#dnaEdit: Zakir Naik, preacher in trouble

The home ministry must proceed with caution against Islamic preacher and tele-evangelist Zakir Naik who was initially accused of making provocative speeches that allegedly inspired one of the attackers at the Holey Artisan Bakery at Dhaka. Investigating agencies must probe Naik’s activities to understand if he has direct connections with youths who join the Islamic State. But if the charge against him is for espousing a conservative interpretation of Islam, which in turn leads to radicalisation, then silencing Naik may not be the right strategy to adopt. Naik is not the cause of the anger, disillusionment and alienation in the Muslim community. That must be attributed to a host of other geopolitical and historical reasons. Cracking down on one Naik could lead to a situation where others, more rabid and vituperative, will fill the void. Already, Naik’s supporters have furnished videos where he condemned the Islamic State and videos where he affirms his loyalty to the Constitution. 

For over a decade now, Naik has been India’s most popular Islamic tele-evangelist. The arrival of video-sharing social media platforms like Youtube, Orkut and Facebook gave an exponential boost to Naik’s reach among young, educated Muslim youth. Naik’s Peace TV did not have a license to broadcast in India but that did not deter cable operators from beaming the channel to subscriber’s homes. After all, cable operators are vulnerable to the logic of the marketplace and the demands of consumers. Among the contradictions of the post-1990 globalised world and the consumerism and apparent modernity that it spawned, was a new phase of religious revivalism. The English-speaking, allopathic doctor-turned-preacher Naik, who advocated an Islam that resembled Wahabism, was able to strike a chord among Muslims looking for a purer, perhaps puritanical, spiritual mooring amid the mundaneness and uncertainties of daily life.

It is entirely possible that Naik’s preachings have put some youngsters on a path that ultimately radicalised them. But that does not mean that Naik recruited radicals unless the agencies can present solid evidence. There are allegations that his NGO received foreign funds in violation of the FCRA Act. But those funds could be for propagating Islam and not for violent activities. That is for agencies to probe but the ongoing media trial has muddied the waters. Some of Naik’s utterances on how wives and non-Muslims are to be treated are certainly revolting to the secular mind. But is Naik the only one making hate speeches or misogynic statements? In recent decades, both Hindutva ideologues and Muslim clerics and politicians of all hues have made inflammatory speeches. Some of these speeches led to direct incitement and communal riots. The Indian Union Muslim League, a Congress ally, commanding sizeable support in Kerala, has come to Naik’s defence. Other Muslim politicians like Asaduddin Owaisi have also termed the crackdown as an attack on Naik’s right to free speech. Not surprisingly, many Sunni and Shia clerics, whose limelight Naik stole, have rushed to castigate him. 

This is where the Centre should understand that the attempt to corner Naik is being viewed differently by mainstream Muslims, a stark contrast to the community’s outright condemnation of the Islamic State and the Al-Qaeda.

Naik represents a quest among certain Muslims to build their lives in consonance with conservative ideals. Naik is now vulnerable because a few of these followers did not end their quest under his tutelage but have proceeded further to explore more radical ideas and actions. Naik’s hesitation to return to India is understandable in the current situation where there is intense scrutiny of his speeches and connections. However, cool heads must prevail, and Naik’s conservative exposition of Islam must not be conflated with the actions of misled youth, unless direct evidence is forthcoming.