For the past few weeks, conscientious locals and residents have been resolutely protesting against the public offering of namaz by Muslims. The opposition to namaz at public places reached a crescendo this week as the demonstrators organised a protest to rail against the Gurugram administration for allowing Muslims to continue using public places for their religious activities.
The protesters said they would continue demonstrating and thwarting Muslims from encroaching upon the public place and using it for their religious activities. In response, the Gurugram administration deployed more than 500 police personnel to man namaz sites amidst intensifying protests against the public offering of namaz.
And predictably, the opposition to the public offering of namaz has stirred a debate, raising questions on whether public places can be allowed to be hijacked by influential groups and communities, including religious ones, and used for personal purposes.
On October 29, Shekhar Gupta’s The Print published an article that batted in favour of the public offering of namaz. Even though the article was meant to defend namaz in open and at public places, it ended up arguing that Hindus are an acceptable part of society so long as they behave like dhimmis—a pejorative reference to non-Muslims living in an Islamic state.
The article titled ‘Namaz isn’t an anti-Hindu act. Time for every Indian to defend Islam’ and authored by Hilal Ahmed sought to not only deflect criticism away from the Muslims squatting public properties to observe their religious rituals but also attempted to paint Hindus as an intolerant community for simply standing up for preserving their rights.
The Print article paints opposing Hindus as aggressors, accuses them of protesting against Namaz in totality
Ahmed comes up with a straw man argument in his opinion piece in The Print, accusing Hindus of opposing namaz in its entirety. The author cunningly and very conveniently extrapolates opposition to namaz in public places to a blanket objection to the Islamic ritual of namaz. There are obvious differences between practising rituals in designated places of worship and occupying open spaces to observe one’s religious customs.
Those protesting against the observance of namaz in open spaces are not opposing the practice of namaz in its entirety. They are simply opposing the occupation of public places that infringes upon the rights of other people, causes them inconvenience and sets a dangerous precedent for other groups and communities to follow. But this nuance is expediently swept under the rug as Ahmed characterises outrage against namaz in open places as a blanket opposition to Islam.
Then, he goes on to provide a lousy defence to why Muslims have started performing namaz in makeshift venues and open places. He says the ever-increasing number of devout Muslims who believe in offering namaz has increased significantly, making it difficult to accommodate them in existing mosques.
Coupled with this phenomenon, Ahmed cites the rural-urban migration dynamic that has thrust Muslim artisans, labourers, skilled and semi-skilled workers in places and industrial zones that do not have proper mosques. Hilal says owing to these developments, Muslim people have to eventually offer namaz in open spaces and public roads.
It is worth noting how casually Hilal tries to normalise and mainstream the observance of Muslim religious practices in public. According to him, Muslims who could not find proper mosques in areas where they live and work are entitled to seize public roads and open places for performing their namaz rituals. However, Hilal also glosses over the fact that Muslims occupying streets and causing inconvenience 5 times a day is not a new phenomenon. We have always seen Muslims observe Namaaz on the roads and in public places. This essentially happens because the Muslim community believes that Allah is omnipresent and when it’s time to do Namaaz (5 times a day), it is their religious duty to offer prayers no matter where they are.
The unabashed justification of allowing Muslims to occupy government properties bears stark resemblance to the defence of Shaheen Bagh protest
Apparently, this is the same premise that is used to justify the Shaheen Bagh protests, where anti-CAA rioters had squatted on one of the busiest thoroughfares in Delhi to railroad the Centre into rescinding the CAA bill. They defended their flagrant violation of individual rights and grave inconvenience caused to the people of Delhi by portraying Muslims as a dispossessed community fighting the alleged discrimination meted out on them.
Notwithstanding Supreme Court’s scathing remarks on illegal and indefinite occupation of public land, the proponents of Shaheen Bagh protests have continued to throw their weight behind the demonstrations, at times even accusing the judiciary of being saffronised under the Modi government. They cite constitutional provisions to justify such an unlawful assembly of people on public roads while turning a blind eye to provisions that criminalises holding the centre to ransom and contravening on the rights of fellow citizens.
In his article for The Print defending namaz in public spaces, Hilal seems to take a cue from the unapologetic supporters of the Shaheen Bagh protests by arguing in favour of offering namaz on public roads and open places, even if that runs counter to the constitutional norms and has a potential to disrupt public law and order.
India’s history is replete with instances where places of worship have held profound significance. In fact, religion has always been a significant part of the lives of Indians since time immemorial. Indians of all strands—be it Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jains, Buddhists and others—are normally considered to be devout followers of their respective religions. So, when a public place is associated with religious practice, it takes no time for the adherents of that religion to come up with a makeshift shrine or a temporary Mazar, which becomes permanent over time.
Therefore, it then becomes incredibly difficult for the authorities and locals to demand the removal of concrete structures or the banning of the assembly of people from places that are in reality public properties. Feelings and sentiments of people are linked to that place and the forced eviction of people or removal of shrines could touch off a wave of violence that would spread across large swathes of the country in a jiffy.
Normalisation of squatting on public places for religious rituals holds the potential to create further fault lines within the society
It also ought to be considered that the reason behind staunch public opposition to offering namaz in public has its roots in India’s troubled history. India has endured centuries of rule by foreign rulers who have displayed little regard for the indigenous people and their religion. They have forced locals to convert religion, arrogated lands and demolished temples and idols to convey the superiority of their religion, For instance, it took close to 500 years for Hindus to reclaim the birthplace of Lord Ram in Ayodhya where a structure attributed to the Mughal ruler Babur was erected in the fifteenth century after demolishing a magnificent Ram Temple that once stood there.
