How could Theodore Adorno, a keen observer of the rise of fascism in Germany and Europe and the theoretician behind the concept of the “Authoritarian Personality,” be connected to our own Urdu poet, Majaz?
While we were trying to process the most recent hounding of Nadeem Khan, national secretary of Association of Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) by the Delhi police, a friend of mine shared an article written by Sharjeel Imam, who wll complete years in jail for his role in the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (anti-CAA) movement. He invokes Majaz, “Hadein wo kheinch rakhi hain haram ke pasbano ne ke bin mujrim bane paighaam bhi pahuncha nahi skta (The guardians of the holy have drawn lines so strict that no message can pass without making a criminal out of the messenger).” The messenger of the bad news is a criminal.
While reading him and thinking about the persecution of Nadeem, I recalled Theodore Adorno. In this very context, he writes: “The hangman gets upset when someone talks about the noose in his house. The hangman alleges that it is an attempt to create resentment against him. To defame him.” I recalled Adorno while reading about the FIR against Nadeem. Adorno kept coming back, again and again. I have forgotten how many times, in these 10 years these lines from him have come back to me. Repetition is our fate.
Nadeem is accused by the Delhi police of creating enmity and hatred in society by documenting and exhibiting the hate crimes that have been committed in the country for the last ten years. That Pahelu Khan or Junaid or Mohsin Khan or Rakbar or scores like them were lynched is a fact. But the police feel that to talk about them is an act of spreading hatred. That Narendra Modi, Amit Shah, Adityanath, Himanta Biswa Sarma and other leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) keep giving either dog whistles or brazen hate speeches against Muslim is an undisputed fact. If you mention it, however, you’ll be accused of harbouring hatred against them and inciting hatred towards them among Muslims. That is what Nadeem is accused of. How can he talk about the noose in the house of the hangman? By doing it he is creating resentment against them. The police are fearful that it might break the country.
Also read: The Ajmer Dargah Sharif Is the Site for the Tussle Between Sufism and Hindutva
Before the persecution of Nadeem started, we learnt that a criminal case had been filed against Mohammed Zubair, the famous fact checker journalist. What was his crime? He was drawing the attention of the law and order authorities towards the hate speeches given by Yati Narsinghanand. The fact of the hate speech given by Yati is undisputed. It is not denied that Yati spewed venom. But someone took offence that the target of his hate act, one individual from the Muslim community was complaining about it. How dare he? Was he not trying to mobilise the anguish of his community against Yati, who was threatening violence against Muslims? Zubair, according to the petitioner, by pointing at the hate act of Yati was creating resentment against him. This act has hurt the supporters of Yati. They do not disagree that he spreads hatred against Muslims, that he calls for violence against them. But they would not like a Muslim to talk about it or protest.
The law and order authorities concurred with the petitioner against Zubair. They say that his act of calling for action against the violent speech of Yati has hurt the sentiments of his followers. Hurting the sentiments of a population is a crime. But only when the hurt population is Hindu. The state went hundred steps ahead and alleged that by talking about the hate act of Yati, Zubair was actually attacking the integrity and the sovereignty of the country. The call for justice by Zubair became a seditious act.
This is not new for Zubair. He was jailed two years ago for calling out hate mongers. The courts kept him in jail and he had to move to the top court which then gave him bail.
Let us try to understand the anger of the BJP leaders and followers of the BJP against Nadeem and Zubair. They say that by talking about the atrocities against Muslims, they are inciting Muslims. Violence against Muslims or hate campaigns against them is not a law and order issue, nor does it in any way endanger the integrity of the nation. But if you speak about this fact then there is a distinct fear of unrest among Muslims, which will then break the unity of India. That is how any complaint from a Muslim and any demand for justice from Muslims becomes anti-national, seditious. The state will go to any extent to silence these justice-seeking Muslim voices.
The assumption is that the hate speeches of Hindu figures do not pose a threat to the unity of India because they do not target the nation. And Hindus are by nature non-violent. The hate speeches are just that: speeches which do not mean actual violence. They are innocuous. They can be seen as an expression of anger and frustration among Hindus.
Moreover, the Delhi high court said if these hate speeches are given with smile on your lips they certainly are not hate acts. Another argument is that it is permissible for the purpose of mobilisation of people in your favour in times like elections, etc. Similarly, in the case of one Dharma Sansad where Hindus were asked to take up arms , the affidavit of the Delhi police stated that the event and speeches were about empowering one’s religion to prepare itself to face evils that could endanger its existence. There is freedom of speech in this country and such violent speeches by Hindus are only an exercise of that right.
The police and the courts, in most cases, seem to refuse to accept that Hindus can ever mean violence even if they say so. Hindus are not given to anger or hate, they cannot be led into violence. Hindus can never think of harming the nation. So their hatred against Muslims or Christians or violence against them can never break the nation. I was struck by the observation of a leading political scientist, who noted that the communalism of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is not directly subversive, as it seeks to unify the nation, whereas Muslims are, by nature, more prone to excitement. Moreover they are not allowed to speak for themselves or even defend themselves because it is separatism. They, unlike Hindus or RSS, are not interested in the unity of India. So, any act of speaking for themselves can divide and break the nation.
Also read: How Does India See Its Muslim Population?
According to this point of view, Hindus even when violent do not harm the integrity of India but if Muslims take recourse to protest it has the potential of breaking up India. So Hindus and Muslims would not be judged by the same standards. Hindus speak against Muslims only to save themselves with no real intent to do violence but if Muslims speak about it, there is a potential provocation of real violence. The Delhi police has argued that Umar Khalid, by criticizing the CAA, raising awareness among Muslims about its inherent dangers, and providing them with a language to protest, was inciting unrest and provoking violence. The very figure of Umar, a Muslim signifies violence even if he does not utter a word calling for violent action. When he says peace, he actually means violence. This is what the courts also felt.
Nadeem is the national secretary of APCR, which documents the acts of hate and violence against Muslims. It fights legally for persecuted Muslims. Is all this illegal? He as the head of the APCR talks about it. Does he have a right to do that or not? Or he can’t be allowed to speak for Muslims and organise legal fights for them?
Does Zubair have a right to alert police about the hate acts by the Hindutvavadis or not? Do Muslims have a right to speak and agitate for justice or not? Do they also have a right to tell people about the dangers of such hate-mongers being allowed to be free or not?
The state, and often the courts as well, seem to feel that Muslims’ insistence on justice is excessive. This sentiment was echoed by the top court when it reprimanded Zakia Jafri for pursuing justice for her husband, who was killed in the 2002 Gujarat pogrom. The court’s remarks were scathing: “How can she keep the pot boiling?” It even went so far as to suggest investigating the larger conspiracy behind Zakia Jafri’s quest for justice, simply because she is a Muslim woman. Furthermore, the court questioned the involvement of Teesta Setalvad, a Hindu activist who supported Zakia Jafri’s fight for justice. The court’s implicit suggestion was that a Hindu advocating for Muslims must be part of some larger conspiracy.
This is the argument behind the FIRs against Nadeem and Zubair. The murderer says that you cannot talk about my act of murder. It shows me in a poor light. It hurts me. It turns people against me. I am after all murdering you for the sake of my community, my nation. By speaking against it you speak against the nation.
The hangman’s house muffles the scream. The very scream pointing to the noose, lodged in the throat of the victim.
Apoorvanand teaches Hindi at Delhi University.
