Demarcating religious notions from the mundane secular life has been a long-standing challenge for the modern state. The framework of secular politics often adopts a polemical stance against communal mobilisation, often perceived by the state as a counterforce to its authority. When examining the civic nature of India, the situation presents a markedly different perspective from that of Western states. At times, collaborative efforts within society exemplify the harmonious interactions among people of various religions across cities throughout the year—a vibrant representation of ethnic and religious diversity. However, the recent increase in hate speeches and lynchings, combined with the criminalisation of Muslim festivities, fosters an atmosphere of anguish and discontent within the Muslim community. Even the methodology of securitisation adopted by the state about Muslims has ruptured drastically, which has resulted in a reconfiguration of the element of belongingness and identity.
Disenfranchising religiosity?
Jose Cassonova, a Spanish sociologist, challenged the dogma of secularism that categorises religion as a purely private matter, criticising it for failing to account for the prevailing evolving nature of religion in modern societies, transcending into the apparatus of governance, referring to Catholicism in the Western world order. Cassonova contested the perspective that seeks to marginalise religion within the framework of social priorities; however, such a claim is also difficult to sustain in countries like India, where religion is more or less commensurate with the engine of politics, especially for the current regime. His argument can be extended with the observation that a lopsided view of religious majoritarianism leads to the ‘institutional reductionism’ within a state, which in effect directs institutions to neglect formal governance at the cost of facilitating religious motives.
Disciplining the social sphere, centred on a religious backdrop, is a complex task to handle. To maintain legitimacy and public order, this endeavour often leads to critical situations of accountability. A heated debate surrounding institutional communalism against Muslims, complicit in sidelining Muslims, is already evident in public discourse. Policies that portray minority communities negatively due to their religious beliefs and practices, targeting both individuals and places of worship, will only heighten the polarisation of communal tensions.
Recent reports from Meerut displayed the implementation of stringent directives by the authorities. Individuals caught offering Namaz on public roads will face consequences, including the revocation of their passports and driving licenses. Police authorities in Aligarh, Hathras, Meerut, and other cities have instructed Muslim communities to maintain a secular public decorum by performing Namaz in their homes and refraining from conducting prayers in open spaces. Furthermore, any attempt to offer prayers collectively at home may lead to legal undertakings for Muslims, says Sambhal SP Krishan Kumar Bishnoi. This not only infringes upon the freedom to practice one’s religion but also criminalises acts of religiosity deemed unacceptable by the state. Ultimately, the government tends to exploit the communal aspect to exacerbate tensions within the society, disrupting long-established historical norms.
The standard duration of an Eid prayer is approximately half an hour, which includes both the sermons and the prayer itself. Although it stands as a religious holiday celebrated nationwide, it seldom attracts attention for disrupting commutes or causing public chaos in areas where prayers are held, primarily because most prayer times are scheduled early in the morning. Civil authorities are also present to ensure the smooth flow of traffic in the busier parts of the cities.
It is important to assess the differentiating set of rules imposed when it comes to public processions of festivities. On one hand, the possibility of legal action looms over the people of one community, interceding into their way of practice and on the other hand, religious pilgrimages like the Kanwar Yatra have a positive regulation from authorities and even receive increased government sponsorship.
Reports of vandalism during the Kumbh Mela highlighted the public property damage incurred by the government. Video evidence surfaced, showing the alleged perpetrators; however, no collective action was taken. The incidents were downplayed as a natural consequence of the large flow of devotees attending the Kumbh. In a recent turn of events, the Railway Police Force arrested 11 individuals in connection with these incidents. The question remains: will these 11 individuals face charges of vandalism, including fines or imprisonment, or will their government credentials (Passports or DLs) be revoked?
Whereas, the festival of Eid fosters indefinite hostility for the secular definition of the BJP regime. What could motivate the government to leverage religion positively and negatively against its definition of secularism, i.e. of principled distance from all religions? Does this indicate a genuine effort to uphold secular principles only against the people of a particular ethnic group, or is it a strategic tactic to manage religiosity in a disparaging way, such as by threatening to revoke passports and driver’s licenses of the minority community?
On the intertwined relation between state secularism and religion, a Saudi Arabian anthropologist, Talal Asad, has highlighted how group favouritism can lead to a particular religion influencing the personality of the state’s own secularism, thereby enforcing a comprehensive political outlook upon which the state operates within the public realm. Simply put, the majoritarian seeds of Hindutva help the Bharatiya Janata Party to cultivate its partisan politics.
Not long ago, and still to this date, the dilemma of the citizenship question looms over the Muslim community, overarching a sense of civic detachment. With the ongoing turmoil in Parliament regarding the enactment of a nationwide NRC-CAA Bill, Muslims are increasingly pushed toward communal estrangement.
Deprivation of Muslims on economic lines has already been a challenge within the community, including a drop in higher education as well as employment. In these dire circumstances, revoking crucial documents of citizenship can prove fatal for the community’s growth.
The targeting of Waqf properties, the repeal of minority scholarships, and the communal targeting of Muslim businesses have already caused significant damage to the perception of Muslims in the social sphere. Often cited is the marginalisation of Muslims, which resembles the early symptoms of genocide and reflects deep-seated communal tensions.
