The censorious attitude taken by some votaries of the politics of familiarity (also known as identity politics) is destructive not only of debate, but of speech itself. There is no such thing as a "right to not be hurt." It is not right to equate criticism of religion with an attack on the rights and dignity of its followers. People have the right to religious beliefs, but atheistic and rationalists also have a right to speak and be heard - even when they cast doubt on divine revelation. Of course it is desirable that criticism be conducted in a calm manner and not with anger, sarcasm and hatred. At the same time we should remember that agnostic bloggers have been brutally intimidated or murdered for 'blasphemy' in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and that thirteen countries, (all Muslim) have laws prescribing death for atheists. In India, scholars have been shot dead for 'hurting the sentiments' of so-called proprietors of Hindu orthodox beliefs. And a rationalist named Farook was knifed to death in Coimbatore on March 17. We need to defend the intellectual freedoms all - repeat all - people. Some more observations on communal politics in the region may be read here
If truth is completely relative to the identity of the speaker or observer, and may not be challenged for fear of 'hurting sentiments' then how may we convince anyone of the injustices experienced by victims of terrorism, state-terrorism, vigilante 'justice', etc? This kind of argument is a double-edged sword and will serve only to destroy the grounds on which we can fight for justice.
Here is the piece I wrote on the JNU crisis of February 2016. For two months I tried to obtain a forum for an open discussion with students on its contents, which include Maoism, violent revolution, the plight of Kashmiri Pandits and the concept of 'self-determination'. I failed to move the walls of ideological certitude. This, by the way is the meeting I was trying to hold. It is not possible to resist state-enabled vigilante violence and official intolerance if those who claim to be democrats behave in a dogmatic and fanatic manner themselves. It is not possible to fight ideological tyranny with a counter-tyranny; or in an atmosphere where various 'incontestable' party positions hold sway, so much so that even friends are not permitted to speak because they speak inconvenient truths. Ideology is the enemy of truth - here's some material on what ideology means. In my view the very establishment of ideological 'front organisations' of sundry political parties marks the demise of rational debate on campuses. Students would do themselves a favour if they maintained their intellectual autonomy rather than hand it over to political parties and ideologues. Nothing prevents them from forming groups or adopting political positions without carrying partisan labels.
Well written, Abhiruchi and Chitra. This should be the start of a non-polemical debate about religion and philosophy. It's late enough already. I provide some links below for further reading: DS
Maxime Rodinson's interview on Islam, fundamentalism and the West - September 28, 2001
Warwick University(UK) Student Union Bans Feminist, Marxist, Secularist Maryam Namazie
Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd's Legacy (Library of writings)
Sudanese women struggle against religious tyranny
On Betrayal by the Left – Talking with Ex-Muslim Sarah Haider
But beware, the thought police of 'true belief' is upon us. Pathologisation of rationalist views as 'Islamophobic', belongs to the long tradition of taxonomising rationalists by turning critical thought into an allegation. While the progressive and the Left community has always claimed to put up a fight against right-wing violence and in this project appropriated the icons of rationalists like Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare and M M Kalburgi, it has deliberately refrained from taking a principled political position on the rationalist critique of religion and systematically upheld Islam apologia as its strategy to counter the Hindu right-wing.
The rechristening of dissenters, rationalists and free-thinkers belongs to the historical tradition of pathologising those with contrarian views. The women non-adherents of patriarchal norms were dubbed 'witches'. The rationalist non-adherents of faith were dubbed 'blasphemers', and the non-conformists to the social strictures were dubbed 'mad'. Now the regime of offence in JNU has begun the task of taxonomising rationalists with the power vested in them by the Left political ally.
What is to be Undone
The fears and aversion of the rationalists are not irrational phobias, but justified responses in a political context where 'insensitivity to feelings of hurt and offence' have gone on to become a trademark allegation to silence their voices and accuse them of 'hate-speech'. Feeling offended and subsequent silencing of voices of critique of religion to protect the offended feelings, is the sign of a bigoted mind and weak logic. The term 'Islamophobia' is misleading and conflationary, as it pigeonholes all critique of Islam as a 'phobia' or bigotry towards Muslims.
To begin with, the authors have operated from the false binary of Muslim believers and non-Muslim "Islamophobes". In laying the blame of the disappearance of Najeeb on the campus Left, they otherise the campus Left as if they did not constitute Muslim members. Or that the Muslim members of the Left organisations in JNU were somehow lesser qualified to represent oppressions of Muslims and their views were less authentic. The authors' assumption that the rationalists who question Islamic feminism are all non-Muslim "Islamophobes" or Muslim-less Left, is reflective of a deep seated prejudice that is characteristic of the Big O.
The hyperbole and spectre of "derogatory word" logic used by the authors misses certain very crucial facts. The authors use the instance of Shehla Rashid's Facebook post which had made a point about 'hate speech', as an example of Left activist's usage of 'derogatory word' for Prophet Mohammad. What they fail to conveniently omit is the word was from a quoted text, which also contained another example about the Hindu god Ram. Why are such references justified in the case of 'other' religions, but unacceptable and intolerable for one's 'own' religion? Any act of questioning Islamic history and historical figures, is just as much anti-Muslim as questioning the veracity of the claims of a Ram Mandir or Ram Setu are anti-Hindu. To question one, and not question the other is bigotry and chauvinism.