It was only in 2019 that the Supreme Court of India awarded the protracted dispute in favour of Hindus and gave them the authority to build a Ram Temple over it. However, secularists and Islamists still resent the fact that the apex court awarded the site to Hindus. Similarly, there are thousands of other sites across India, most notably the Gyanvapi mosque, which are disputed over. In such a scenario, when intellectuals seek to normalise the occupation of public places for religious worship, they are opening a pandora’s box that has the potential to deepen the existing social fissures further and create more fault lines within the society.
It is but natural then that Hindus and others are concerned over public places being turned into spaces for religious congregations. When people regularise a public venue as a place for offering namaz, they are just a step away from sanctifying that place as an official area of worship. As such, we have seen many cases when secularists have gone gaga over incidents when temples had opened their doors to Muslim worshippers for offering namaz. It could be allowed in some circumstances, but it should never become a routine practice.
Hindus being considered admissible part of society only as dhimmis
However, Hilal disregards this genuine disquiet among Hindus and proceeds to stereotype them as an insecure community that is protesting against the public manifestation of Islamic practice. Whether Hindus demand reclamation of their now-occupied holy sites or oppose the occupation of public places for religious purposes, they are invariably dubbed as extremists. Hilal does not grant them the same privilege that he gives to “disadvantaged Muslims” when he argues in favour of opening up public places for namaz. He defends his stance saying namaz is not against Hindu practices but conveniently refrains from citing the Quranic verses that endorse violence and savagery against non-Muslims.
On the surface, The Print appears to make a case for Muslims offering namaz in open spaces, but in reality, it is vilifying the Hindus who are opposing it and treating them as second-class citizens, akin to dhimmis, a term that refers to minorities or non-Muslims who are considered inferior in status to the Muslims in an Islamic state. Hilal, who is remarkably glib in his article on The Print, glosses over the historical discrimination faced by Hindus under Muslim rule. Yet, he wants Hindus to meekly accept the occupation of public places by Muslims for their religious worship.
In essence, Hilal is perpetuating the culture of Dhimmitude that is characteristic of nations and societies where Islam is the state religion and all other faiths are considered secondary and therefore fair game. Dhimmitude is a pejorative expression characterising the status of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. The concept was popularised by writer Bat Ye’or in the 1980s and 1990s and it consigns non-Muslims to permanent subjugation under Islamic rule. Their rights and privileges are severely curtailed vis-a-vis their Muslim counterparts, and they are forced to accept this discrimination or face forced conversion, slavery or even a mortal threat in the form of death.
However, there is a case to be made about how Dhimmitude is prevalent even in societies where Islam is not the dominant religion. Author Bat Ye’or wrote a book in 1985 that explained this phenomenon perfectly. Essentially, Dhimmitude, while earlier it was the inferior status of other religions under Islamic rule, is a phenomenon even when Islam is not the dominant religion as it becomes the default state of mind. Hindus, for example, are asked to give up their rights repeatedly to buy peace of mind and maintain “harmony”. Essentially, the state demands that Hindus pay the Jaziya in form of giving up their rights so that the Muslim community feels placated and does not go on a rampage.
This state of Dhimmitude also comes from the rampant street veto that Muslims hold, not just in India but almost everywhere, even when they are not the dominant religion. While we Hindus trend hashtags and write articles to boycott brands when an ad insulting their faith is published, Muslims take to the streets demanding the ‘blasphemes’ head on a platter. When Kamlesh Tiwari insulted the ‘Prophet’, Muslims took out marches on the roads screaming at the top of their lungs – ‘Gustakh-e-rasool ki sazaa, sar tan se juda’. Now, one could say that both Hindus and Muslims are only screaming into the empty, gaping hole without any tangible effect on the ground or on the brotherhood between Hindus and Muslims. However, while Hindus failed to even cancel the individuals insulting their faith, the Muslim radicals beheaded Tiwari and sent a chilling message to the Hindus.
It is this veto of violence, because of which, Hindus are repeatedly asked to pay Jiziya with their rights. “Don’t oppose Namaz, or it might compromise peace”. “Don’t celebrate the Ram Janmabhoomi verdict, or it may cause violence”. “Don’t talk about radical Islam, or you might be in danger”. These are statements one often heard because the Muslim community exercises the veto of violence and therefore, it is the “responsibility” of the Hindus to be perennial Dhimmis and forego their rights (or give Muslims every privilege that they demand, like offering Namaz in public places) to maintain peace.
Even though The Print article claims it is arguing in favour of the public offering of namaz, it is effectively promoting the notion that Hindus are an acceptable part of society only when they behave like dhimmis and extend their subservience to the Muslim community. They are expected to accommodate the demands of the Muslims, no matter how unreasonable they might be and even if they infringe upon the individual rights of the majority Hindus. The moment they assert themselves and stand up for their rights, they are branded as communal bigots and considered as reasonable targets for attack and slander. This, in a nutshell, is the great Indian secularism project, where Hindus are perpetually saddled with the burden of protecting the secular fabric of the country while other communities are allowed to act as per their whims and fancies.