The threat of revoking passports and driving licenses endangers the livelihoods of Muslims. Passports hold significant value as a symbol of citizenship, providing access to travel and work abroad. The termination of passports can create grave problems, particularly for Muslims employed in Gulf countries. Those belonging to the lower-middle class are especially vulnerable to this action, which not only deprives them of hard-earned employment in low-wage jobs for which they have migrated but also has a detrimental effect on the economic conditions of their families and dependents. Furthermore, it reduces job opportunities for community members if they are unable to find employment in the home country.
Where the daily communal practices of Muslims are flagged polemically, the communalisation of local and regional commercial spaces may inadvertently drive Muslims away from opportunities to earn and grow. Besides this, the government, instead of creating opportunities for minorities to strengthen economic conditions, chooses a regressive approach that penalises religious practices.
Muslims living in underdeveloped ghettos often turn to driving as a go-to profession for earning a living. E-rickshaws, cabs, and industrial vehicles are examples of vehicles that require skilled operators. The revocation of driving licenses disproportionately affects a significant number of daily wage labourers, including those working in the gig economy.
Additionally, Muslim cab drivers and delivery personnel frequently encounter hostility due to their religious background, making it difficult for them to find a supportive work environment. The gig-economy sector has its own challenges when it comes to communal judgements, where Muslim workers face discrimination by their customers. Amidst these challenges, rather than addressing the issues at the grassroots of the societal level, the government opts to eliminate even the limited opportunities available to the economically marginalised segments of the Muslim community.
While understanding this authoritative move, it is also important to note the secular intent of the government in alienating Muslims from their own religious practices. The guise of public order permeates the psyche of other citizens, who might perceive Islamic practices as inherently disruptive to social harmony.
The marginalised treatment of the Muslim community has resulted in their economic ghettoisation, effectively excluding them from the central affairs of society and progressive policymaking, placing them outside the realm of social concern. Consequently, they are left with two options: either to remain within existing Muslim localities with limited opportunities or to navigate the challenges of their own identity in non-Muslim residential areas facing sorts of discrimination daily.
Economic strangulation of the community
Violence is often perceived as a phenomenon limited to physical confrontations; however, this perspective overlooks the violence inflicted on the livelihoods of ethnic communities. The widespread open calls for violence against the Muslim community have taken an evolved form, where businesses and properties are marked to exclude them from market participation.
For Muslims whose actions may invite legal repercussions, it becomes increasingly challenging to negotiate their assertion of identity. Both public and private spaces for the Muslim community appear to be under threat, resulting in censorship and marginalisation from the social sphere. The criminalisation of offering prayers, a detrimental principle of Islamic faith, on the street/road extends to the eschewing of commercial activities of the community, making the public space to practice trade conveniently also inhabitable.
The ethnic polarisation on economic fronts creates significant challenges for Muslim communities. In recent months, videos have emerged showing a BJP councillor in Delhi marking the carts of Hindu and Muslim vendors, inciting communal divisions within the market. Such actions aggravate tensions and can lead to the economic strangulation of the Muslim community.
Under the scope of international law, the United Nations Genocide Convention’s Clause 3 of Article 2 attempts to define economic genocide as an act in which the perpetrator intentionally inflicts conditions of life on a group of people that are purposive to bring about their bodily destruction, in whole or in part. This implies that the circumstances faced by victims can possibly lead towards appalling living conditions, where the violence extends to the subtle yet significant aspects of human existence.
The exodus of the Muslim population in Uttarakhand occurred due to increasing communal polarisation, which involved selective discrimination marked by the painting of houses and businesses. This practice contributes to the alienation of Muslims from their livelihoods and residential areas, reinforcing a sense of ‘authorisation’ that secludes them from social familiarity. The erasure and abandonment of both physical spaces and identities, as an initial step, could lead to disastrous and irreparable consequences for the minority community.
In a nutshell, the actions of seclusion by the government are rooted in the narrative which seeks to limit the assertion of Muslim identity in the social and political sphere. Censuring vital credentials reflects the economic vulnerability of Muslims, which could possibly pose hindrances to the community’s way of life.
A Muslim individual grapples with social dogmas, exploitative policymaking, vigilantism of right-wing organisations disguised as communal security, legal discrimination, property destruction, exclusion from political spaces, and other factors that contribute to the perception of his or her community as a scapegoat minority.
Disciplining religion through brute force and draconian measures should be replaced with a more community-oriented discourse that encourages collaborative efforts between authorities and responsible members of the community, ensuring checks and balances both internally and externally. The machinery of the state is meant to serve the interests of the people and should not be used to manufacture animosity, which places political motives above the well-being of individuals.
The argument must be brought forward for the Muslim community, experiencing restricted expression in both the private and the public spheres. A concerted effort has been made to distort the political imagery of the community in a significantly escalated manner, curbing means of dissent, leading to the imposition of ludicrous fines. Consequently, they are marginalised, suffering injustices at the hands of the regime with each passing day, from the doorsteps of legislation to their backyard market, severely bound with the chains of law, which seeks to disempower the community instead of empowering them.
Ariz Hasan Usmani is a student of Political Science at Aligarh Muslim University
