Another day in a secular country and another case of street veto by the Muslim community. We have seen on numerous occasions how law enforcement agencies dance to the tunes of Islamists, this time the incident is from the national capital. Jahangirpuri in Delhi is known to have a sizeable Muslim population and with this strong number comes the usual sociocultural and political dominance that Islamists seek everywhere.
In Jahangirpuri the Police have denied permission to the Hindus to take out a religious procession on Rama Navami citing potential risks to the law and order situation.
To monkey-balance the issue, the Delhi Police also passed a diktat saying that just as Ram Navami procession was being denied in Jahangirpuri, in Maurya Enclave, Ramzan program has been denied permission in a park near “other community” and Muslims have been asked to celebrate indoors. Why this is classic monkey balancing is not difficult to understand – it was the Islamists in Jahangirpuri who committed violence against Hindus and the victims, Hindus are being denied permission to celebrate their festival. The Hindus of Maurya Enclave or any other area committed no violence against Muslims and therefore, there is clearly no threat perception because of which the police will have to deny permission for Ramzan.
Permission for the procession of Shree Ram Bhagwan Pratima yatra (Ram Navami procession) at the riot-affected Jahangirpuri area has been denied. Similarly, in Maurya Enclave area, Ramazan program have been denied in the park near other community and suggested to do inside the…
— ANI (@ANI) March 29, 2023
The question that we should be asking the authorities is this – why is the law and order situation so fragile in Muslim-dominated areas? Has it got something to do with the way the procession was to be taken out or is it solely based on how sections of Muslims conduct themselves in these ‘Muslim areas’? The answer to this question is very simple but in light of the street power that Islamists wield in India, it becomes highly difficult to be stated.
The stand taken by the Delhi police to avoid a potential law and order situation if the Hindu religious procession were to be taken out doesn’t address the elephant in the room which is the proclivity of Islamists towards violence and their use of violence on the streets as a form of veto. This desire to stop everything un-Islamic in ‘their areas’ emanates from the two-nation theory which continues to live in the minds of certain sections of the Muslim community even after the horrific partition of India on religious lines. This is not some wild claim that I am making, the predisposition of some Muslims towards violence and use of the same to keep their areas clean of ‘kafirs’ has been a regular feature of their collective behaviour before, during and after the independence of India.
Islamic separatism is not a localised issue
The two-nation theory was/is essentially an Islamic construct with the entire world divided into the land of believers and the land of infidels. And the believers are duty-bound to convert the land of infidels into their land. To achieve this end, Islamists resort to many instruments, violence being the principal one.
Sitaram Goel says in his book ‘Muslim Separatism: Causes and Consequences’, “If the Hindus sang Vande Mãtaram in a public meeting, it was a ‘conspiracy’ to convert Muslims into kãfirs. If the Hindus blew a conch or broke a coconut, or garlanded the portrait of a revered patriot, it was an attempt to ‘force’ Muslims into ‘idolatry’. If the Hindus spoke in any of their native languages, it was an ‘affront’ to the culture of Islam. If the Hindus took pride in their pre-Islamic heroes, it was a ‘devaluation’ of Islamic history. And so on, there were many more objections, major and minor, to every national self-expression. In short, it was a demand that Hindus should cease to be Hindus and become instead a faceless conglomeration of rootless individuals.”
He continues, “On the other hand, the ‘minority community’ was not prepared to make the slightest concession in what they regarded as their religious and cultural rights. If the Hindus requested that cow-killing should stop, it was a demand for renouncing an ‘established Islamic practice’. If the Hindus objected to an open sale of beef in the bazars, it was an ‘encroachment’ on the ‘civil rights’ of the Muslims. If the Hindus demanded that cows meant for ritual slaughter should not be decorated and marched through Hindu localities, it was ‘trampling upon time-honoured Islamic traditions’. If the Hindus appealed that Hindu religious processions passing through a public thoroughfare should not be obstructed, it was an attempt to ‘disturb the peace of Muslim prayers’. If the Hindus wanted their native languages to attain equal status with Urdu in the courts and the administration, it was an ‘assault on Muslim culture’. If the Hindus taught to their children the true history of Muslim tyrants, it was a ‘hate campaign against Islamic heroes’. And the ‘minority community’ was always ready to ‘defend’ its ‘religion and culture’ by taking recourse to street riots”
The Muslim Veto
Islamists have long employed violence as a strategic tool of contention to exact obedience, assert their hegemony, and silence their critics. More so with street violence, which they have monopolised by institutionalising thuggery over centuries, to prevent a critical assessment of their religious dogmas and immutable convictions.
