The Bombay HC on April 15 seemingly legitimised the existence of minority ghettos in the nation, where the mere existence of Hindus exercising their right to worship is a potential trigger for violence and an affront to the Muslim community.
The Bombay HC directed the Ram Navami organisers to ensure the processions’ routes don’t traverse paths with mosques on them.
“Ensure that routes are changed. Ultimately, if there is a law and order problem, you’ll face problems…” the bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Manjusha Deshpande noted.
The Calcutta HC also granted ‘conditional permission’ for the Ram Navami procession in the ‘sensitive’ Howrah region, which saw large-scale violence last year when a raft of Islamists attacked Hindu devotees participating in the Ram Navami Shobha Yatra.
Justice Jay Sengupta, presiding over a single-judge bench, ruled that the Ram Navami processions in Howrah, West Bengal, must not exceed 200 attendees. He also prohibited the display of any weapons during the processions and mandated that each procession be limited to one vehicle for transporting the idol of Lord Ram.
The fact that Hindus have to seek permission from courts to carry out processions on their festivals lest they face attacks from the members of the barbaric cult bent on destroying the idolators and the courts offering “conditional permission” for the same encapsulates the sorry state of ‘secularism’ in the country, where the burden of maintaining the secular fabric of the country is solely the responsibility of Hindus while the other side can continue to indulge in street violence.
The judgments are shocking, for they grant legitimacy to something as dangerous as the ghettoisation of a minority community and rationalising them as ‘Muslim areas’. In such areas, a non-Muslim is reduced to a second-class citizen, just like in Pakistan and other Islamic countries where the rights of Muslims supersede that of others and where non-Muslims are barred from engaging in activities that may hurt the sensitivities of the Muslim majority. The idea that non-Muslims have to be restricted in their conduct in ‘Muslim areas’ is an implicit admission that such ghettos are areas where the law of the land goes for a toss and a special set of rules are followed, which in Muslim-majority areas is usually close to what we witness in Shariat-compliant countries.
Secondly, the judgment also shifts the onus of responsibility from the aggressor to the aggrieved. By asking the victims to change the route with the threat of prosecution is akin to empowering the aggressors to continue with their violent means with impunity. It is common knowledge that Islamists go on a rampage against processions carried out by Hindus during their festivals, most notably Ram Navami, the occasion to celebrate the birth of Lord Ram, one of the foremost deities in the Hindu pantheon.
Such attacks, especially when the procession passes through Muslim-majority regions, have become alarmingly common in the last few years, especially on the occasions of Hindu festivities, in particular, Ram Navami, the birth anniversary of Lord Rama. For Hindus, Ram Navami remains one of the foremost festivals and a preeminently auspicious occasion in the Hindu calendar year. On this day, Hindus seek blessings from Lord Rama, provide food to the needy, perform rituals, and take out processions among other things.
Over the years, the Islamist attacks against Ram Navami processions have been as regular as clockwork: completely expected and predictable. From Vadodara in Gujarat to Howrah in West Bengal, from Mumbai to Sambhaji Nagar, cities and towns across the length and breadth of the country were smouldering with the fire of religious zealotry last year as Islamists attacked Ram Navami processions while they were traversing through Muslim-majority regions or it has been referred to as ‘Muslim areas’.
The attacks are not just on the religious beliefs of Hindus but also an attempt to extinguish their resistance. Lord Ram, one of the most popular Gods of Hindus, has emerged as the most potent symbol of the modern Hindu renaissance against Western decadence and Middle Eastern orthodoxy. The attacks on Ram Navami processions aim to chip away at the symbolism personified by Lord Ram.
But of late, the attacks have intensified not just against Ram Navami processions but against other celebrations of Hindu festivities as well. The tolerance has shrunk so much so that a mere celebration of a kafir festival is sufficient enough provocation for the faithful to go on a rampage.
Recently, Islamists rained stones at devotees of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar during a procession held in Dhule, Maharashtra, to commemorate the birth anniversary of the chief architect of India’s Constitution, who played a pivotal role in advocating for their rights and social justice in India.
