclusive, elite institutions of the country.
The allegation is that they chose the path they did, if not exclusively in substantial measure, because of the messages inherent in Zakir Naik’s sermons. Not unexpectedly, this has given rise to a flurry of demands to shut down Naik’s operations and, worse, crack down on all similar preachers, websites and institutions. Equally expectedly, human rights groups, liberal commentators and those engaged in improving inter-community relations and countering Islamophobia and majoritarian impulses are worried, convinced that a crackdown will only further aggravate the alienation in a community convinced that it is discriminated against.
To turn first to Zakir Naik and his Peace TV. Even those who do not buy into the allegation of his purported links with Hafiz Sayeed and the LeT are uneasy with the conservative, Salafist tone infusing his sermons. More than help a community struggling to make sense of the modern world while retaining its collective self, Naik’s interpretation of the basic tenets of the faith appears distinctly at odds with the requirements of living in a multi-religious, multi-cultural society.
In this, he is hardly alone. The fact, regularly disregarded and distorted, specially in our mass media, is that the pronouncements and messages from leaders of other faiths, in particular the majority community, are equally regressive. Just recollect the inflammatory speeches of the many sadhavis and swamis as also sundry political/community leaders across parties. Or that the state, ever willing and keen to crack down on Muslim community leaders, invariably drags its feet when it comes to disciplining Hindu leaders.
This, however, still leaves open the question of how to respond to the likes of Zakir Naik. Should the government give into the many demands to shut down his operations and charge him with promoting inter-community enmity, if not aiding and abetting terrorism? On available evidence, however, it appears that his sermons do not attract the extant provisions governing hate speech or incitement to violence. Will not then such actions violate the fundamental right to free speech or the freedom to practice and propagate one’s faith?
For far too long the Indian authorities, as also sections of our intelligentsia, have hidden behind the pretence that we do not have a Muslim extremism problem or that it exists only on the deprived fringes of the community. The truth is that it has crept way beyond the fringes and what is reflected in Bangladesh is equally true here. It is also undeniable that many of the radicalized, particularly from among the rich and educated, get their ideas from online exposure – websites, YouTube sermons and documentaries – though not only this. Such ideas are omnipresent these days, in conversations among friends and others. And while in themselves not violent, like all one-sided, conservative, assertive and intolerant ideologies, create an environment which allows or encourages violence. There is thus an urgent need to engage in a fresh debate on what is permissible and what is not in these highly charged and polarized times.
We liberals flinch at the idea of restrictions, convinced, correctly, that the state, helped by a pliant media, deliberately exaggerates events and amplifies dangers to bludgeon us into diluting or giving up hard-won constitutional rights and freedoms. The fact that the authorities can rightly be charged with differentiated and discriminatory practice further hardens our stand, particularly when it comes to actions against minority groups. It is, however, worth considering whether our principled opposition to and non-participation in the framing of rules and regulations governing public speech and behaviour is not somewhat misplaced.
Neither adding to restrictive laws nor leaving it to the security agencies, whose actions are shrouded in secrecy, is likely to improve matters. Possibly, it is time to debate the framework of a more transparent system of approval and oversight by an executive plus group including parliamentarians and human rights groups with recommendations/actions placed in the public domain. This may help us evolve better ways to negotiate the delicate and fraught relationship between needed state action to ensure security and constitutional freedoms.
Harsh Sethi