For Islamists, having an open discussion of the teachings of Islam or the life of Prophet Muhammad is a strict no-go zone. While the public scrutiny of the Islamic religious texts has attracted intellectual opposition from ideological enablers of Islamists and left-liberals, it has also drawn crude reprisals in the form of violence and intimidation from extremists, as evident in the Nupur Sharma case.
There have been several instances where we have seen the state submit to Islamic street veto. Whether it was the 295A legislation that came into force after the Rangeela Rasool controversy, the partition of India on religious lines, Salman Rushdie being forced into hiding over Satanic Verses, the Fatwa against him and his eventual stabbing, the Rajiv Gandhi government surrendering to Muslim hardliners to overturn the Shah Bano verdict or the Narasimha Rao government buckling under the pressure of the Muslim community and enacting the Places of Worship Act 1991 and denying Hindus their right forever.
Understanding the Muslim street veto is not a particularly difficult task. We have seen examples aplenty. Essentially, the Muslim community is one that is easily offended and one that uses that offence to go on a rampage often. In 2012, for example, Islamists went on a rampage in Azad Maidan not because they had been wronged in any manner whatsoever, but because they were supposedly protesting against the Rakhine riots – an issue far divorced from India. The Delhi anti-Hindu riots are a prime example of the Muslim street veto. They picked a subject that had nothing to do with Indian Muslims, made it about a perceived injustice to themselves, got offended, ignored clarifications and went on a rampage, culminating in riots where Muslim mobs murdered Ankit Sharma by stabbing him several times and Dilbar Negi, whose hands and legs were chopped up before he was burnt to death.
After they go on a rampage because of perceived injustices to their community, and ensure that the state bends a knee and submits to their demands, they further paint themselves as victims. If you dare to call them out, they have a global ecosystem in place which will not only twist facts to suit their narrative but would also call those reporting the truth as Islamophobic. Once the state submits because of their unbridled capacity for violence and violence alone, it will tout the move as a victory and proof of the perceived injustice. The next time they are offended (which is not a rare occurrence by any stretch of the imagination), they will merely threaten the state with violence and fearing the repercussion, the state will submit to their demands. The state knows for a fact that the intolerant minority is capable of violence. They also know for a fact that they will use their capacity for violence to ensure their demands are met. Fearing impending violence, for which there is ample evidence through the centuries, the state submits to avoid “law and order” situations, often victimising an already victimised majority.
In the case of Jahangirpuri as well, one can see the Muslim street veto in action in the decision taken by the Delhi Police.
On April 16 last year, a Hanuman Jayanti procession was attacked by Islamists in the Jahangirpuri area of Delhi. The procession was moving peacefully but was stopped by one Ansar Sheikh and his accomplice near the Jama Masjid. They initiated an argument, which quickly escalated into stone-pelting, resulting in a stampede in the procession. According to the FIR, the police attempted to take control of the situation, but Islamists disregarded the orders and set vehicles on fire. They also pelted stones and glass bottles at the Hindu devotees. Later, a video of an Islamist named Sonu Chikna, firing shots at the procession, went viral on social media.
The Jahangirpuri violence, without a shred of doubt, was a Muslim mob going on a rampage against “Kafirs” because they simply could not tolerate Hindus taking out their religious procession. It “offended them”, something, which the mere existence of Hindus can accomplish.
By denying Hindus their right to celebrate Ram Navami, the police has essentially submitted to the Muslim street veto and with this move, the Islamist mob has accomplished what they wanted – that Hindus cannot celebrate their festival in an area where they are present in large numbers. The Delhi Police, thus, submitted to their street veto and no amount of monkey balancing, claiming that Ramzan has been stopped as well in a different area, would change that reality.
The violence unleashed by Islamists is real and we have thousands of instances where this has really happened. Comparing this very real threat of violence to an imagined threat to Muslims offering Ramzan prayers by Hindus not only trivialises the agony of victims of Islamist aggression but also underpins that the Police can not be relied upon when it comes to the rights of the Hindus vis-a-vis Muslims.
The peace that is achieved by offering concessions to Islamists and by snatching the rights of Hindus cannot be sustained because in this case, one party keeps giving while the other party devours all that is given to them without showing any signs of gratefulness therefore it is for the authorities to decide whether they want this short-lived peace or they want to address the “real issue”.
