Be warned. The RW is choosing its subjects shrewdly. This has caused some alarm in liberal circles. Liberals are at a loss because they have stood up against these very issues for long and are finding it difficult to counter the RW troll armies’ barrage of arguments, which they themselves have made in the past.
By picking the right subjects to target Muslims, the RW is manipulating the liberals into a trap of their own making. By selecting issues that liberals have themselves railed against right till it exploded in their faces, the RW is now sitting pretty, watching the liberals trip over themselves. This forces otherwise sane people to say stupid things at best and demonises Muslims at worst.
Take a look at the issues being raised recently, and the liberal stand on them for as long as I remember. Note that I am not giving the RW stand on it below, but the actual liberal, secular humanist one:
- Triple talaq: It is a silly way to end a relationship, almost like doing it over WhatsApp. Also, it is open to misuse (and is actually frowned upon even within the Muslim society) as well as hot-headed mistakes by well-intentioned couples who do not wish to end it all, but say hurtful stuff to each other, like any other couple in the same situation.
- Hijab: It is a regressive piece of clothing that needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history. This is banned in many countries of the EU.
- Halal: It is a painful way to kill animals and we must find more humane ways to do so, if we must do so at all (refer: vegetarianism, another hot RW issue). Many EU countries have banned it, just like they have banned Kosher.
- Loudspeakers on mosques: These are causing noise pollution. No one should be allowed loudspeakers. Muslims cannot be an exception. These are frowned upon even in some Islamic countries, which are now trying to find a way to stop the proliferation of these polluting devices.
What can be your defence, as a liberal, to oppose any of this?
I do not intend to write a long post explaining each one and what arguments liberals may use to counter the hateful propaganda of those who want a majoritarian religious theocracy in India. Because I think most of you are capable of building one yourself.
That said, let me just give you some direction: In any ‘reform’ movement, especially social reform that wishes to wean society away from religious superstition and regressive practices, the keys are intent, consent, and consistency. Here’s a (very small) primer.
Your intent: Why do you want the Muslims to do something or be forced to do something? Is it because you have their best interests at heart? Or is it because you want to ‘fix’ them? If you want to harass and hurt a community under the guise of ‘social reform’, you are not really interested in reform. Because if you were, you’d figure out a way to incorporate what comes next, viz., consent.
Their consent: Are the progressive voices from inside the Muslim community with you? If they want the same thing, why are they not with you? Are liberal and secular voices that are a-religious with you? If they are not, you need to examine the previous point: viz., your intent. And if your intent is honourable and you have consent from inside the community, then, we come to the last part, that is, consistency.
All-round consistency: This means that what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you want the Parliament to legislate on religious personal law, if you want schools, colleges, and public offices to be devoid of religious symbols, if you want women to be liberated to wear anything they want anywhere, if you want to protect the weaker sections of the society by legislating against socially regressive practices, then it must apply equally to all. Your own religious beliefs cannot come in the way.
All of this is possible. But only if you have the right intent, their consent, and are willing to apply it across the board consistently. Without that, all you want to do is ‘fix’ Abdul, the air-conditioner repairman and Majid, the puncturewala. And if that is your intent, then I, as a liberal, democratic, secular humanist will stand in your way.
So, build your argument around these without resorting to verbal callisthenics where you keep having to argue about the wrong things and find yourself in risky positions defending hills you do not wish to die on.
Arguments such as ‘this is not compulsory in Islam’ and ‘hijab is a choice’, justifications like ‘but the Azaan acts as my wakeup alarm’ and ‘I like halal food’, and rearguard actions such as ‘we must respect each others’ beliefs’ and ‘the Muslims don’t object to Hindu customs, and so they must be allowed theirs’ only help to paint yourself into a corner and create inconsistencies in your stand.
Remember: The problem is NOT that triple talaq isn’t a mockery of relationships or justice, or that hijab isn’t regressive, or the loudspeakers don’t infringe on my freedom, or that halal is a humane way to slaughter animals for food. If you take that stand, you will find yourself cornered, if not now, soon. The RW WANTS you to take that stand, so you can open yourself to ridicule and accusations (rightly) of cognitive dissonance and inconsistencies. Indeed, you are sitting in their ‘kill zone’ if you make these arguments, because you are literally playing into their allegation of ‘minority appeasement’. Whichever way you look at it, you will come out looking like the fool as the Teflon-coated RW smells of roses.
The RW is counting on your stumble. Do not go down that path. Build your counterargument about intent, consent, and consistency. It is not just something to sidestep the trap they have set you. It is based on honesty. And if you believe in anything at all about the idea of India, you will know that truth always triumphs. Satyamev Jayate.