But what it proves is that regardless of whether the procession is carried out by Ram Bhakts or Ambedkar devotees or people belonging to any other sect, the Islamists, poisoned with supremacist beliefs, would not hesitate in embracing street violence to attack kafirs or infidels, sanctioned and prescribed by their scriptures.
How street veto is an integral characteristic of Islamists
Islamists have consistently employed violence as a strategic means of control, using it to demand compliance, assert dominance, and stifle dissent. This is especially true when it comes to street violence, a tool they have honed and monopolized over many decades if not centuries. Their aim? To assert their religious hegemony and uphold their dogmas and unwavering beliefs.
Take, for example, the case of former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma. When she made remarks about Prophet Muhammad based on Islamic Hadiths, the Islamists wasted no time in resorting to their speciality—street violence. They unleashed chaos in cities and towns across the country without hesitation.
Thousands took to the streets, not just to voice opposition to Nupur Sharma’s comments and issue death threats, but to showcase the overwhelming power their community holds when it comes to violence. Their goal was to instil fear among critics and pressure the government into compliance with their demands. Instead of issuing an unqualified condemnation of the violence that ensued and rebuking the police authorities for failing to uphold law and order, the Supreme Court blamed her for having a ‘loose tongue’ that set the entire country on fire and asked her to apologise to the country. It was another instance when Islamists felt empowered that the judiciary did not hold them to account, and instead blamed the victim.
Nevertheless, this wave of Islamic radicalism has assumed greater proportions, partly by favourable court verdicts and political patronage, setting cities and towns ablaze as Islamists rampage, and engage in violence, destruction, and arson in response to what they perceive as provocation, which has no defined character. So whether it is the centuries-old tradition of Hindu processions crisscrossing the roads in towns, including in Muslim-dominated regions or on roads where mosques exist, or a Nupur Sharma defending the honour of her God, Islamists run riot, resorting to stone pelting and attacking the attendees of such processions.
While one might be inclined to dismiss the repeated use of street violence as an attribute intrinsic to the community, the ramifications are not just limited to the realm of law and order and extend well into the country’s collective psyche. Besides stamping their authority and seeking instant gratification from taking to street violence, the larger aim of the Islamists in employing violence as a strategic tool is to further their religious goal of expanding the frontiers of Dar-al-Islam (House of Islam) and creating fear of bodily harm among other section of the society.
Why the courts should stop treating Islamic fanatics with kid gloves and stamp down their urge for street violence
Therefore, the recent ruling by the Bombay HC is of profound concern for everyone who seeks to uphold the integrity of the country, its secular fabric, and the age-old pluralism that underpins the country’s traditions and customs. The verdict effectively grants legitimacy to the ‘Muslim areas’ argument, which distinguishes some areas from others based on the demographic composition and where the fundamental rights of citizens may not apply fully. It seems that the courts do not want to address the elephant in the room: the bloodthirsty Islamists who take to the streets and indulge in violence against those who don’t belong to their faith.
This distinction of Hindu-Muslim areas led to the partition in 1947. More than 75 years later, the left-leaning intellectual class and, worryingly, the courts also seem to be promoting the same notion that formed the bedrock of the creation of Pakistan. The court ruling that Ram Navami processions should not traverse from outside mosques is not only fundamentally against the concept of democracy, it also promotes religious segregation and empowers Islamists to take to street violence because the court has held that in case there is law and order problem, the organisers of such processions would be held responsible.
Instead of humouring Islamists, which will only whet their appetite for coming up with another set of unreasonable demands and push the envelope further, the courts must order the police to ensure law and order are maintained in whichever areas the Ram Navami procession chooses to travel, rather than applying the responsibility on the victims and blaming them for the ensuing violence and rioting.
For thousands of years, India has managed to be a bastion of multiculturalism, where people of different faiths and beliefs found refuge and flourished economically and socially, even though successive waves of Islamic invasions and subsequent British imperialism tried to alter its fundamental characteristics. It goes without saying that the Hindu way of life, deeply entrenched in the conscience of Indians, played a crucial role in shaping India as an epitome of pluralism and resisting the supremacism foisted on her, first by Islamic marauders and then by the British. The courts must preserve this distinction, and not allow Islamists what their ancestors failed to achieve here. Unfortunately, the legitimisation of ‘Muslim areas’ is not a step in that direction.
