Contrary to tall claims by Government of India, its intelligence and security establishment, India remains a country of the docile that does not learn lessons despite paying huge loss of human lives and even attacks on its very existence. A Muslim cleric who was publicly preaching his religion even to the extent of denouncing other religions including that of majority in India continued beaming of his objectionable TV channel a misnomer ‘Peace TV' in this country without official authorization. Bangladesh banned the broadcast of Zakir Naik's Peace TV channel on Monday.
A special meeting of the cabinet committee on law and order took the decision after it was found that his provocative speeches had inspired some of the terrorists who had carried out the recent attack at a café in the diplomatic enclave in Dhaka.
According to Information and Broadcasting Minister, Mr. Vankaih Naidu the Peace TV applied twice, once each in 2008 and 2009, for a license but both times the ministry had rejected the application on security grounds. The minister's statement begs the question as to how he was then allowed to broadcast freely. The footprint of the channel extended to several countries outside India, including Bangladesh. After the terrorist attack in Bangladesh, I&B Ministry warned cable operators of penal action should they provide Peace TV to subscribers.
Government has appealed the Imams to teach ‘true' Islamic ideology and to denounce terrorism and extremism. However, while Bangladesh, a Muslim-majority country, has taken the lead in choking off Naik's operations, here in India we are still groping in the dark as to how to deal with him. On Tuesday, reports quoted the Information and Broadcasting Minister Venkaiah Naidu to the effect that the question of banning Peace TV did not arise since he was never given the license to telecast in the first place.
Bangladesh, a predominately Muslim country has taken a lead in banning Zakir Naik's Peace TV terming it as provocative and for fanning fanaticism that has motivated youth to indulge into terrorism
Twenty-two people, mostly foreigners, were killed in the attack. The Bangladesh Government was also investigating the financial affairs of Naik insofar as these involved funding from the country. Further, a decision was taken to monitor the Friday sermons in mosques across the country.
Yet, the fact that without a license the channel was broadcasting highly inflammatory speeches underlines the lax approach to national security. While several countries, including Indonesia and Malaysia, had banned Peace TV and disallowed entry to Naik to hold his semi-religious rallies, India looked the other way while he fanned fanaticism. Sectarian approach towards security issues provides a clear window of opportunity to anti-national elements. Instead of closing ranks when it comes to defending national interest, rank partisanship fuelled by narrow vote-bank interests seem to inform the approach of political parties.
In this context, the commendation from the Congress leader Digvijay Singh for Naik is not the only example. Several others have come out in his defence. The Indian Union Muslim League, the Kerala-based ally of the Congress Party, has defended Naik, saying that he is a religious preacher and does not promote extremism.
The Congress Party has thus far not distanced itself from the controversial stand of its key ally in the United Front. A Trinamool Congress MP, Idris Ali, defended Naik saying that he was a religious preacher and did not incite terrorism. Ali was ticked off by the Trinamool leadership for speaking without prior authority. Other voices were heard defending the controversial tele-preacher. A number of Muslim clerics and politicians lent him support, cautioning against arbitrary action.
On its part, the Union Home Ministry is examining the funding and speeches of Naik before deciding what sort of action under the law was possible. Causing communal disharmony and disaffection and inciting violence is liable for penal action. Often Naik lent himself to contradictory meanings, though he insists on the superiority of Islam over all other religions. Meanwhile, Naik, who was in Saudi Arabia on the day of the Dhaka attack, seems to have put off his return.
Fearing arrest, he has decided to prolong his stay in West Asia. Promising to cooperate with the Indian authorities, predictably he blamed the media for hounding him after the Dhaka attack. Regardless of what decision the Government may take against Naik, from now on he will be under close scrutiny. His funding, preaching, travels, etc., will be closely watched. He is a marked man now. But the entire episode highlights the lackadaisical manner in which we handle national security. Had Bangladesh not proceeded against Naik, he would have continued merrily indulging in his nefarious activities. Reactive rather than proactive approach against terror has cost lives of a number of innocents.