While this "offence" had led to FIR threats and massive trolling culminating into a police complaint against the leader, AISA and the Left parties on campus maintained a deafening silence on the Muslim AMU right-wing or the musanghis, in keeping with its principled politics of appeasement. The fundamental reduction of all Muslims to their immediate identity does supreme injustice to the voices of the minorities from within. Neither do all believers of Islamic faith have a uniform interpretation of Quran, nor are all Muslims, believers of the faith. Muslims, like other social minorities in the country have denominational, gendered and caste-based internal minorities. Additionally, there are ideological minorities of ex-Muslims, atheists, apostates, rationalists and anti-Islam feminists who face the threat of legal and social penalties and persecution, apart from routine oppression, injustices and a general sense of alienation and marginalisation.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born activist who became an atheist after renouncing Islam, faces routine threats for being vocal in her anti-Islamic views. Ali faced the oppressive practice of genital mutilation at the age of five and had to flee in order to escape a forced marriage and the subsequent backlash of honour killing. She regularly expresses herself against the dangers of not just radical Islam, but "regular Islam" and has asserted against the "backward" nature of the religion. The consequences and costs of resistance have been manifold. A video campaign targeting Ayaan Hirsi Ali titled 'You Are Not Our Ally' was recently launched on the internet where prominent Muslim women, writers, activists and others from Australia projected her as a right-wing white supremacist. The de-legitimisation of rationalist voices, that exists in JNU context too, plays into a subtle and hidden apologia for misogynistic attacks on female rationalists.
The complainants who report sexual harassment against men of 'progressive' lineages and links find popular support and solidarity in JNU politics. But the consequent development of a feminist politics independent of the Left, has been time and again been characterised as 'bourgeois', 'elite', 'urban' and even written off as a right-wing conspiracy. And when the independent and rationalist feminists face religious bigotry and chauvinism by distributers and wholesale vendors of religion through choicest brandings, the Left blames them, instead, for acting insensitive. Why do the Left-liberals not uphold rationalist arguments when women are labelled as 'Islamophobic' and 'bourgeois' for critiquing Islam?
It has become a left catchphrase to call rational thought and ideas as "elitist" and "insensitive". Faisal Saeed Al Mutar has attributed this regressive and reactionary character of the left politics to its "unholy alliance" with the Islamists. Mutar has called out the hypocrisy of the left liberals who uphold the universal rights of women and homosexuals yet side with the Islamists, pleading religious sensitivity, and supporting Islamic practices from a cultural relativism lens. He attributes the vindication of backward and regressive practices in Islam to the fear of Islamophobia or "Islamophobia" phobia, not a concern for human rights. The pre-emptive "Islamophobia" phobia leaves the space of criticism open only for the "crazy far right" while demolishing any right to the critical interpretation by rationalists.
While Nasreen is openly anti-Islam, not all women and girls can afford to pay the price of speaking up. So, as easy as it may seem, to call a fatwa "non-mandatory", unless any such order or interpretation as contained in a fatwa doesn't mandatorily uphold the equal rights of girls like Afrin to interpret her faith, it is unjust and unconstitutional. Just like the Khap panchayat is, for telling women what to wear and eat. The right to interpretation of both, essential and non-essential features of faith is a rationalist right, on which scholars, systematic purveyors of faith and standard believers cannot impose restrictions or qualifiers.
Whether it be the recent incident of Aman Sinha or that of the several other left-liberal and free-thinking students and faculty of JNU who think critically, the offended souls, their kindred spirits and the respected authors who distribute certificates of "Islamophobia", cannot impose restrictions on their freedoms to express and interpret. There is no such right that constitution grants to the believer. While belief is democratic and open to harshest critiques, caricatures and mockery, it is dogma stems from a self-righteous claim to incontrovertible truth.
Since critical scrutiny is a very fundamental basis of rationalism, all dominant narratives of history are open to rational inquiry and criticism. No matter how fundamental any principle of belief in Islam, it is open to scientific inquiry and counter-claims. PN Oak's proposition in, "Some Missing Chapters of World History", that Christianity and Islam are both derivatives of Hinduism, and that the Catholic Vatican, Kaaba and the Taj Mahal were once Hindu temples to Shiva, is not beyond critical scrutiny, questioning and counter-propositions.
In fact, as students, activists and social scientists, there is every need to question faith based practices like honour killings, denial of girls education, denying women the right to leave their homes without permission from a male relative, performing marriages on girls as young as age 9, the continued practice of female genital mutilation for "purity," and the stoning of homosexuals, which are often attributed to believer, instead of the faith. And while those with differences have the right to debate, they cannot assume the moral high-ground of a jury. Debate culture is not a Roman inquisition, where rationalists can be accused and branded for heresy, but a Socratic dialogue where individuals are dedicated to the cause of debunking presumptions, not protecting offence.
Abhiruchi Ranjan and Chitra Adkar are research scholars at JNU
Muslim organisation announces Rs 10 lakh reward for beheading Tarek Fatah // Self-Appointed Defenders of Islam must be careful (1994)